What is your opinion on retroactive copyright length extension? I've read all your posts on this page and you've never stated specifically your opinion on retroactive extension. Please do so.
I'd also like to know your specific opinion on ex post facto law, or as Wikipedia puts it, law "that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law."
Why do retroactive copyright length extensions not violate this principle? Isn't Congress barred from passing such laws? When all of the works mentioned in this article were created, and granted copyright, weren't the terms of the deal with the public for the granting of that temporary copyright that the works would pass into the public domain this year?
The arrival of commercial versions of VoIP in 1995 created a policy crisis. Did VoIP fall under Title II like all other voice services or remain an non-regulated information service like all other data/computing services. Keep in mind VoIP/Internet were born entirely from non-regulated information services parents.
I find that argument disingenuous. While VoIP and the information services were not regulated, the infrastructure was regulated - the phone lines that most people used to connect to their dial-up modems. All of the non-regulated services would never have been possible without the regulation, going all the way back to the Carterphone regulatory decision.
Can't they just get a subpoena for the person's information followed by a court order?
Yes, of course they can. However, the courts have been pushing back on the bulk fishing expeditions based on nothing more than "we saw these IPs in a bittorrent cloud" bullshit. Which means that the copyright holders have to both do a something more than minimal investigation and cover initial court and legal fees - which is costly upfront and doesn't come remotely close to covering even in the event of a judgement.
The short answer is that the copyright holders want to enforce their rights by pushing all theirs costs onto other services.
You're conflating a company's policy with the law. Regular TD readers are aware of the hassling that ordinary citizens regularly are subject to for taking pictures.
The details of the situation are thus: 1) guy posted photo take in public, unsecured area of a bunch of obviously marked cars 2) Either the hotel's management lied to their employee about endangering the contract, or somehow the DHS became aware of this random citizen's facebook page. 3)Instead of acting like adults, either the hotel management or DHS completely overreacted and got this guy fired. 4) Because of #3, many many more people now know these details.
How many more people now know that the DHS stayed at that hotel *because he was fired*?
Really, how many people were following this guy's facebook page? Couple dozen or so? And how many of them even saw his update (remember, facebook news feeds don't share every update with all your friends)?
Yet, because the hotel fired the guy, tens of thousands or more know about it via Streisand effect.
There's a lot worse things than being kicked in the groin:
1) Paying my TimeWarner-soon-to-be-Comcast bill 2) Having to call TimeWarner customer service 3) Having my TimeWarner internet service cut out in the middle of a gaming session or Netflix binge 4) Switching my crappy TimeWarner service to even slower and crappier AT&T service