Not sure if it's the exact same incident that you're referencing, but anime basically flourished out of nothing completely due to mass pirating, since there was pretty much no import market for anime back in the 80s and 90s.
Everyone here is protesting that they should be able to leave their wifi open if they want to, but did you people stop to think that you are not the people who the cops are trying to warn? Some people just don't even know that a WiFi can be open, and can also be locked down for their own protection, so if the police is trying to lend a helping hand, more power to them.
Here's a comment I found particularly interesting on James Grimmelhamm's post:
What is unclear to me at this point is whether the Guild has succeeded in identifying rights holders. The examples they’ve listed are of finding the authors of some of the works in question. But the books in question were written at the beginnings of the authors’ careers, at a time when it was not uncommon for authors to turn over all rights to their publisher. If those publishers have gone out of business and their is no clear trail of where the copyrights went, does the still living author have any rights over those books? Is it the case that a particular work may still be an orphan even if the author is easily identified?
But that's not the point. Everybody has the right to complain about Apple's rules, but until those walled garden rules change, it's absolutely idiotic to think that the app store is a viable place to use as a platform to further your own counter agenda.
It's about as stupid as going inside Apple headquarters to do your soapbox thing, and then complain when you get escorted out.
More like Apple has firmly established this position in the past, and won't give a fuck. To be blunt: the vast majority of people won't know about this, and won't care anyways. The people that do, already know that Apple is a walled garden, and this is only evidence that reaffirms their suspicions.
To say that pulling this app screws them over to the extent of a Streisand effect is a bit hysterical at this moment, when considering the fact that tons of apps get pulled or blocked for similar reasons every day.
(4) "Posted land" is that land upon which reasonably maintained signs are placed not more than five hundred feet apart along and at each corner of the boundaries of the land, upon which signs there appears prominently in letters of not less than two inches in height the words "no trespassing" and in addition thereto the name of the owner, lessee or occupant of the land. The signs shall be placed along the boundary line of posted land in a manner and in a position as to be clearly noticeable from outside of the boundary line. It shall not be necessary to give notice by posting on any enclosed land or place not exceeding five acres in area on which there is a dwelling house or property that by its nature and use is obviously private in order to obtain the benefits of this article pertaining to trespass on enclosed lands.
What? That makes very little sense. In that case, no architectural work in a private building can possibly be protected, since through the same line of logic, the building is visible from a public place (so therefore the prior applies).
Also, if the building itself is located in a public place, then the lawyers would have no standing to accuse Cahal of trespassing. I would assume that because the lawyers DID accuse Cahal of trespassing, the building is not a public building.
The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
Assuming that the statement is correct that the photographs could NOT have been taken without trespassing (and therefore we can assume not visible from a public place), then doesn't it follow that Cahal cannot have copyright on the photos he took illegally? I'm sorry, but something doesn't follow in this story.
It doesn't matter in this case though. His speech wouldn't qualify for 1st amendment protections as you simply can't make death threats anywhere.
It would be perfectly fine if he made only opinions, but when you spell out in gruesome detail how a person "might" die if he didn't watch his back one night, that's definitely not ok, and the right to public speech does not protect you.