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.
1. On average, films with a N. American box office release make about 25% of their overall revenue at the box office. All the rest come from downstream sources. The same sources that are subject to the corrosive effect of piracy.
"Downstream sources" you and your friends insisted would be the boston strangler to the very industry you now say they're critical to. Don't make me laugh.
Low budget motion pictures, which are most vulnerable to piracy don't get box office revenue, by-and-large. They have a particularly difficult time finding funding as lenders know without that box office revenue, it is a much greater risk to fund a motion picture.
Which is why more films are being made today than ever before? Low budget films are not, at all, "more vulnerable to piracy." Where did you get that line of bullshit from? First off, nearly all of the top unauthorized downloads are for big budget films.
Second, there are ALL SORTS of new opportunities for indie small-time filmmakers these days. Between crowdfunding, direct-to-fan, Netflix, Amazon, iTunes and the like, more small independent films are (1) being made (2) making money and (3) being seen today than EVER BEFORE IN HISTORY.
Please try to pay attention this year so I don't have to come back and school you again on this subject in '15.
You might want to actually learn something next time so that we don't have to prove you wrong yet again.
Seriously: tell your bosses they need talking points that haven't been debunked.
Couldn't this ruling also be used against the Movie / Music studios who are always trying to get Google to change its search results?
For the most part, the MPAA/RIAA have yet to assert a *legal* right to do that. They've just pressured Google into such. However, this issue could come up in future copyright reform, if such a law attempted to require search engines to change results.
It was probably a bigger concern in antitrust cases, in which some (i.e., Microsoft) sought to force Google to change its results.
I not very interested in this particular topic, but what bothers me is that there have been a couple articles on Techdirt, celebrating the use of trademark law to force someone to change their speech... because reasons....
You're wrong. Nothing in any of this involves using trademark law to force anyone to do anything. Without the trademark, anyone is free to continue to use the term "redskin" whether they believe it is offensive or not. What they're NOT getting is a government-granted monopoly on the term.
The mantra here on Techdirt has always seemed to me to be, counter 'bad speech' with 'good speech.' Of course, good and bad is based on personal perspective.
And nothing in this discussion differs from that position. Tim is just saying there's no need to grant a trademark on terms like this.
But laws that can be used to censor the 'horrible people' we disagree with, can be turned around and used on the 'good people' we like.
Again, read carefully: nothing in this is about stopping anyone from using the terms. It is not about censorship. It's the opposite of that, actually. It's about not granting a single party a government granted monopoly on a term many people find racist.
Would you rather the company be required at the very outset to file 100 separate complaints with the court that are exactly the same and tax the court resources 100 fold?
If it has evidence that each of the 100 is infringing, then yes. As you well know (or, if not, you should) lumping together unrelated parties into the same lawsuit is an abuse of the court system. It places the defendants in an unfair position of defending actions they had nothing to do with involving parties they have no interaction with.
This is why so many of these kinds of lawsuits have ended with a court ordering the defendants severed.