Masnick: My foot also has many legal uses; will that exonerate me when I repeatedly kick you in the balls?
I know you're being a jackass, but this is actually a good way to demonstrate the idiocy of your position.
Yes, your foot has many legal uses, and some illegal ones. The fact that you might kick anyone in the balls does not make your foot illegal. But if you do choose to batter someone with your foot, then at that point you would have broken the law and you could be arrested, tried and sentenced.
But, most people have a modicum of self-control and don't kick others in the balls. And we don't outlaw feet because there are some idiots who abuse feet. Nor do we imprison the maker of steel-toed boots for making you kicking someone in the balls more painful. Instead, we PROPERLY put the liability on you, the criminal, who attacks someone.
So, why don't you allow that to happen for copyright?
That One Guy's response is exactly what I was going to say. Nearly everything that I brought up was sued for supporting piracy in some way or another -- all civil cases, though. But in your book, all should be shut down and in jail for criminal conspiracy.
It isn't a theory. Top execs at internet companies could absolutely be investigated, and if it were found they colluding to profit via copyright infringement, they could be criminally charged.
Yes, if they were colluding to profit via copyright infringement *they did*. But under your ridiculous theory, if they were colluding to build a business in which *any* of their profits came from some of their *users* engaging in copyright infringement, they're guilty of a felony.
And under that theory, any maker of a VCR is a criminal. It would not just wipe out the Betamax ruling, but magically turn it into a criminal conspiracy.
Grokster ruled that inducement is secondary infringement. Infringement is breaking the law. Conspiracy to break the law is criminal law.
This is wrong. You can't just take any random civil infringement and say because two people were engaged in it together, it's suddenly criminal conspiracy.
If two people agree to jaywalk to cross a street, it doesn't become a criminal conspiracy. Under your theory, almost every big internet company has nearly all of its top execs facing similar criminal charges. Facebook, YouTube, Dropbox execs could all go to jail for decades under this theory.
Sorry, that's wrong. DOWNLOADS can't be infringing copyright. Because copyright is about PUBLISHING. Unless he uploaded works to which he has no rights of publishing, he did not infringe copyright.
No, that's wrong. Copyright law (in the US, at least) includes a number of separate rights, and one of those is "reproduction." Downloading a file that you're not authorized to download *can* be an unauthorized reproduction, and thus infringing.
Uploading can also be infringement, of the "distribution" right.
Mega was a business and he was getting paid, so 2) isn't going to be too tough
No, that's wrong. They have to show that *MEGA*/employees committed *the infringement* in order to get paid. What the government can show is that *users* committed infringement, which may have helped Mega get paid, but those are two separate actors. Not the same one.
Furthermore, they'd need to show that it's *the infringement* that got Mega paid, and not just "paying for the services the site offered."
I'm not saying they had an airtight case against the guy, but the criminal copyright charges aren't THAT far out there.
You're falling into the DOJ's trap of pretending that it can just mash up the user's actions with Mega's, and assuming they're a single party. That's not how it works.
While the title of this bill seems to imply it, I don't think there's a provision that legalizes altering firmware on a device you own. This seems to be focused solely on being able to resell your property along with whatever original manufacturer's programming is included to make it work.
Are nothing more than a group of people literally looking at the polls, public opinion, and the written word to best says...
Not this one. We hesitated calling it a think tank for that very reason. We're not interested in doing any of the above.
We call people experts, but I have yet to meet a single expert on anything anywhere in life, myself included and I know a fair amount of thing beyond the average numbskull which sadly, is no great feat.
Which is why this is not about the standard ivory tower think tank concept of just putting "experts" in a room, but bringing in *LOTS* of people. In fact, in some ways it's the reverse of what you're talking about -- we want to help bring in the views of the people using the internet and use that to *influence* the so-called experts into recognizing that what they're pushing isn't right.
It is quite standard when there is big news likely to impact a company or industry for the stock to react accordingly. That doesn't mean every up or down swing means something but reactions to big meaningful news is standard.
You are confusing (purposely?) a then b as b then a in your statement about tech stocks. I'm not saying all movement is meaningful but meaningful news does move stocks.
And for months we've been told that Title II would be a disaster for these companies. So if that were really true you'd see Wall Street run for the hills. But they didn't. That says a lot.
Multiple courts have ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to do this.
This is false. The courts have ruled that the FCC doesn't have the authority to do this *under Section 706* as it has tried to do. What the ruling in the Verizon case last year said was that they absolutely *do* have the authority to put in place such rules if broadband were classified under Title II. So you're wrong.
Not a day goes by without the authors bitching about the actions of unaccountable government agencies, yet when one does something that jibes with their politics, it's all well and good.
It's got nothing to do with "our politics" but with reality. We said, quite clearly, that there are better solutions to this than giving the FCC such power, but that none of those are legitimately on the table. We said that this is the best of a bad set of options.
But all the FUD you hear about a "powergrab" is ridiculous. The rules are pretty straightforward and just talk about stopping any unfair and discriminatory practices. How is that a powergrab?
Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
My brother says this ruling is all about more govt. regulation and concentration of power in D,C. He claims that the 332 page regulation won't even be released until after the vote and I did look up that claim from Ajit Pai (http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/06/republican-fcc-commissioner-slams-obamas-332-page-plan-to-regulat e-the-internet/) and the door being opened to tons of new taxes, etc.
2. I agree that the FCC *should* release the rule before the vote, but notice that those calling for it now never did so before, and the FCC has always acted this way. I'd love it if the FCC was more transparent about its rules, but this talking point being raised now is totally disingenuous. Note that Ajit Pai hasn't ever called for this before. And if he's still on the commission when the GOP is in charge, let's see if he still calls for it.
Don't the major labels also partially own Spotify, so payout to the platform also goes to them?
They do, but I don't think it's accurate to claim that the payout to Spotify goes to them. It's very unlikely that Spotify is paying dividends to equity holders at this point. It is certainly possible that, down the line, when Spotify goes public or the labels sell their shares, that they'll get more money -- but selling equity and getting a chunk of the revenue are separate issues.
People often get valuation and revenue mixed up, but they're separate issues.