"Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
Even though I don't disagree with most of your comments, when you preface them with "child" or end them with "boy" you come off as a condescending asshole and I have a hard time taking what you say seriously. Just sayin'
No, because the 150 million they earned represents probably billons of dollars of sales that didn't happen.
Bullshit. That's the old "lost sale fallacy". Not every download would have been a sale. Odds are that very few would have been.
The reason it's not a valid business model is that in order to compete, they would have to price at a Kim price. That wouldn't be very useful to the bottom line.
Oh boo fucking hoo. Just because you overvalue your content doesn't mean the market does. Get on board with the rest of the world. Streamline, reduce overhead, downsize and work smarter - just like every other industry, besides the entertainment sector, has had to do in these tough economic times.
The images I have seen for the "Louis Vuitton pattern" all have a "L" and a "V" superimposed on each other in the pattern. The basketball has a pattern of shapes and none (as far as I can tell) of them look like a "L" or a "V".
So did this court really say that any repeating pattern of shapes is a dilution of the LV trademark?
I guess I need to disable the "step and repeat" functions in all my graphics programs now. And what about all those backdrops used for press conferences? Those have repeating patterns too.
So again, I have to ask: What innovation is being stopped?
I am not real familiar with any of these sites in this article, but Mega was innovative in one important way that the studios and record labels absolutely hated.
A musician or a independent film maker could upload their work to Mega and were paid a portion of the onsite advertising based on number of downloads (IE: eyes on the download page). The legacy players really, really hated this because it meant that an artist could profit from their work without signing a crippling distribution deal with them.
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 3:00am
You can't, at least not for damages.
Right. But I was wondering about something the other day:
Let's say Mega is acquitted and found to have been operating legally, could they then sue the MPAA for damages by proving that this whole hardship was based on bad information from the MPAA? Is that possible?
BULLSHIT! They have been out in the last little while with an exacting count of US government and military users (most of which are likely individual soldiers passing images to loved ones at home). If they have such exacting numbers here, they should have exacting numbers on everything else.
Umm. They don't have access to the servers. The USG won't allow them access. Heck, until recently the defendants didn't have access to the internet because the USG was afraid they would somehow magically reopen Mega (which would be kind of pointless without the data from the servers, wouldn't it?).
Dotcom assertions are probably based on data obtained prior to the seizures.
There is almost never wide public support for laws such as this, especially in the internet era.
Then why exactly are governments who are supposed to be representative of their citizens pushing for such laws? Last I remember I elected politicians into office to represent me. I don't recall ever voting for a nanny to make decisions for me.
It seems to me you are advocating having the pigs run the Animal Farm because us sheep and cows are just not quite smart enough.
Falsely lumping all of these specialized areas into the "theft" bucket leads law enforcement and politicians to take easy mental heuristics that have them assume that even if infringement is not exactly like theft it's "close enough" that you can treat it like theft and respond to it like theft.
Perhaps I tend to lean towards the conspiracy theory side of things, but this has always struck me as a concerted effort by the legacy players to turn copyright infringement from a civil tort into a criminal one where the state foots the bill for investigation and prosecution.