Same thing happened with Megaupload. The site was packed with DVD rips, pirated software, and the like. Yet those who try to excuse all of it point to the few legit users out there that lost data, claiming that their existence somehow sanctifies the whole deal. Laughable again, but it's pretty common.
Really? EFF claims that the legit users number in the millions.
"Megaupload's innocent users are entitled to access their property," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "We hope that everyone involved can work together to comply with the law and ensure basic fairness to the millions of people who have done nothing wrong." Source
Once again AC, we really need to see how many users respond to the EFF before we can really put a number on this.
Gwiz, if 10% of all phone calls were scams, you don't think they would be looking MUCH more closely?
Sure they would look at more closely at it and I would expect them too.
But, even if 10% or even 20% of the phone calls were scams are you honestly going to try and tell me that the USG would attempt to take down AT&T's entire phone network in order to investigate it? But, in JotForm's case that is completely acceptable? Where is the difference besides scale? I'm not seeing it.
...pretending this blog isn't full of unemployed content addicts that spend their worthless days ripping off other's work, in between bouts of registering faux indignation about their "rights" on pirate blogs like this...
I am none of those things you describe. You, on the other hand, seem to be of the first commentors on every single Techdirt article posted. Isn't that telling.
Why don't you go peddle your one sided bullshit on the comments section of a MPAA or RIAA sponsored blog. Oh that's right. They don't actually want to hear what their customers are saying.
As for the "on the phone" phishing attempts, they are pretty rare these days, because (shock!) law enforcement takes action against them.
Now wait a minute here. I don't seem to recall the USG closing down AT&T's entire phone network even for an hour or two in order for them catch a phishing scam operator or two. With the obvious differences of scale and the fact that it's the internet these are pretty much the same scenario.
The basic message behind that song seems relevant to current events.
....And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement....
Again, are you suggesting "too big to be dealt with by the law?"
No, he wasn't suggesting that.
What exactly is wrong with a calculated measured response that doesn't detrimentally affect the innocent users?
Think about in medical terms, OK? Do doctors hack up people with chain saws causing death to the patient because there is small tumor on the liver? No, they surgically and precisely remove the cancer with minimal damage to the body.
These protests do often limit the true democratic process, by looking for a second bite at the apple. These are people who voted the politicians in, they should accept the results of their choices.
Further, it also is an issue of the noisy 1% of the population dictating to the other 99% how things should go. Are we seeing a majority of the population protesting, or just (gasp) a smaller group, mostly centered around the student demographic making the protests?
It ends up as politics by who yells the loudest, rather than by doing what is good for the people as a whole. That isn't very good, is it? It's certainly not very democratic.
Is it just me or did this whole comment feel like a snake oil sales pitch as to why our elected officials should keep on listening to all those very well paid "policymakers" inside the Beltway instead of the constituents who elected them?
Re: Re: Re: Hey, everyone is entitled to policing.
You can't have it both ways. Either the copyright holders get to pry into the private information of everyone on the Internet and-- with proof-- kick them off the web, or you get the cops to do it.
Copyright holders do that now bob - with due process and under the guidance and direction of a court of law. What's exactly wrong with that? Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for that? Look, if you want to spend you money on playing wac-a-mole with infringers, go for it, knock yourself out - just leave my money out of the equation, ok?
The real volume, the real scale of the issue isn't in 65 year old works. It's in today's hottest and newest stuff. Don't let the red herring of term extension get you down, it's almost meaningless in many ways now.
Nope. It is not a red herring whatsoever. Bottom line - the deal is broken and the creators struck the first blow. The creators demand that the public respects copyright, but show a complete and utter disdain for the public domain. Then they sit their scratching their heads saying "Why doesn't the public respect copyright laws?". It's a "Do as I say, not what I do" kind of thing and nobody, from infants to adults, ever respects that.
What I am seeing is that the content companies are coming out with a system (content management) that should allow you to do pretty much everything you want, moving from device to device, etc.
Heh. What I see is having to pay for something I can already do myself.
Next you will try to convince me that such things as giving Hollywood the ability to remove movies from my account or having my viewing habits tracked or deleting all of my movies if I miss a monthly payment are adding some kind value to me.
It's a bit dishonest to consider the Bono extension as "anti-piracy" though, don't you think?
Perhaps. Let's just consider it "anti-public domain" then.
Personally, I consider it to be the ultimate deal breaker of copyright, which is supposed to be a bargain between the public and the creators, not just a monopoly for creators.
You could even make the argument that the Bono extension was the straw that broke the camel's back. The public not living up to their side of the deal (infringement/piracy) became widespread well after the creators decided to stop living up to their side by stopping works from entering the public domain.
You comment might have had a wee bit relevance, but only if you ignore the fact that copyright enforcement has traditionally (at least prior to the last couple of decades or so) been civil actions between two private parties and had nothing whatsoever to do with law enforcement or the DOJ.