Aren't the lawyers shooting themselves in the foot? If "anyone can tell from a cursory examination" that the picture is fake, wouldn't that mean that it's not defamation (by the defamation equivalent of the "moron in a hurry" test)?
The government has so many holes in their case it's ridiculous it ever made it anywhere.
1. Your car is your property. Even if it is legal to track your movement 24/7, the government does not have the right to deface your property.
2. Not everywhere your car goes is "public". You can drive on private roads and private land. Since the device will not magically know the difference between public and private areas, even if it were legal to track everything done in public, this will inevitably track things done in private.
3. The idea that anything done in a public area has no expectation of privacy because "what's public is public, duh" is absurd. Your cell phone broadcasts signals over public airspace- that does not mean your phone conversations can be listened to without a warrant. The ruling in Kyllo v. United States struck down this absurd idea that everything in public is public information, when it said that the heat emanating from a home, despite emanating into a "public" area, was still private information and reading it would be considered a search for 4th Amendment purposes.
All of these factors should make this case a decisive loss for the government, but somehow incompetent judges have botched it.
The 8 note scale you speak of may be the basis for almost all music in mainstream culture today, but it is not the basis for "all music". 440Hz A concert pitch is not the only tuning system in existence. Even in mainstream music this is inaccurate as there are 12 notes, not just 8, and there are many, many different scales besides the major scale- minor, harmonic minor, blues, diatonic, chromatic, whole tone, pentatonic, etc...
That can be true. Of course it can just as easily be true that one might use an analogy because one's audience doesn't understand the advanced concept. I can explain an advanced concept to someone, only to have them raise irrelevant objections. I can then explain why those objections are irrelevant, but because the audience doesn't understand the concept, they might respond with what amounts to "nuh-uh, it is relevant". That's when the analogy becomes useful as maybe the situation can be simplified to something they understand.
If the facts are on your side, you pound the facts. If the law is on your side, you pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, you pound the table. And if the jury isn't on your side, you go to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Don't the seized domains still exist accessible via IP address? It seems that rather than relying on "If a site seized by ICE sets itself up on an alternative domain", the plugin could just redirect to the underlying IP.
Lawyer:"It's more than that, your honor. It's really the complete undermining of the copyright. What I mean by that is you can't just isolate what's going on here as if it's an individual's, by copying it, has not gone and bought the work on iTunes or not bought the work in a record store when we used to have record stores. What happens is, by distributing it to others, there are... the viral nature of this technology, really has a substantial impact on the value of the work. And the way I'd ask you to think about it is this: one, I think, relevant question in a statutory damages case is, what would it cost to get a license for what the defendant has done. And, if all the defendant had done was making a copy and that was it, then maybe an analogy to just getting a copy off of iTunes would be appropriate. But here, by distributing it... if someone wanted to go to one of the record companies and say 'we'd like to do what the defendant did in this case,' the value of that license would be essentially the value of the entire copyrighted work. Because the effect of putting this work up on peer-to-peer technology is essentially you take a copyrighted work, and put it in the public domain."
Judge: So when a work is shared on P2P networks, you essentially lose the entire value of that work?
Lawyer: Yes, exactly!
Judge: And would it be safe to say that nearly all of your company's works are currently being shared on P2P networks, if not by this defendant than by others?
Lawyer: Yes! It's destroying our industry!
Judge: So since you have lost the entire value of all of your works, your revenue for the past year was $0, right?
OK, I laughed, but it's kind of a shame to see all the ridicule of Canadians, if only because what is certainly the best band to come out in the last decade, Hey Rosetta!, is a Canadian band. Canadian music deserves some respect. Another Canadian, Dan Mangan, is also pretty damn good.
Well, this convinces me that the government should listen and privatize ICANN. Because if there's one thing you never hear about private companies doing, it's focusing on making money instead of doing useful things.