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".
Any idea how many? What percentage of traffic? With only 10% of the users uploading, it would seem to be a small count.
Does it really matter? Any collateral damage to the innocent users is too much in my book. Even more so considering this about the US Government and items that are considered speech.
And you really need to lay off on that "only 10% of the users uploading" crap. That is pretty close to the Pareto principle and only shows that Mega was pretty much normal in regards to uploader/downloader ratio.
Shoplifting a CD is *barely* stealing these days. The penalties are not in the same ballpark (or even in the same city) as copyright infringement.
In Michigan shoplifting a item worth less than $200 is a misdemeanor charge with penalties of up to 93 days in jail and fines of up to $500 or 3 times the value of the stolen property (whichever is more).
The author of the video in question should be revealed not because he said something someone didn't like, but because it is a deliberate and malicious fraud upon the public.
It's great that you think that Bob, but, the correct procedure in such a situation is to prove in a court of law that something illegal happened before unmasking the anonymous defendant. The Supreme Court recognizes anonymity as a part of our First Amendment rights and shouldn't be revoked just because *you think* it's fraud.
I think if someone falsely trashes your reputation, you have a right to unveil them.
And I am thankful you are not a Supreme Court Justice.
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224 requires that the verified petition for discovery must set forth "the reason the proposed discovery is necessary." Basically it means that there needs to proof sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, even though the anonymous defendant isn't required file a motion to dismiss.
So, just because "you think" someone falsely trashed your reputation, you need to prove illegality before unmasking them, which is as it should be.
I never would have read some of my favourite books if I didn't see them on the shelf of a book store.
I too long for nostalgic elements of my past. Anyone remember being able to watch two movies from the privacy and security of your own car while bringing your own soda and snacks that cost 1/8 of the concession stand price? Anyone remember ordering a burger and root beer and having some cute girl on roller skates bring it to your car?
But, alas, those things are no more (or extremely rare), even though both the movie and fast food industries are thriving today.
Adapt or be left behind is the only advice I have for you Endtimer.
But, I was inquiring about the practical. I'd be shocked if infringing content didn't make up more than 95% of all video files more than 60 minutes on this website.
If you are really inquiring about the practical and you really believe that 95% figure is anywhere near the truth, why are you not then arguing for making filesharing for personal use legal? That would seem practical to me since such a large swath of the population is ignoring the law anyways.
And before you go off about content won't get created without the incentives copyright provides, I'll just say I don't buy that argument whatsoever. I quick look at history prior to the Statute of Anne shows that plenty of art was created without copyright.