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.
My observation that seems to irk you is that no one who either writes articles or comments here appears to have any such expertise, and yet despite this manifest lack of expertise many of them, with you in the lead, have not the slightest reluctance to wax poetic on subjects about which you are largely ignorant.
Would you like me to point to the many times when *you* have done that yourself?
Your headline falsely suggested an individual had lied, and yet this falsity seems not to bother you in the least.
What was "false" about it? He said that the lack of availability was "a myth." Yet, it's absolutely true. He lied.
What is it about this site that emboldens people to openly declare they know how best to run the financial end of an industry within which they have zero relevant experience?
Why do you assume zero relevant expertise? That's rather presumptuous of you. Having spent a fair bit of time with some theater owners (mainly independent theater owners, but they face many of the same issues), the concerns and ideas raised in the original comment you replied to are dead on and quite accurate.
It's really something how you almost always insist that only you or your friends possess the relevant knowledge to hold an opinion on anything. It's doubly funny since we've proven you to be flat out wrong nearly every single time.
I sense a pattern: when you feel the need to defend the copyright industries, you simply insist that whoever comments here couldn't possibly understand the complex details and therefore we must be wrong. Yet, you fail to provide any details or data on your own (because, of course, you have none) and so you just insult people.
Here's a thought: perhaps rather than being a pedantic jackass all the time, recognize that, perhaps, there are others in the world who know more than you.
Re: Techdirt continues to be totally ignorant of British government
Mike Masnick, you have no idea about British government, mainly because you have confused the two houses of the British Parliament with the two houses of US government so many times it has become a joke.
I am aware of how the UK government works, thank you.
Now, do you have an actual critique of the facts in the article?