They should put a surtax on registration of copyrights and only allow french registered copyright to utilize the service. If the copyright holders have to pay for the service then at least there will be accountability for it.
probably not, but i would figure they would have to show him the documents to get his input (ala the upload link that he only used to test, which was never published so anyone other then him could see).
you do realize you just made an argument for not granting extradition.
If NZ has similar laws and "crime" was committed by a citizen within his own country, there is no need to cart him off to another country to be prosecuted.
see i was thinking the issue with electronic documents was the conditions of bail. Didn't kimDot have a restriction against using computers as part of his bail conditions.
if they were complicit in the copyright infringement that action would void the safe harbor provision which means you would have no problem suing them into oblivion.
That fact that Viacom failed proves they are not complicit by the legal definition.
Which comes back to the same point why not just pay 37 billion and pocket the extra 213 billion.
"Equally, google could protect the sanctity of marriage by not linking to gay sites like disney and could prevent terrorism by removing links to all sites in foreign languages or hosted outside the US."
btw if you were being sarcastic "good one"
you really need to put the sarcasm sign link at the bottom of the post.
Jack Valenti complained about commercial skipping when he testified to congress.
"Now, what does that mean, Mr. Chairman? It means that when you are playing back a recording, which you made 2 days or whenever -- you are playing it back. You are sitting in your home in your easy chair and here comes the commercial and it is right in the middle of a Clint Eastwood film and you don't want to be interrupted. So, what do you do? You pop this beta scan and a 1-minute commercial disappears in 2 seconds."
if skipping commercials is a copyright infringement
does that mean taking down a site and therefore blocking distribution of content that want to be distributed by the site also a copyright infringement.
And if that is the case, doesn't that mean that the US government is guilty of willful infringement for taking the mega upload domain down.
Is BEIN similar guilty for demand domain blocking of the pirate bay.
except the financial harm arguement doesn't exist unless you ignore reality.
Advertisers don't pay for timeshifted ad runs. If you were to record your favorite show with a non commercial skipping vcr the advertiser would not pay for that ad viewing irregardless if you were a good boy and sat thru every commercial or if you simply hit the fast forward button.
So the economic loss is zero when compared to the fair use alternative that this product is designed to replace.
It only when you falsely allocate those views to non stubstitute (watching the show live) that you get a false economic loss.
what day was this from ?
They should put a surtax on registration of copyrights and only allow french registered copyright to utilize the service. If the copyright holders have to pay for the service then at least there will be accountability for it.
Re: Re: Re:
except lord censorship said he had no problem with the message if it didn't get posted on a channel that was making money from it.
So dan bull is basically giving lord censorship exactly what he wanted. Which in turn means that there is no infringement for THESE upload.
shouldn't anti trust laws apply to this action given the market place dominance iTunes has over other apps marketplace.
Re: Horse Hockey
would you still support the system if the result of a false positive was the loss of every copyright held by the accusing copyright holder.
Re: Re: Provisio Injuctis!
probably not, but i would figure they would have to show him the documents to get his input (ala the upload link that he only used to test, which was never published so anyone other then him could see).
Re:
you do realize you just made an argument for not granting extradition.
If NZ has similar laws and "crime" was committed by a citizen within his own country, there is no need to cart him off to another country to be prosecuted.
see i was thinking the issue with electronic documents was the conditions of bail. Didn't kimDot have a restriction against using computers as part of his bail conditions.
Re: Re: Re:
if they were complicit in the copyright infringement that action would void the safe harbor provision which means you would have no problem suing them into oblivion.
That fact that Viacom failed proves they are not complicit by the legal definition.
Which comes back to the same point why not just pay 37 billion and pocket the extra 213 billion.
Re:
"Equally, google could protect the sanctity of marriage by not linking to gay sites like disney and could prevent terrorism by removing links to all sites in foreign languages or hosted outside the US."
btw if you were being sarcastic "good one"
you really need to put the sarcasm sign link at the bottom of the post.
Re:
if artist and musicians and studios and labels are losing 250 billion a year as you claim
then would 37 billion a year in cost be a good investment.
Why not pay Google 37 billion to setup such a system and pocket the extra 213 billion.
who clicked thru to the NC side just to see where you ended up
Re:
except that statement is a lie
Jack Valenti complained about commercial skipping when he testified to congress.
"Now, what does that mean, Mr. Chairman? It means that when you are playing back a recording, which you made 2 days or whenever -- you are playing it back. You are sitting in your home in your easy chair and here comes the commercial and it is right in the middle of a Clint Eastwood film and you don't want to be interrupted. So, what do you do? You pop this beta scan and a 1-minute commercial disappears in 2 seconds."
if skipping commercials is a copyright infringement
does that mean taking down a site and therefore blocking distribution of content that want to be distributed by the site also a copyright infringement.
And if that is the case, doesn't that mean that the US government is guilty of willful infringement for taking the mega upload domain down.
Is BEIN similar guilty for demand domain blocking of the pirate bay.
Re: Re: Excuses
except the financial harm arguement doesn't exist unless you ignore reality.
Advertisers don't pay for timeshifted ad runs. If you were to record your favorite show with a non commercial skipping vcr the advertiser would not pay for that ad viewing irregardless if you were a good boy and sat thru every commercial or if you simply hit the fast forward button.
So the economic loss is zero when compared to the fair use alternative that this product is designed to replace.
It only when you falsely allocate those views to non stubstitute (watching the show live) that you get a false economic loss.
in other news fox sues Swanson tv dinners for inducing infringement
because that created a product that causes people to go to the bathroom during the commercial break.
An action that is designed to deny content producers their hard earned advertising income.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pirate Dan
so do you support complete ignoring the success and request for changes to the law of the record industry because of this.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/12/artists-lawsuit-major-record-labels-are-the-real-pirates/
technically they took the stuff and didn't pay for it later too.
so by your standard we should never give another record company any change they want to copyright law forever because they screwed up once.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pirate Dan
and how do you verify that when you hide your identity.
Re: Maximalist absurdities.
should we call you sheldon from now on
http://www.badgroove.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Big-Bang-Theory-Leonards-sarcasm-sign.png
better title
ICE combats piracy by annoying people who don't pirate even more.