If a rights holder was able to magically do everything you seem to demand, I have not the slightest doubt you would find some other hook to hang your hat on decrying all manner of other terribles being visited upon service providers.
Moving the goalposts I see.
You claimed, directly, that it was *impossible for rightsholders* to determine what was licensed and what was not -- and that was a reason that the burden should be on unrelated service providers.
I pointed out that your own argument nullified your own argument.
And you ignored it and went with snark.
Because, once again, we've called you out for your ridiculous claims. And, once again, you will never admit that you made a ridiculous argument that proved your own argument was wrong.
The DMCA incorporates an exception to some tort law doctrines regarding secondary liability. Without the exception service providers would have much more skin in the game and would have to pay much more attention to what is transpiring at their site.
This is undoubtedly true. And, as we've pointed out repeatedly (though you ignore it) the end result of having to "pay much more attention" would be massive censorship that served to shut off all sorts of legitimate forms of communication, and which would likely lead to many service providers no longer allowing open communications because the threat of liability is too high.
You may like the idea of fucking over the public so that broadcasters go back to having a controlled platform, but I do not. I find it disgusting.
It hardly seems fair to lay everything at the feet of rights holders when historical data demonstrates an imbalance of burdens that arises because of the exception.
False equivalency. There is no "imbalance of burdens" at all. The burden is *properly placed* on the *only party* in a position to know what is, and what is not, infringing. As you yourself has demonstrated, the possibility that the service provider could have such knowledge is "impossible."
And yet you wish to put that burden on them, clearly knowing that the risk of liability will almost immediately turn open platforms like YouTube into closed platforms like Hulu. To people like you, this is a "benefit." To the public it's a disaster. But years watching you work has made it clear that your entire focus is on helping the powers that be fuck over the public.
No...a publisher/rights holder oftentimes does not know what licenses have purportedly been granted
Thus demonstrating conclusively why it's MORONIC to argue that service providers should magically know.
and even if it did it has no realistic and reliable way of identifying whether or not a specific copy is the subject of a lawful license
And yet... you think service providers should be liable if they don't magically figure out the very thing you're now claiming the rightsholders themselves can't figure out.
Are you serious?
Add to this a bit or realism...thousands of copies can be uploaded in seconds, and yet you seem to expect that a rights holder must spend every waking moment tracking them down.
Clearly not the case, since so many use a variety of automated services. Besides, in the alternative you have a much more ridiculous situation in which the service provider -- with no insight or knowledge into the legality of a work -- would need to do the same.
This is an impossible task
And you want to make it more impossible by dumping it on a party with LESS knowledge into what's legal. Again, are you mad?
Snowden was charged with two counts under the Espionage Act, and charged with theft, not under the Espionage Act. While he is barred with that defense under the Espionage Act, he should be able to use the whistleblower defense with respect to the theft charge because thieves are not barred from such a defense under theft statutes.
Excuse me? Can you point to where "whistleblowing" is an allowed defense for theft of government property? It's not.
Either way, the main charges where the whistleblowing aspect matters are the Espionage Act one, and again, he's barred from entering evidence to that effect. So, you are factually wrong. You should admit you made a mistake.
A jury would thus be able to hear his motivation for the theft, which would likely be assumed by a jury to be his motivation for the charges brought under the Espionage Act, if the theft charge is not dropped.
A jury would be clearly instructed not to pay attention to any such evidence when it came to the Espionage Act claims (assuming such evidence was ever entered, which it wouldn't be). Are you familiar with how the American Justice system works?
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
The report you link to from Michael Kelley (who has been trying to claim Snowden is a spy since the very beginning), was the DOD report which assumed -- totally incorrectly according to pretty much everyone -- that Snowden handed over every document he ever "touched."
Snowden was charged in part under the Espionage Act, but he was also charged with at least one crime NOT under the Espionage Act. Snowden may be barred from raising a whistle blower defense under the Espionage Act, but he would not be barred from presenting that defense with respect to any other charges not presented under that Act.
You can repeat it many times over. Doesn't mean it will suddenly become true. Because it's not.
I suspect the government is uninterested in testing the Espionage Act under appeal for whistle blower cases, knowing that there is a good chance they might lose.
Bullshit. This administration has brought SEVEN Espionage Act claims against whistleblowers. That's compared to a grand total of THREE in ALL OF HISTORY before this administration.
Whistle Blower: Snowden would have an opportunity to prove his motivations and to prove that he genuinely believed that the release of each of the documents points to wrong-doing by the government.
This is not true. The Espionage Act, under which he has been charge does not allow any such evidence to be entered. Whether or not you are a whisteblower or had good intention is simply not considered under the Espionage Act. So any attempt to raise such a defense will be barred under the statute.
I think Snowden had a chance to be considered one of the greatest whistle blowers of all time, and then blew it by releasing every single document in his possession, regardless of its value in supporting a whistle blowing activity.
He didn't do that.
Snowden seems like a cocky kid smirking because he put one over on a lot of people
I've yet to see any sign of either cockiness or smirking. Nor do I understand what your bizarre read on his emotional state has to do with anything.
He definitely broke multiple laws, so let the benefits of his actions and his motivations be his defense.
Again, motivation is NOT ALLOWED as a defense under the Espionage Act, which is what he's charged under.
You may not believe he's a whistleblower. That's fair enough. But you keep making blatantly false statements.
You know, I think I realized where the support for secondary liability comes from. It comes from the general belief that when you're in charge of something, you are responsible for the actions of your subordinates.
Well, also two other factors:
1. Laziness. It's so much EASIER to go after the big intermediary than deal with those actually responsible.
2. Money. The intermediaries often have a lot of it.
Hence the reason we often refer to these things as "Steve Dallas" lawsuits from this old comic:
Is anything very terrible actually going to happen if the Romanian government just refuses to pay up? It might hurt their credit rating, but unless this Gabriel Resources outfit somehow persuade the Canadian government to invade Romania (and I don't think even the Canadian Tories are that 'pro-business') I don't really see a way of enforcing the suit.
There are lots of other ways to enforce this. If Romania doesn't pay up, then they can start to issue painful trade sanctions against the country via the WTO. That could include anything from terrible tarriffs to import/export restrictions that effectively starve Romania of revenue until the amount is "paid off."
Often this is done in totally unrelated businesses to get people angry enough to just pay up the bill. So... Romania is a big exporter of machinery and equipment, and you could see other countries putting a big tariff on that, in order to get Romanian manufacturers to protest to their government.
Where exactly do you see violation of quoted statue?
It says you're a criminal if you "transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit" "a photograph" "of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual contact, when the actor knows or should have known that the person depicted did not consent to such" when the person has not consented to that specific move to "transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit" that photograph.
So, yes, that's where people violated the statute. Did you not read it?
I'll use this comment to thank Techdirt for this. Probably the average Joe like me and many other readers wouldn't be able to pull such brief due to lack of time, lack of knowledge or simply lack of writing skills. It is good to see that somebody - and in my case somebody I 'donate' my money to because I like their work - is there helping with such an important cause.
So let's see MIke Masnick discuss Google's market share.
Ok. I worry that Google has too much power, though it does seem that there is growing competition in all important areas -- and little to no lock-in. Android is a little scarier than elsewhere since there's slightly more lock-in, and I wish that Google was much more open with Android.
And see him demand that Google release their patents into the public domain.
I am struck by the alacrity with which Prof. Nimmer's opinion is swatted away here as a misguided trifle.
Prof. Nimmer has increasingly been making odd claims about copyright law that seem much closer to a certain party's best interests than what the law and Congress has actually said. This has been going on for some time, but is most obviously noted in situations like the following:
Over the last few years, I find that nearly every time Prof. Nimmer's opinion is brought up, it's him reinterpreting copyright law in strange, and sometimes dangerous, ways. I think he's doing a great disservice to the reputation of his father.
We are worried about a whole bunch of companies copying our ideas. We are just now starting sales; and in fact have resisted shipping product until it was ready for prime-time;
Which says to me you have no clue whatsoever how your product will do in the real world. That's the problem with people who overvalue ideas over execution. They think that you need to focus on perfection, without realizing that the best way to innovate is to let the market actually respond to your product.
Either way I'll note you still haven't named your company.
I call bullshit on your story.
Yes, we like patent enforcement companies because they might be our only path to revenue if we fail in the marketplace.
So you admit that even if no one likes your product you're cool with killing those who actually successfully innovate. That's sick.
our review indicates that we are not infringing.
Yeah, same with basically every company out there... and then as soon as they do something successful they get hit with infringement claims. We'll see how much you like patent trolling *if* you ever actually build a product that people want (which seems doubtful from everything you've said so far).