1. White hats who try find flaws and alert the appropriate people about them so the flaws can be fixed (Roberts). This is relatively small group because of the skills needed to find the flaws, and the fact that so many companies have made it clear that exposing a flaw in their product and/or service will not result in it being fixed, but the company doing everything they can to crush the one who found the flaw.
Nice idea, but wouldn't work, both because no inmate or guard would dare touch them as prospective FBI/police agents, and because they would know that all they'd have to do would be to 'tough it out' for a short period of time, very much unlike those stuck there for years or decades.
Funny, or perhaps just hypocritical, that so often the ones who are claiming that pirates are the ones with the sense of entitlement always seem to expect everyone else to shoulder the costs, whether it be time, effort or money, in protecting their stuff.
Like they expect others to be just honored to act as unpaid lackeys, only to be just shocked that people aren't lining up for the position.
I'd be curious to know the number of financial transactions and video/music transactions in a given year. Both are certainly massive. Yet the financial ecosystem is fairly successful guarding against lawlessness it their ecosystem.
Here's one of the big differences though: A financial transaction is either legal or illegal, the number or content of it don't matter. If someone notices a large transaction from an account that's not known for it, it's a quick matter to check that out. A transaction with a known crime group? Again, fairly easy to investigate.
Copyright infringement though? Not nearly so easy, as the exact same file can be both illegal, maybe legal, or legal, depending on context. There are no 'suspicious' markers to look out for.
The difference is that suspicious financial transactions are flagged and/or stopped.
Define 'suspicious files', and do so in a manner that doesn't require you to know the contents. Is it a large file? A small file? Files transferred on a regular basis? Files transferred on an irregular basis? Files transferred by someone with a criminal record? By someone without a criminal record?
To even begin to look for 'suspicious files', would require ISP's or other large companies to closely examine Every. Single. One. and given the sheer number of files, and the fact that it's nigh impossible to tell the legal status of pretty much any of them without careful investigation, and in most cases, a court trial to determine one way or another, the idea that internet companies could 'monitor' what passes through their systems in the same way that banks do isn't even close to feasible.
In addition to the problem of scale, there's also the issue of knowledge. Third-parties, like ISP's and internet companies, completely lack the required knowledge to know whether or not a given file is infringing or not, and for two reasons. One is that the legal status of a file depends almost entirely on context, which is knowledge they do not have.
Say someone is transferring a movie, is it infringing? Maybe, maybe not. Could be a legal backup, could be a movie in the public domain or otherwise not covered under copyright. Could be pirated or it could be purchased. It could be an 'official' leak to a reviewer, or an 'unofficial' one to a friend of someone who works in the label/studio. The third-party does not, and can not know, yet context is everything in a case like that.
The second part regarding the lack of knowledge is that the third party has no way of knowing what's been authorized or not. A given mp3 might be being transferred by the artist them-self, or by someone authorized to act on their behalf. It might be owned by the very person who's sending it, or it might be owned by someone completely different. The owner may know it's being sent and approve, or they might not. The third party does not know, and has no way of knowing. The only person who could be expected to know is the copyright owner them-self, not the third-party.
This sacred right has been perverted by self-serving freeloaders to now include the right to share infringing material- absent a court's determination.
And do you know why it's that way, and needs to stay that way?
Because it's better to let the guilty go, if it means not punishing the innocent.
That is why a trial is required, in order to determine guilt. So that if a site, or even a file is taken down, it's because it has been proven to be infringing, not just because some company or individual said it was.
Companies and individuals screw up all the time, and you don't need to look very far to find examples. As such, it's better by far to require a trial before any speech is silenced, to make damn sure that innocent people and their rights aren't trampled in the hysterical flailing about to 'stop piracy'.
Ah yes, because much like duffle bags filled with large denomination bills, an infringing file, and a non-infringing file, look completely different, which is why it's easy enough for anyone to tell(except when they can't), despite the fact that the only person who can reasonably know whether or not something has been authorized to be posted is the copyright holder.
And of course let's completely toss out the window the fact that to make any sort of determination about whether something may or may not be infringing, someone would have to look over it.
As an example, let's look at just YouTube. Given how much is posted on an hourly basis, you'd need likely thousands of people, if not more, doing nothing but examining uploads(again, despite the fact they completely lack the required knowledge to spot infringement), employed on a full-time basis.
Are you going to pay for that? What about those companies claiming that infringement is 'obvious' and that 'you know it when you see it', think they'd care to pay for something like that? Or are you expecting YT to shoulder that massive cost just as a 'favor'? You know, like how other industries shell out massive amounts of money to protect the interest of industries and/or companies completely unrelated to them.
Financial institutions can look for suspicious types of transactions, like sudden large transfers, or transfers to certain known organizations, but online data is data, and it's impossible to determine the legality of a given file just by glancing at it, given an infringing file, and a legal one, look identical.
Not to mention, without carefully examining the files being transferred(which brings up it's own concerns regarding privacy), it's impossible to know whether a particular file may or may not be infringing/illegal, especially if the one doing the examinging is a third-party who lacks the require knowledge to make the determination.
If you can automate a DMCA claim, which requires you to swear under penalty of perjury that the information in the claim is correct, I don't see why 'created by a computer' would exempt something from being copyrightable. Mind, it shouldn't be, either of them, but the precedent has already been set.
Even further on this point, right now, sites like Craigslist and Backpages are great tools for law enforcement to find and track down actual sex traffickers. Putting the liability on them to stop the advertisements or face criminal charges doesn't stop the sex trafficking at all, it just makes it that much harder for law enforcement to find it. Does Senator Kirk really want to go down as the Senator who made it more difficult for law enforcement to find and arrest sex traffickers?
Going after the actual criminals, that takes work, and can take time to build up a case and bring it to court. In other words, it requires them to actually do their jobs. It takes work, and the PR benefits are lacking until a convictions has been made.
Brushing the problem under the rug though, pretending that by making it less visible you're decreasing the amount of it occurring, that takes minimal work, and the PR benefits are immediate, you can go around crowing about how you're 'tough on sex trafficers' pretty much right away, despite the fact that it's not even remotely true.
The ones pushing such bills don't care in the slightest about actually solving the problem, all they care about is being able to boast that they made it less visible.
The problem is the reasoning for a no-knock warrant, as opposed to a regular one, is ridiculous. Someone has a locked door and a small apartment? If those are acceptable excuses to go with a no-knock, then that opens up countless other houses to no-knock warrants, for no real reason than because they are small and their owners don't feel like leaving their doors unlocked.
While we conclude as a matter of law that they did not ultimately provide sufficient basis for the issuance of the warrant in that form, the police did not act in bad faith
There's also this little tidbit, where the court even seems to agree that the information provided didn't justify a no-knock raid, and yet they passed it, and the evidence gathered from it, as legal regardless.
If the cops don't actually have to follow the law, just have a pretty good idea that they are, then the laws and restrictions they create become meaningless. Why bother knowing the law, if the court will just say 'You tried' and give you a pass after all?
Also, almost, if not worse than the fact that no-knock raids are now pretty much as simple to acquire as soda at a store, I'd really love to see that 'good fair exception' idea die a horrible death. The idea that as long as they thought they were operating within the law, they can pretty much do whatever they want, and it's not only excused, but their actions are retroactively legalized, pretty much negates the point of even having set laws.
If cops can just make it up as they go along, then there's absolutely no point in them knowing the laws in the first place, and in fact they are better of remaining ignorant of the law, given that as long as they don't know for sure what is and is not legal, they can pretty much always claim after the fact that they thought they were acting within the confines of the law, whereas if they do know what is and is not legal, that excuse becomes a lot harder to pass scrutiny.
So basically in that state if you live in a house with doors, that's enough to justify a no-knock raid. Oh yeah, I'm sure that'll never be abused by lazy and/or malicious cops looking to spice up their day. /s
Yeah, Burr is not on the side of the american public(or the public of any other country in fact), so expecting him to even consider doing anything that would so much as inconvenience the spy agencies would be naive.
You done goofed Jackn. If you're going to try and pretend to be both sides, at least change your IP address when you swap between them. Still, nice of you to let everyone know who's been spamming the article.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
So I take it you're not going to provide your personal financial data then AC? What do you have to hide? Who's paying you to try and draw attention away from the ISP's and deflect it onto other companies?