I don't know, to be honest. I checked the page, and can't find anything definitive one way or the other: https://fundanything.com/en/campaigns/patenttroll Considering you get access to the exclusive podcast or other rewards if you donated more, I'm guessing this money may have gone straight to Carolla. It's also worth noting the EFF isn't mentioned anywhere on that page.
Did you donate directly to him, or the EFF, though? Your EFF donation isn't being wasted, it's going towards fighting the patent directly with the patent office, it's important to make that distinction.
I would love to say I'm surprised by this, but after seeing what's been going on with Prenda and Malibu Media, I'm not. Carolla saved his own skin, rather than keep fighting for the greater good and take a risk in regard to attorney fees, not unlike a lot of those defendants. It's unfortunate, but not unexpected. At least the EFF are fighting on.
Actually, Carolla is the one who has folded, not the EFF. They are still fighting to have the patent invalidated. They published a response to this yesterday, it's worth a read - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/good-bad-and-ugly-adam-carollas-settlement-podcasting-troll They state "EFF’s own challenge to Personal Audio’s patent is on a separate track and will continue. Our case is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the Patent Office. We are on schedule for a hearing in December with a ruling likely by April 2015. Carolla’s settlement does not impact our case."
You make a good point. Still, when it comes to torrents, it can be a double edged sword when you set up a honeypot (i.e. when TPB outed Prenda). Then again, what has happened to Prenda because of it? No jail time, and even with sanctions they still netted a nice haul.
I admit I haven't followed this as closely as a lot of you, but I'm not sure what to make of Malibu. Is the porn production just a front so that they can deny the troll moniker (unlike Prenda, who made the mistake of trying to produce porn to sue over when the game was already over)? Or do they want to double dip, make money from the trolling and the porn production? I don't pretend to know the answer to that.
It is very possible, though it would require Prenda-level stupidity for anyone to think this would be a good idea in the long run. Something similar happened recently, with the rise of Bitcoin mining malware. This malware runs in the background, leaving the user thinking their PC is running slowly, not realizing it's actually bogged down running something like cgminer. There have even been apps infected with this malware, so it's not as farfetched as you might think. http://www.coindesk.com/google-pulls-six-mobile-wallpaper-apps-bitcoin-mining-malware/
I hate it when things like this happen, this was just the headline Malibu needed ahead of the 30th after taking it on the chin recently. You have to wonder if it wasn't by design that they pushed ahead with this one, considering it's not very likely to be profitable for them.
You raise some good points, although I'm not wild about Palemoon's licensing: http://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml I think the opportunity is ripe for someone to launch a Kickstarter for a new browser, one that is committed to FOSS principles and under a BSD-style license or the GPL. WebKit has been a good alternative, but the QtWebKit engine and its predecessor KHTML are all but dead. With browsers like Qupzilla and Opera now being built on Google's Chromium/QtWebEngine framework, the only truly open browser still in development is NetSurf, which just isn't able to meet the needs of most users right now. Who knows, maybe some enterprising young programmers will seize on the opportunity.
It's fine, no offense meant on my part. I just want to make sure that information is out there, especially since several commenters before you recommenhded it.
Ghostery has been getting mentioned on a lot of other news sites I frequent since this story broke, as well. It would not surprise me if they astroturf comments pages to promote it when there are stories like this, since it's in their financial interest to do so. Let me be clear and say that there is no evidence of that, to the best of my knowledge, that's just speculation on my part.
I agree with all of those EXCEPT for Ghostery, given the tone of this article and discussion, I don't understand why it's being advocated. It is specifically used by a marketing company to generate revenue by selling data to advertisers, and is allegedly used to help advertisers create more technology that is difficult to block.
I know it won't matter in the long run, but this seems ripe for a Tesla-esque petition. Based on his handling of Prenda alone, I'm sure the Internet canb get 100,000 signatures in support of Judge Wright.
Where, exactly, does this deal allow for that (or has any credible analayst claimed that it does)...? It doesn't seem like you have any understanding of how ContentID works, and are just making things up. Your entire first paragraph is just nonsensical.
ContentID, from what I've seen from these gaming videos, ends up benefitting Google AND the publisher (or in this case label) with innocent content creators caught in too wide a net. But, as that article highlights, Google avoids lawsuits and tons of DMCA takedown requests with an imperfect algorithim, publishers/artists get EXTRA revenue they shouldn't be entitled to, and individual content creators have little to no redress, in terms of challenging false positives. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is bad for indie labels (or good for the public at large), maybe I'm missing something here.
I'm not saying you are inherently wrong, but are framing this issue in a one sided way that The Register also did. Google are in a bind with the DMCA takedowns as is (and a Tech Dirt reader I'm sure you're aware). When you say "Why does this matter? Getting your stuff taken down from YouTube is hugely costly and in practice, almost impossible, thanks to "safe harbor" provisions designed to protect ISPs and other service providers in the mid-1990s, when the public internet was in its infancy. It requires an individual URL-by-URL take-down notice to be filed for each infringement. Google can continue to monetize the label's music via YouTube, even without the label's permission."
I am of the opinion that URL by URL take downs are absolutely necessary as a measure of preserving free speech. A lot of channels I view have erroneously had content taken down (Mike has written about this before - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131211/17365325537/youtube-fails-explaining-flood-takedowns-lets -play-videos.shtml ), and you're suggesting we make the situation even worse for the sake of Indie artists? I'm sorry, but implementing an overly broad takedown system so that Indie artists can get every possible penny of royalties is something I'm imposed to, just in the same way that I'm opposed to DRM in Firefox for the sake of Hollywood/Netflix. So in regard to that, I think that Google is doing something that benefits the general public, if not a certain sub-sect of it that are opposed to the current DMCA takedown system (which I already feel is too draconian).
My opinion in regard to The Register is that they're taking a potshot at Google here. But, by writing a sky is falling type of article like that, they provide great ammunition to copyright maximalists and artists who need every last revenue stream (i.e. ones not signed to a major label), who are willing to sacrifice the greater public interest (and overlook free speech concerns) to advance their own individual ones. Is it a "bad" deal? Sure, but no worse than ones artists sign with Spotify, iTunes, etc. in the eyes of many observers - http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/06/18/inside-youtubes-fight-with-indie-labels-over-new-music-servic e/ and I would argue that some aspects of the deal (in regard to takedowns) advance the public interest as well.
I'm speaking in regard to the language, and the way The Register has interpreted the contract. Like this statement: "In short, the move will preserve Google's illegal supply chain by cracking down on its legal supply chain." Wow, that's a really nuanced take on it. And "mafia style"? Come on.
Also, "One legal source familiar with digital music contracts claimed the terms amount to a restraint of trade.
"It's a contract so bad that you would never sign it in normal circumstances. But Google has a gun to your head," our source said.
Any indie music labels who take this fight all the way will want speedy justice from the EU."
Really, if the deal is that bad (tantamount to mafia extortion), you couldn't find one credible source in the music industry (especially from an indie label) to go on record? The whole thing smacks of shoddy reporting at best, and considering it's coming from a known shill for MS, I have a hard time giving them the benefit of the doubt.