I seriously doubt Prince himself is trolling around the internet looking for supposed infringement. Almost certainly he signed a contract with a company that has promised to look out for his copyright interests so he doesn't have to personally worry with the details. The IP enforcement firm has incentive to find every miniscule scrap of music that can be attributed to their client. They must continue to keep proving their value in order to perpetuate their future paychecks.
"They don't have anyone who can validate that the content "
It should not be Amazon's responsibility to "validate" content. "Validation" in this context is just another euphemism for censorship. If Amazon is truly concerned about their inability to monitor what is being published, why can't they rely on crowd-sourced reporting of objections.
This case is an example of why I believe the concept of safe harbors ought to be extended beyond DMCA liability. There should be similar safe harbors from tort liability as well.
Maybe by dismissing the cases there will be a reduction in material damages, but even if all the claims are dismissed, there's still the fact that Prenda Law has caused a lot of time to be wasted in courtrooms which are funded and maintained by the taxpayers.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out since Dutch museums hold some of the world's most famous paintings -- think "Old Dutch Masters" such as Rembrandt, and those museums have been in the forefront of claiming copyright on images of paintings.
Que the "national heritage" claims in 3,2,1...
"In the future, expect copyright locks, wherein you cannot use the machine you're using, listen to music or drive a car without paying copyright royalties out of the ass"
That isn't the future, its the present.
Here is an example from the medical world:
Consider the most commonly used surgical robot which was developed at taxpayer expense by DARPA for battlefield use. The Army decided they didn't want it so a private company now sells the devices for millions of dollars each. The arms of this robot which are stainless steel and don't wear out not anywhere quick enough to suit the company's stockholders, are designed to detect when they enter a human body. After a certain number of passes into the body, the robot is disabled until you pay thousands so you can attach a new piece of equipment for it. The old one, which is just a usable as when you took it new out of the package is thrown away.
Now how do you think this scam is defended? By the DMCA of course. If you hacked their software to circumvent the inactivation process, you would be breaking the law.
It's a perfect example of the monumental waste and expense borne by the public as a result of IP law.
I might add that up to this point, hospitals haven't cared a bit about this kind of thing since they were just passing all of their expenses, along with a hefty markup, on to the insurance companies, or in the unlucky cases - directly to the patients. We will see how much this changes in the next few years since it remains unclear exactly how Obamacare is going to play out.
Many prosecutors are not concerned with morality. They are only concerned with legality.
Certain lawyers (such as rather average regular here) will argue that is as it should be. The problem is - as was discussed by Orin Kerr a few days ago at The Volokh Conspiracy, there's a lot of poorly written and unwise law out there creating discrepancy between legal and moral.
I am in agreement with Jay and anonymouse here. I think Ortiz's stubborn public statements will increase scrutiny of her performance as prosecutor and hopefully of the entire situation wherein overcriminalization invites prosecutorial misbehavior.
Over the past few decades, judges lost much of their discretion because of instances in which the public, and subsequently lawmakers became furious at apparent abuse of judicial discretion. The loss of discretionary power suffered by judges became a gain for prosecutors. Most unfortunately, prosecutors have not uniformly used this discretion in a wise pursuit of justice. One can only hope that there will be another redirection of our legal system in the near future.
The two memoranda above which have a little bit visible were issued by the DOJ Chief, Criminal Appellate Division, Patty Merkamp Stemler.
Couldn't this possibly be the same Patty Merkamp Stemler who was part of the Federal prosecution team held in contempt of court for failing to turn over information to the judge after being explicitly ordered to do so? That misconduct resulted in the collapse of the criminal case against Senator Ted Stevens.
It looks like the episode didn't teach DOJ attorneys anything. Maybe the lesson we should have learned is that the members of the executive branch are now so powerful that they can flout rules, ignore law and nothing happens. After all, none of the DOJ attorneys involved in the Stevens case suffered any career damage.
Ms. Merkamp Stemler even got promoted.
AC: Read the IEEE article again and apply a little critical thinking this time.
As the very first comment below your referenced article noted, the author of the article proved nothing except that
1) Cell phones have emissions that can be detected
2) People break the rules on every. single. flight.
The rest of the article consists of describing a collection of recorded opinions from air-crew members about events during the 1990's where they believed there may have been some interference caused by personal electronic devices. Such collection of anecdote is useful only to stimulate scientific investigation, but it certainly isn't controlled scientific inquiry which can lead to conclusive data.
Meanwhile... veritable years of *nothing* happening on millions of flights when these devices are on makes one highly prone to believe that this article is pure FUD. Note that the use of the word "millions" is not an exaggeration.
And no, I don't care that the paper's author was an ex-astronaut.
"consumers need to know how to use tools to inhibit that data collection"
Yes, but unfortunately the most well known tools such as 'Do Not Track' browser configurations virtually worthless. Do Not Track is nothing more than politely asking people who profit from your data not to take your data.
The only thing that works with certainty is a firewall with outbound blocking ability. Most consumer firewalls don't block outbound traffic, and even if you run those that do, they are somewhat of a pain to manage because they not infrequently hinder your online experience. Using outbound blocking requires the user to use judgement, and to take the time to manually unblock at times.
IT security firms have largely ignored outbound firewall strategies and have only focused on what to keep out instead.
If you wonder why the most popular computer security programs don't have outbound firewalls, well here's a little fact they don't want you to know: Many of the big name security and anti-viral firms are actually right in there purloining your data for sale to others. They are scarcely any different in this regard that the companies who more openly acknowledge that they take your information. To name a couple of names -- AVG and Symantec.
Furthermore Microsoft has a long history of aiding and abetting anyone who wants to get data out of your computer by making tools such as LSP and more recently WFP technology which can allow silent interception of all of your IP traffic, including SSL. WFP is embedded in the kernel and is meant to be undetectable and not removable. Microsoft does not provide the user with any way to prevent this kind of activity.
As a practical matter, the government is able to vacuum up large troves of information because all 3 branches of government appear to have agreed to ignore the seemingly plain language in the 4th amendment requiring a warrant, issued upon probable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed, prior to searching "persons, houses, papers, and effects". If the requirement for a warrant was being respected, the government would be restricted to only collecting information related to actual suspicion of crime.
Unfortunately many Americans can't wrap their head around the word "warrantless".
They like the idea that the government is wiretapping suspected terrorists, but they don't appear to understand or have an interest in the idea that wiretapping a person who is suspected of terror or other criminal activity is not the same thing as tapping anyone, anytime, for any reason that law enforcement desires.
Warrants are a paper trail that protect us from government employees acting in a malevolent fashion. Warrants ensure that a second opinion about the necessity or appropriateness of the tap is obtained. Law enforcement complains that warrants get in the way and they don't have time in an emergency situation.
My response to all of the above is to compare to the medical community. Physicians must do their paperwork if they want to operate. Imagine a surgeon who could do anything he/she wanted during an operation but was not required to have any paper-trail to document it. Without question the public would be less safe.
With respect to emergent situations, I do not see that a warrant requirement has to slow down law enforcement. We have doctors on call in order to keep the public safe from middle of the night emergencies. There is no reason that judges couldn't be on call for middle of the night emergencies as well.
AC's here have assailed and ridiculed accusations that the media industry was seeking to have laws passed which directly erode constitutional freedoms. I believe I've seen the words "wild-eyed", and "tinfoil hat" used.
Now I'm not familiar with the Israeli constitution, but I have to believe that the right of citizens to due process in a public court of law is found somewhere within it.
No tinfoil hat is required to see that if such a law were passed in the US it would very likely violate at least the 5th amendment.