What you are missing is that many startups are missing out because they either cannot sell the products for a reasonable price, or cannot extract enough value from their presentation / distribution to make it work out. They cannot do it because they are specifically competing with the same product being given away for free.
There are just way too many people out there breaking the law, because they think they are safe or hidden by the internet. That isn't fair for people who follow the law, and operate within it.
Wait. I think your view is a bit distorted because you see the word "internet".
There are also way too many people speeding on our freeways because they think they won't get caught. That isn't really fair to those who drive the speed limit and have to spend more of their time driving, is it? No one is out there advocating that we limit all the freeway access ramps to "approved" drivers are they?
t is one thing to say you are getting started on a alternate DNS system and another to actually do it.
There is still activity on the p2p DNS SourceForge site. It really isn't a replacement DNS, but it will create it's own distributed TLD (.p2p) that isn't under the control of any one government or entity.
Wow. Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bridge this morning?
Anyways, since there is so much wrong with your one sentence I need to break it down:
Hey Gwiz, why dont you go back to your torrent downloads...
Not downloading anything at the moment, but now you've got me thinking and I really should fire up my qBittorent client and seed the latest Planeshift update some more and do my fair share.
...and put some more people out of business...
Wait. A communications protocol is putting people out of business? Interesting. I would have guessed that failing to adapt to an ever changing world would kill more businesses than anything else.
...and let the adults have a discussion here.
Heh. That's kind of funny, really. As a father and grandfather I would say the odds are pretty good that I am older than you are. Odds are also somewhat fair that I have been sitting at the grownups table longer than you have been alive.
The point is that their system stored only one copy of the file, even though there was multiple pointers to it.
Yes. So what. Lots of data storage systems do that. That simply makes technological sense.
As soon as they got the DMCA notice, they should have disable access to the file, not just blocking the single link.
Says who? You are requiring things that US law doesn’t. They responded to DMCA notices by disabling the offending link.
At that point, they would know that the other links are infringing.
How exactly would they know that? Magic 8-ball?
Mega was a global website. Users in countries where filesharing is legal for personal use could be the uploaders and in that case the link they created would be perfectly legal for them and others in their country. Mega isn't required to remove it for a US based DMCA notice.
Well, now I have read the order as well as the motion that it granted, and secondary liability was never the issue.
I haven't read the whole motion yet either (it's not loading on my computer for whatever reason and I've been very busy today), but I think you are missing the fact that the whole case is about secondary liability. Righthaven/Stephens sued the Democratic Underground and David Allen for what a user posted in the comments section on their website. This isn't about D.U. infringing, it's about a completely different person who posted something in their comment section. That would be the very definition of secondary liability - holding the tool responsible for what a user does.
You seem to be conflating direct and indirect liability.
Not really, I think Righthaven was arguing that Democratic Underground (a third party service provider) was guilty of direct infringement (because they didn't have a DMCA agent) and that would be the part considered secondary liability in this case. The ruling basically says that not having a designated agent isn't enough, there has to be "some element of volition or causation" by the service provider.
I know I've put this idea out before, but it's still seems like it would be a worthwhile experiment.
Crowdsource funding to get a candidate elected (maybe start small with a state legislature) who bases all votes and decisions on online polling. When a bill comes up for vote, our representative puts the entire text of the bill up for review and their own perspective on it and asks his constituents directly whether he should support it or not. Of course there would be technical issues to work out such as limiting voting to actual constituents and other things so the systems doesn't get gamed. A positive side effect would be the inability of lobbying groups to influence such a representative since they would actually have to follow their constituents wishes or face the fallout of not doing so.
Just like they won't consult you on everything, they won't consult you on every hiring as well.
And that begs the question as to why not?
It's understandable that such things weren't feasible 20 years ago, but nowadays we have the technology to do such things. Online polling is instantaneous and easy to setup and use. If the only reason is "because that's the way it has always been done", then there really isn't a reason at all, is there?
You have elections in your country for a reason - to elect people to do this sort of thing for you.
Wait. I remember voting for President, but I don't remember voting for Ron Kirk at all.
And I certainly never voted for anyone from the US Chamber of Commerce, RIAA, MPAA, Philip Morris, Chevron, PhRMA, Microsoft, Pfizer, Amgen or Dow Chemical.
They cannot consult with everyone, every day, on every issue. That would be pointless.
Wrong. With today's technology they certainly could do that. And it's very telling that you think our elected officials or their representatives actually doing what the constitutes desire is "pointless".