when you run your mouth about it, then you deserve the shit you got!
Easy to say. You're not the one facing decades in jail.
Don't be surprised, should Snowden ever come back if he takes a plea deal as well. You DO NOT understand the calculus that goes into the decision -- OR the pressure that the DOJ puts on people to accept a deal.
People who insist that no one should accept a plea deal are people who have never been in that situation.
That'd take a slight variation in language. Make it clear that it's not the posting without permission, but the posting without permission of material that the subjects had a legally recognized expectation would not be made public. So, a photograph taken in a public place where photographs were being taken? The subject has no expectation that photographs wouldn't be made public. Photographs taken in your bedroom when they weren't being taken for public distribution, or where they were taken without your knowledge? That's when the site needs to be careful.
So... Gawker and the Toronto Star would be in *criminal* trouble for posting photos of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack in a private home?
Or... what about Chad Hurley taking a short video at Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's wedding and posting it online. That was a private event.
It might be better to criminalize, not the hosting of such material, but the solicitation of such material.
Still a potential can of worms. How about the celebrity gossip site that solicits photos of celebrities, and some of those show celebrities in a less than flattering light. How do you distinguish that situation?
We agree, but you missed the point. They are all costs related to obtaining the free product, and has nothing to do with marginal costs. What it means is that the marginal cost model does not work in this situation, because that is not the post of cost. For what it's worth, ISP costs are more like a bread that goes stale, use it or lose it.
Almost nothing in this paragraph makes sense. We only care about the marginal costs in these situations. That's why the book itself is called the zero marginal cost society. The fixed costs are a different issue entirely. No one has ever said the fixed costs go away.
Remember too, those same costs exist on the provider side as well. Your infinite thus free concepts don't seem to be able to handle what happens when the fixed costs are the main driver. What models do you think apply to business that have large fixed costs but little in the way of marginal costs, say like a cloud hosting provider or a software distribution firm?
I've outlined the details for this multiple times. The point is that even when you have large fixed costs, you're almost certainly creating scarcities where you can charge (you leave the infinite free, and charge for the scarce). Generally speaking that often means charging for the *service* but leaving the product free (which is what most cloud hosting firms do already). For software, it depends on the software, but look at firms like IBM and Red Hat who make a shit ton of money giving software away for free, but making money on service.
Many of the business models work only by not adhering to regulations in order to offer a better price point or to offer a service that is otherwise not permitted by law. If AirBnB renters first had to have their premises safety inspected, certified by the city, insured with commercial liability, and licensed as at minimum a bed and breakfast, then the pricing model would be different and thus their competitive advantages lost.
Did you ignore my whole point? Why, yes, you did. First, that's not necessarily true, but even if it was, the point here was that the only reason why you need regulations for safety inspections, commercial liability and licensing is because of the lack of information in the traditional system. However, with AirBnB, where there is tremendous transparency, and a system of clear reviews, it takes care of itself. A place that is not clean or safe gets low ratings and no one is willing to rent it. Information flow and a trust model takes care of the need for regulations, thus making those regulations obsolete for such services.
Protecting the consumer is more than just responding to outrageous situations. I was thinking more along the line of straight rip-offs, injury insurance claims, fire hazards, and the like. Protecting the consumer is as much about protecting them from harm and risk, as it is about answering their problems on the run.
Traditional regulations tend to have little to actually do with that, and a lot more to do with keeping out the competition.
An example would be a pirated download, you still have the cost of your ISP, electricity, wear on your computer, and so on to consider. Most of us can't quantify it, but there is a marginal cost even in the act of piracy.
Those aren't *marginal* costs (with the *possible* exception of electricity). The cost of the ISP is fixed, not marginal. The wear on the computer is fixed, not marginal. People always make this mistake, but *marginal* cost has a meaning and your examples are not marginal. Even the electricity claim is likely not a marginal cost if you assume the computer would likely be on anyway. Then it's a fixed cost.
Most of these companies are examples not so much of disruptive models, as much as models that are predicated on getting around existing laws and restrictions to make things go. AirBnB is currently facing the reality of having to charge and collect hotel room taxes in more and more places. Many of these types if businesses also run without true consideration for the laws in place regarding safety and security, such as not requiring appropriate insurance or certification for the people who provide services. In the US where liability lawsuits fly fast and thick, most of these business models seem only one disaster away from total failure.
That is... unlikely at best. Take for example, the infamous "XXX Freak Fest" story that hit Airbnb a few weeks ago. That's exactly the sort of "disaster" you're talking about. But, all of the evidence suggests that Airbnb responded in a way that has actually *increased* trust.
And that's really why many of these are actually disruptive. They're not routing around regulations because of some great advantage, it's that the regulations themselves were poor proxies for systems where there was inherently less information sharing. These new systems rely on greater information sharing, creating greater levels of trust, which make the regulations appear to be very poor proxies. Instead, the trust systems built up by these services do a MUCH better job protecting consumers and producers alike.
They're also a part of various food-chains, which will fuck up if you wipe them out.
Actually, in that first link (the Radiolab segment) an expert talks about how it's not at all clear that's true, and in searching for such things, she couldn't find any evidence of the importance of mosquitos for *any* system.
I'm all for stopping these law firms from actions like this but to force them to pay back monies they have already collected? The courts only have the ability to stop further collection efforts, not to force Prenda to send back monies already collected.
Their fraud on the court is one thing, it doesn't affect what they are legitimately collecting from filesharing users.
Except the ruling is not about that at all. It was just about whether or not there was fraud on the court. So your analysis makes no sense.
I find it interesting that Glenn Greenwald's new site was quick to comment on Der Spiegel's article, even though Greenwald has all those same documents himself and could have written about it long ago if he wanted to.
Doubtful at best. Greenwald and others have noted, many times, that going through all of the documents, understanding what they mean and doing thorough reporting on them before releasing them is a time-intensive process.
That's why they shared the documents with so many others.
Great, maybe your friends at Google will pay heed.
Not sure what kind of "gotcha" you think you're making here, but I agree that I hope Google does the same. I hope that all tech companies that offer cloud-like services will make this sort of thing standard and think its ridiculous that they did not do so from the beginning.
Amateur and hobby film making does not replace the $1-6 million film that has been decimated. Comparing some guy with a $1000 prosumer grade camera and a bunch of friends shooting on weekends in the neighborhood to a $1 million + film is a joke. If your film cost $50 to make, who cares if its pirated. You're probably grateful that anyone bothered watching at all.
No one's talking about amateur filmmaking. You're making that up. What percentage of films at Sundance this year were funded by Kickstarter? How many films that NEVER would have been made are now possible thanks to Netflix?
Talk to famous professional filmmakers Ed Burns and Kevin Smith, who are both having career renaissances making *professional* low budget films that are entirely possible only because of these new distribution options. Hell, Smith has set up "Kevin Smith presents..." in which he helps films (generally in that $1 to $6 million range) get distribution and attention around the globe. I know tons of indie *professional* filmmakers who are today excited about how they actually have a chance to do stuff.
In the past they didn't. Those films in the past were crap shoots. If they didn't get into Sundance/Cannes and be the 1 to 3 indie films that got attention that year they were complete failures. The films today can and ARE doing MUCH better because they're not reliant on getting distribution deals from a major studio.
Look, I know you make your money spewing the bullshit the major studios spew, but seriously, don't go down this road. You're going to end up looking really, really stupid.
They had no legal options, they did explore them and described them in detail. Because of the CFAA, email on a server belongs to the company that owns the server, not the user or any 3rd party. You cannot legally subpoena property or information that you yourself own.
Now it is you who should recheck the facts. That was Microsoft's story but it was misleading. What they could have done -- and what they now admit they will do in the future -- is simply hand over the basic info they have to law enforcement. Law enforcement absolutely can go seek a warrant for that information if it has credible evidence that the information will reveal criminal behavior.