Title II under the Telecommunications Act does not require net neutrality or prohibit fast lanes and paid prioritization.
It does not, but it does allow the FCC to declare that paid prioritization or blocking is not "just and reasonable" and then build rules around that. So, yes, you can ban fast lanes and paid prioritization based on Title II. It's not that Title II does that by itself, but the rules based on Title II absolutely can.
If you are going to write an article extolling the virtues of fair use, it seems to me prudent that the works used as examples in the article bear some relationship to US copyright law. A photo originating from Scotland would not be my first choice.
So your argument is that because the photo was taken in Scotland, the argument that US sites reposting/transforming it for commentary is no longer fair use? You really want to stake out that ground?
This is why I will never donate to a crowdfunding project -- unless it's run by people I already know and trust.
That seems extreme. I would say that the vast majority of projects I've backed have turned out to be great, and I was quite happy with the result. I can only think of a very small number that ultimately disappointed.
What surprises me is how fast this Judge has ruled on this forfeiture considering this Judge is still yet to rule on other matters of the case against Megaupload that has well preceded this forfeiture by months.
This is an entirely separate case. It's not part of the same case.
Also, pretty sure the other cases have basically all been put on hold until the extradition process is through, so not sure what else there is to rule on.
How is it that you _know_ that "Um, no, it's actually the reverse" and "None of this is true"? I thought you said earlier that the actual rules haven't been released and no member of the public has been able to read them?
The overall concept behind the rules has been released, which shows those claims are not true.
I'm still concerned about the details *on the margins* which may have some bad or worrisome stuff in there, but nothing like what the WSJ was talking about. Enough people have seen the rules to know what the overall issues are.
On the one hand, TechDirt is a sturdy espouser of the free market in the tech world, and a steady critic of government malfeasance and overreach in numerous realms including surveillance, copyright, etc.
On the other hand: Cheer leading the FCC and the government in their latest endeavor.
There is a disconnect somewhere that I just can't reconcile.
Out of curiosity, do you find the First Amendment to be a burdensome government regulation?
But because it's Obama's idea, it's automatically ASSumed to be a great idea because any idea coming from the liberal/progressive/statist/corporatist/fascist/Democrat side can't be anything but good, right?
Considering that most of the same people were pushing Michael Powell and Kevin Martin (FCC chairs under GWB) for basically the same proposal, uh, no.
Yes, I agree that there is massive confusion on the political front regarding net neutrality; however, I am still unclear as to why Techdirt extolls the virtues of regulating the internet.
We don't. Title II and net neutrality are not about regulating the internet. They're about putting very basic non-discrimination rules on *internet access providers* to keep *THEM* from "regulating" the internet in terms of how everyone gets to use it.
IOW, it works for you that what is being done by groups like ISIS is not torture.
Huh? Seems to easily qualify under: "punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind"
I know you love to troll this site, but this is beneath even you.
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Masnick: My foot also has many legal uses; will that exonerate me when I repeatedly kick you in the balls?
I know you're being a jackass, but this is actually a good way to demonstrate the idiocy of your position.
Yes, your foot has many legal uses, and some illegal ones. The fact that you might kick anyone in the balls does not make your foot illegal. But if you do choose to batter someone with your foot, then at that point you would have broken the law and you could be arrested, tried and sentenced.
But, most people have a modicum of self-control and don't kick others in the balls. And we don't outlaw feet because there are some idiots who abuse feet. Nor do we imprison the maker of steel-toed boots for making you kicking someone in the balls more painful. Instead, we PROPERLY put the liability on you, the criminal, who attacks someone.
So, why don't you allow that to happen for copyright?
That One Guy's response is exactly what I was going to say. Nearly everything that I brought up was sued for supporting piracy in some way or another -- all civil cases, though. But in your book, all should be shut down and in jail for criminal conspiracy.
It isn't a theory. Top execs at internet companies could absolutely be investigated, and if it were found they colluding to profit via copyright infringement, they could be criminally charged.
Yes, if they were colluding to profit via copyright infringement *they did*. But under your ridiculous theory, if they were colluding to build a business in which *any* of their profits came from some of their *users* engaging in copyright infringement, they're guilty of a felony.
And under that theory, any maker of a VCR is a criminal. It would not just wipe out the Betamax ruling, but magically turn it into a criminal conspiracy.
Grokster ruled that inducement is secondary infringement. Infringement is breaking the law. Conspiracy to break the law is criminal law.
This is wrong. You can't just take any random civil infringement and say because two people were engaged in it together, it's suddenly criminal conspiracy.
If two people agree to jaywalk to cross a street, it doesn't become a criminal conspiracy. Under your theory, almost every big internet company has nearly all of its top execs facing similar criminal charges. Facebook, YouTube, Dropbox execs could all go to jail for decades under this theory.
Sorry, that's wrong. DOWNLOADS can't be infringing copyright. Because copyright is about PUBLISHING. Unless he uploaded works to which he has no rights of publishing, he did not infringe copyright.
No, that's wrong. Copyright law (in the US, at least) includes a number of separate rights, and one of those is "reproduction." Downloading a file that you're not authorized to download *can* be an unauthorized reproduction, and thus infringing.
Uploading can also be infringement, of the "distribution" right.