Sounds like Hoffman is an idiot for not getting an attorney. If he had one he could of sued RIAA for the lies in the affidavit and gotten his domain back sooner. What a moron!!!!
1. He had an attorney.
2. Disagree that he was "a moron." There were a few different ways to appeal the process, and the ones that involved going to court are much more risky and much more expensive. I cannot fault Hofman for not choosing that one.
3. He chose an alternative process called an "offer in compromise" which DHS itself says is a way to seek the return of your seized property.
That is, he actually followed the rules (as he did for his site) and it's just that DHS fucked him over with help from the RIAA.
I would love to see the Techdirt staff working on new things and fighting to get them to happen. But instead they are leaning towards things like the Copia Institute Think Tank, which is basically politics and trying to force others to do things your way. It's not the act of doing, it's the act of talking - and that rarely gets things done. That isn't an accomplishment, it's more of waving the white flag and surrendering to politics as usual. It may or may not pay out in the very long run, but mouth piece new release organizations, even with links to existing senators or house reps generally don't accomplish much except generating news clips and sound bites.
Of course, this is exactly what Copia is NOT doing. Whatever, as per usual, is 100% wrong. The entire focus of Copia is working with tech companies to do something new *outside* of politics. We've got a few different working groups already moving forward working on new projects where it's the innovators doing something new.
Of course, we've even said all that about Copia multiple times, but in typical Whatever fashion, he'll misrepresent and lie and troll. And eventually he'll go away and come back again under another name. Right?
Mike - are you aware of anyone having contacted the Wall Street Journal to try to get an OpEd of their own published to act as a counterpoint to enemy-of-the-tech-industry-and-menace-to-public-safety Senator Richard Burr?
Yes, though I didn't realize it when I wrote this post, the WSJ actually published a counterpoint at the same time, written by Cindy Cohn, the head of EFF:
This is Zuckerberg playing a public relations game by moving money from one of his pockets to another and calling it "charity". There are plenty of legitimate charitable organizations he could give it to if he wanted to, other than himself.
No, because you regularly fellate lord Goog, and now it appears you've acquired a taste for Zuckerberg as well.
Ah, I see. You're not even remotely serious.
We also regularly criticize both companies. It's called being honest, not being religious. If they do something that we think is bad, we say so. If they do something we think is good, we say so.
This is a guest post, and the topic was interesting. Do you have any legitimate criticism of the actual content, along with evidence for why, or do you just have a blind, religious hatred for no good reason?
I think the judge got the context right. The real context here is that this is an extradition hearing, and not a criminal prosecution. Just like a civil case, the standards for extradition isn't absolute certainty and a conviction. It's only that the prosecution has some semblance of a reasonable case.
This is correct, but actually does miss the point. This is not "well, looks like they did something bad, ship 'em off." The key issue is whether or not anything they did actually violated the law in both countries. THAT is the key standard for extradition, and unfortunately, secondary liability is non-existent in criminal copyright. So the argument is that nothing that Dotcom qualifies for extradition, and the judge handwaved around it. I find that problematic.
Still, a corporation has but a single mandate - to make more money next year than it did this year, ad infinitum.
Regardless of how "benign" or "humane" their public face appears, the only true purpose of a corporation, and the only thing that makes a corporation successful, is continuously escalating profits.
That's a load of hogwash. There are some companies for which that's true, but plenty of corporations do not follow such a path. And, indeed, it is entirely possible to set up corporations with social missions as well (we are one such company).
Furthermore, the idea that every company only seeks to steal people's money is ridiculous. Companies make profits by creating an exchange that benefits both parties in the exchange. Fucking over people out of greed does not lead to repeat business.
And, of course, this ignores all the advancement in the world today thanks to private companies.
I wonder if Dotcom's lawyers can have an investigation begun on both the judge and the DoJ themselves. Put them under the microscope for a change, and when their conflicts of interest and corruption are exposed and proven in court, use that to have the entire case against Dotcom thrown out.
1. No, they can't. And if they could, it wouldn't turn up anything anyway.
2. There's no corruption here. Lots of people keep claiming that, but it makes people look foolish. No one's getting paid off. It's just that some people are interpreting things in the worst possible light. This isn't surprising. It happens all the time around copyright issues.
3. Focusing on claims of corruption, rather than the specifics of what's going on smacks of conspiracy theory garbage and makes people take the whole thing less seriously.
There are legitimate legal issues here. Focusing on conspiracy theories is not helpful.
Hold on a sec ... I recall several articles in which it was pointed out that it this is not a charitable donation yet. The assets are being held by a business construct which is capable of making donations and is controlled by Zuckerberg for its tax dodging capabilities.
1. The whole point of the article is that, yes, it's going to a for profit entity, and why that's not a bad thing.
2. It's not a tax dodge. It's the opposite of a tax dodge. Putting money in a charitable foundation gets you out of paying taxes. In an LLC does not.
1. Money laundering is only one part of it. Much more focus is on the "conspiracy to defraud."
2. The "money laundering" charge is ridiculous. Read the details in the ruling. How did they "launder" money? By paying for their servers and paying their own salaries. If that's "money laundering" everyone who owns a business could be deemed money laundering if any part of their business is determined to break the law.
Google deliberately limits them to 25 mph, which has resulted in at least one instance of getting pulled over for impeding traffic. In other words, Google's cars are rolling school zones.
There are two different self-driving car programs by Google (Alphabet). One of them is the one you describe, limited to 25 mph, just around Mountain View (the "bubble" cars). The other is the regular cars, which go well above 25mph. Most of the data comes from the faster cars, not the slow ones.
It never ceases to amaze me that despite the fact that you work for a website that talks about chilling effects, slippery slopes, dmca abuses, and all sorts of chicanery of this ilk you still have the nerve to allow or support a government agency to arbitrarily suspend someones rights just because you or they believe a term is derogatory.
1. I changed my position on this, as is clearly stated in the article.
2. My issue was not with the suspension of someone's rights. As noted, my argument was that not getting a trademark does not impact anyone's rights, because it is not limiting speech. However, I now see the problem with the law.
If someone wants to create a disparaging trademark, give it to them, the the court of public opinion decide their fate.
I agree with that sentiment and did from the beginning. My issue had nothing to do with the appropriateness of disparaging terms or trademarks, but solely whether or not it was a First Amendment violation.
The moment you feel insulted by an insult is the moment you deserved that insult!
Again, my argument had nothing to do with whether insulting language is okay. Just whether or not the trademark issue impacted the First Amendment.
The quite you highlighted actually doesn't forbid the carrier to encrypt communications. It only states that if he doesn't, or if he can decrypt them, only them is he forced to provide them decrypted in answer to a warrant.
Right. That's the point. Cotton claimed that the law forbids telcos from using encryption that they can't decrypt. But the law actually says the exact opposite.