(3) viewing it is a copyright infringement
Then didn't AirTel just induce you to commit said copyright infringement?
Shouldn't AirTel be suing themselves for 'enabling and facilitating' copyright infringement?
Isn't merely linking to infringing content an infringement? Thus AirTel is also guilty of inserting an infringing link into someone else's web page in transit to your browser -- and thus AirTel is doubly guilty of copyright infringement!
What I think you are saying, in short, is failure to consider 'fair use' or Section 230 of CDA (and other factors) prior to filing a lawsuit is a violation of Rule 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
But then this...
the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.
That's pretty cool. Such sanctions need to start being handed out like candy!
You're right. On further thinking, I suppose that when you manipulate web content that you should only be passing along, that is 'man in the middle', and when the code is for evil nefarious purposes that is 'attack'.
If that sounds familiar, that's because we wrote about that ridiculous law last year, noting that it would technically allow people to be put in jail for merely thinking about infringing someone's copyright.
I'd like to see them enforce not thinking about infringement.
How would you separate 'thinking about' infringing, vs thinking about fair use?
Maybe if you look like you are thinking about infringement, that is probable cause to detain you and obtain a confession.
Re: Just because criminals can claim "copyright", doesn't make copyright bad.
So then, just because some people use copyright to advance the useful arts and sciences (as per the US constitution) should not 'taint' all the other uses of copyright (eg, censorship, bullying, copyright-trolling, false DMCA takedowns sabotaging competing platforms, etc).
Your act also amounts to a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. This act of you have caused great damage to our client's business, as well as to its name and reputation, and although such looss cannot be compensated in terms of money, our client will be entitled to claim and recover from you substantial amount by way of compensation/damages.
I was expecting to see an additional paragraph:
We will forego any damage if you will help our wealthy client to move a large sum money out of the country in exchange for half the proceedes. Please to be sending us your bank account informations so we can be depositing the large sum into your account.
Don't you know you could get so much more traction by saying it is a gateway to Terrorism!
Better yet, just say that file sharing IS terrorism!
Since when is Hollywood shy about going over the top and jumping the shark, creating an implausible spectacle? Add some special effects and claim that file sharing will bring about the apocalypse. That might really move legislators into action on a gateway to nowhere.
File sharing costs the global economy $74 TRILLION -- which is way more than the global economic output, but who cares because... FILE SHARING!
Can you please give us a broad warrant that ORDERS the FBI to use stingray whenever the FBI feels like it. This court order valid for up to one quarter of a galactic turn, or whenever the FBI asks the court to withdraw the order -- whichever comes sooner.
Rockets were first used in plans for war before they were later used for peaceful weather, communications, GPS and cat photo satellites.
That doesn't mean rockets weren't worth throwing research money at. Lots of trial and error. No obvious, in the short term, commercial use. This is why DARPA is good for research projects that are worthwhile, potentially have many other useful applications, but have no present commercial motives to pursue.
Hollywood is trying to educate event organizers. Event organizers are not getting the message.
The lesson for all event organizers: Anyone caught listening to any RIAA music will be ejected and banned from the event. The event organizers do not want the record of their event marred by RIAA label music that will permanently damage or outright destroy recordings of the event.
Eventually people will get the message and stop listening RIAA artists at the event, and hopefully altogether.
When Ice Cream sales are highest, the temperature goes up as a result.
Any idiot can plainly see that the tides obviously cause the moon.
What's certain is that [piracy] has created a public that is accustomed to viewing content online. We will offer an alternative that is much simpler and immediate than looking for a torrent.
It would be just silly to think that: * People buy ice cream because it is hot outside * The moon causes the tides due to an unseen, odorless, colorless magical force called gravity * The public WANTED online viewing. The lack of anyone providing it led to piracy. So blame Hollywood. (Just like the rise of open source was ultimately caused by Microsoft's crushing monopoly.) They did it to themselves.
It sounds so good. It could even be confused for green.
This fantastic idea works like this.
Your electric utility strikes a deal with a major appliance manufacturer, say ElectroWhiz. ElectroWhiz pays your utility a fee in order for all ElectroWhiz appliances to be zero-rated.
You benefit from your appliances being zero rated because they no longer count against your electricity monthly usage cap. Even better, certain high consumption appliances such as ElectroWhiz clothes dryers, and ElectroWhiz kitchen ranges do not cause your home to get throttled by your electric utility.
You should be happy because you then do not have to move to a higher priced electricity plan that has a higher killowatt-hour per month usage cap.
What could possibly be bad* about this?
* please ignore the ever increasing hidden cost of your appliances