"if by some magic a man who had never known it were to compose anew Keats's Ode on a Grecian Urn, he would be an "author," and, if he copyrighted it, others might not copy that poem, though they might of course copy Keats's"
As an example, he uses the civil standards for copyright infringement rather than the criminal ones. This is NOT a civil case. So that is off the list right away.
Wow. You got that completely backwards. He is the one using the criminal standards. He's pointing out that the DOJ is applying the civil standards while arguing it's a criminal case. It's kind of astounding that you got this so wrong. It's almost as if you skimmed the document and didn't realize what was actually being said.
The lack of a specific US user is meaningless as well. All you need is the basics: Were the files available in the US (yes, the feds confirmed that in their case), were the files available in full only if you paid a premium membership (generally yes). Were those memberships available to US citizens (yes). Were sites owned and operated by Kim and his various companies promoting copyright violating material with hopes that people would buy membership to download them? Apparently Yes, and this is key: It shows both knowledge of the content as well as accepting paying from Mega for promoting it.
You're wrong. The elements for criminal copyright infringement in the US require an infringer in the US.
No offense -- and I know from years on this site that you're just trolling anyway -- but your analysis is 100% wrong.
Lessig and Dotcom want the case to be tried at the extradition hearing, and that should never happen. Extradition does not require proving your case beyond a reasonable doubt, only showing that the case exists, involves crimes that meet the standard of the extradition treaty (and money laundering is one of them), and that is about it.
This is the one point where you are partially correct. An extradition trial does not require a full trial on the case. But what you misunderstand, rather spectacularly, is that's NOT AT ALL what Lessig is doing here. He's pointing out that the things Dotcom did do not actually measure up to things that are extraditable offenses. He is not actually asking to try the case in New Zealand.
Once again, if you are serious and not just trolling, you should try reading the document, rather than misstating nearly everything in it.
Uh, ISPs don't have first amendment rights. Its pretty explicit, we the People...
Yes, companies very much do have First Amendment rights. That's not the issue here. Also, you WANT companies to have First Amendment rights. Companies should also not be barred from speaking by the government.
The issue here is not that, but rather the idea that ISPs efforts to modify its networks are not a form of speech.
Wait. I should put the above in past tense, because the plan I used to sign up to is no longer available. What happened to the $50/yr Water Cooler + Chat offering? Even I draw the line at $15/mo for the option of people reading my opinions. Now I don't have either.
It's still there. Hasn't changed, hasn't moved. We haven't changed anything in the store in a long time...
How can this be a bad thing Mike. Instead of suing band camp like the PRS, BMI wants to allow songwriters to manage their rights themselves where they can. This needs to be applauded, not skipped over.
Except, we saw how that worked in practice. It wasn't a "free-market" situation, it created a collusion deal where the publishers and the PROs colluded to drive up prices through a fake negotiation:
These credit unions are worried because they hold $2.5 billion in loans for these medallions. Leave it to techdirt to not do its research and leave out the motivating factors as to why the credit unions are fighting Uber.
You do realize that the second paragraph address this point exactly. Leave it to the angry commenter not to read beyond the first paragraph, huh?
Added an update. It appears that the claims made by the copyright bureaucrat were misleading and the law does, in fact, include *protections against liability* for ISPs, rather than making them more liable, as was initially claimed...
In a war, is an army recruiter a legitimate target?
ISIS is fighting a war. The fact that they do not have a country to speak of, or wear uniforms worth noting does not change this.
The US Congress has not declared war. So far, all we have is the AUMF, which authorized military action against those who perpetrated 9/11. ISIS was not even around then and they are fighting against Al Qaeda who actually did perpetrate 9/11.
So, there's no official "war" here. Just the US randomly killing people we don't like.
Declare war and perhaps it's a different story. But we have not.
Either way, specifically targeting people for their speech, rather than their actions... you don't think that's problematic, even in war time?