THe problem is its likely a plane that was never built to grant consumers Wi-Fi that now does so. And they didn't install an entire new, dedicated system that doesnt touch the flight ops in the plane. So now we have this problem.
It would appear that electroplating is a little more complex then pressing start. Depending on your solution and intended thickness, different temperatures, times, and current What you describe, a series of setting dials/digital incriminators is also a user interface, just not a computer one. If this was nothing more then a special chamber to hold the solution and was otherwise dumb, it probably would be A) cheaper and B) useless. The entire point is to provide a semblance of the control provided by professional machines, but still fit on you workbench.
I would argue that if you don't want full and robust configuration of your semi-professional electroplating machine, your probably not the target market, which seems to be high end "makers" (as in the maker Faire), either professional or hobbiest. Your abhorrence of the cloud really seems secondary.
Now I hate the cloud aspects, and the phone app only aspect. A desktop control app would seem to be preferable, as it sounds like otherwise your phone is tethered to the device until completion. And in no way should this need to access a proprietary server system for it to work. that is just ridiculous.
Exactly. He has committed seizure of that person. which is what i said happened. You seem to be arguing against yourself here. Let me change my wording again, so your trollish pedantry can not get in the way of my question. Has the go ahead to search a vehicle within 100 miles of the border to determine the presence, or lack thereof, of aliens been interpreted to allow the collection of possessions, papers, and/or electronic devices unrelated to the presence, or lack thereof, of aliens? By interpreted I mean has this been attempted by border patrol. I am asking because after much investigation into previous tech dirt posts on this topic, I can't find the case where these two rulings have actually been conflated to create the hypotetical 100-mile constitution free zone.
Actually, that would be the seizure of a person, not personal belongings. Technically at that point only you enter custody. And being obtuse does not detract from my argument. Some district courts (not the SC) have rlued police have the right to stop anyone within 100 miles of the border to search the vehicle for aliens. But does that stop also grant the ability to confiscate anything they want as when you are searched at the border?
A small claims court for Copyright would, ok, maybe not be a disaster. But if its effective, meaning quick (so as to not create a massive backlog) and cheap (to make it useful, also will *require* quick trials), I see a lot of potential for abuse, on both sides. Let me use a problem I had with normal small claims courts to illustrate the problem.
I gave my 30 days notice and left an apartment. After another 30 ahd passed I was still waiting for my deposit. When I finally did recieve notice about my deposit, it was in the form a a notice that they had to spend my deposit on 'cleaning' the apartment. 2 things about the law in my area, you can only deduct cleaning expenses beyond normal wear and tear (they went beyond that), and you must notify the former tenant within 30 days, or forfit the deposit. So I Took them to small claims court. They actually showed up, but begged poverty (you're not supposed to spend deposits, but oh well) and got the judge to set them up on a payment plan. Which they promptly didn't pay. So I took them to court again (see where this is going?). I refused to take them to court the third time, because i wasn't going to keep doing it and eat even more in court fees.
So heres how I, the troll, evade the copyright small claims court. Everytime i get a judgement rendered against me, that video comes down. but i just pop up with a different face and a different name and the video. Forcing them to pay again to enforce the takedown. Its the same problem rights holders have with the current system, but now they have to pay every fucking time to get their video taken down.
But what if the court had enough authority to get me to pay? Well now the trolling comes from another angle. Now a firm can file a claim in New York while i live in Los Angeles, and rake in those $50-$100 default judgements when I can't fly across the country to defend myself. And if you force the suit to be in the jurisdiction of the defendant, now the independent artist can't enforce his copyrights, because he can't fly all over the country enforcing them.
Providing both a cheap quick venue for copyright holders to air their grievances and at the same time providing defendants the time and ability to mount a vigorous defense is difficult. I see repeated instances where trolls could come in to abuse the process just as bad if not worse then with a DMCA takedown.
Furthermore, as for independent artists, yes they like their work shared. They do not like their work to be appropriated, however. And that is becoming a big problem in the photography, digital music, and animation industries.
DRM =/= hakcing devices. Some forms yes. But many forms of DRM do not harm or manipulate your computer.
I apparently gave you too much credit. I was holding off on referring to your approach as the anarchists approach, but that appears to be what you are advocating. Just burn it all down, and sort out the pieces later.
Doing away with the DMCA would leave us without several laws regarding copyright in digital mediums. Likely this would result in a worse situation for everyone, as court attempt to use the Copyright Act to fill the void.
We need no other provisions? Here are a few other Provisions of the DMCA that were and still are needed: Provisions for copies made in the course of repairing digital devices. (under the Copyright Act, this was ruled illegal) Statutory Licencing for Broadcasting Additional support for Library Archival of phonographs Recognizing International copyrights.
And that's just based on reading a few summaries. I'm sure there are more provisions which we will find interesting to lack.
We need copyright reform, including the DMCA. But that means actual comprehensive reform, not just burning it all down and seeing whats left.
Alright, ive gone back link to link, article to article through the archive looking for the answer to one question: has the Supreme Court ruled on the "100-mile constitution free zone"? Has it even been instituted to the degree suggested? I can find links appellate court rulings vacating the 4th amendment AT the border. I can find other links to rulings which claim that 100 miles is the defined 'reasonable distance' from the border in which you can search a vehicle for aliens. However, I can find no article which claims that these two rules combine to allow seizure personal belongings 100 miles from the border. I can see how it could be ruled this way, but has this legal theory ever been tested (IE has the border patrol actually tried it)?
The biggest problem with the Throw it out Mantra is that you are suggesting writing a major copyright bill with thousands of provisions, and getting it through the most obstructionist, pro-copyright industries congress in history. And expecting it to be better then what we have.
It solves the true problem: "guilty until proven innocent." Everything else is just details.
...or you could just throw it out and institute sane rules that preserve the sanctity of due process and the presumption of innocence.
Those details you speak of matter greatly. Changing the DMCA to a notice and notice system would fix your issues with assumption of guilt without having to completely rewrite digital copyright law. It also gives rights owners a way to address concerns with infringement without A) creating a small claims court for copyright which would be a disaster, and B) requiring a rights holder to go through a bloated suit process for someone they likely cant serve. Remember we do actually have to think about independent artists. So we maintain the notice system, but remove the assumption of guilt inherent in the existing system.
as for CDA 230, It seems all the major case law with CDA took at least a year, and in several cases lesser defendants had already settled before the big companies, with the deep pockets, finally got a good ruling. And that was with issues far less financially backed then copyright. If you think that somehow a more strict immunity will prevent repeated lawsuits and repeated appeals, you're wrong. Yelp gets sued regularly for behavior its immune to under CDA 230 (alongside some dickish behavior of its own). The only reason Yelp is still in business is the case law has clearly been decided, so they no longer need to go through the lengthly trial every time. But back in the YouTube and Veoh days? Plenty of potential loopholes to pick at. thats what killed Veoh. The sanctity of due process is what killed Veoh.
Except without the safe harbors YouTube would totally have LOST its suits. Its entire defense hinged on the fact that by adhering to the law it was protected against the lawsuit. YouTube is not an ISP, therefore not subject to the common carrier doctrine. Even if it was, the same long drawn out lawsuit would have occured. Nothing in Common Carrier Doctrine would have changed the way The rulings were repeatedly appealed, would have done nothing to speed up the lawsuit or allow the lawsuit to be dismissed.
MegaUpload went out of business, yes, but because of the rogue actions of law enforcement. If allowed to remain a going concern, Or if its assets had not been seized, it very likely could have kept going, as it had the cash to fight (which is why he was never sued). It has yet to be decided if MegaUpload violated the safe harbors. Evidence provided to us suggests no, but we shall see.
Veoh yes got sued to death before being vidicated by the courts. But what took them down was court costs, not penalties for infringing on copyright. This has less to do with the safe harbors failing then the way the court system works failing.
Aereo was not subject to safe harbor provisions and never would be, as they do not host user generated content. Please dont conflate seperate issues.
You recommend a regime where if I upload say The Avengers 2 in HD and then go off grid, the site hosting the content would never have to take it down. Because even with the court declaring me guilty of infringement, the host isn't liable if it remains up. So without me to take it down, it remains up indefinitely. The safe harbors attempt a balancing act, providing a mechanism to get infringing content taken down by the host, while sheilding the host from claims of copyright infringement. They have problems, having no way to prevent censorious abuse. But they do work to prevent copyright infringement judgments against hosts, as shown by the YouTube and Veoh lawsuits.
Throwing out the safe harbor provisions doesn't solve anything. Fix the issues in the courts, as with all copyright disputes make fee shifting the norm, institute penalties (on top of the fee shifting) for those who sue hosts who are adhering to the DMCA and make it so false DMCA claims are punishable, and you have fixed most of the problems with the safe harbors.
Masnick is not saying in this article that there should be 'no regulation'. He's saying that A) The safe harbor regulations are GOOD. B) Removing safe harbor regulations would be BAD. This is the opposite of no regulation.
I enjoy that you are saying we need regulation to rein in big companies (your standard oil comparison), then use that argument to say we should give big companies (recording industry) free reign. Seems a bit strange doesn't it?
The complaint and the article focus on YouTube, so I am going to address the rest of your comments in that vein. Apparently YouTube people are making money 'using the value that other people'. I am going to assume you mean the value that other people create. Ok. Lets look at the top grossing YouTube channels. That should give us a good idea of how much money is being made off other people's content, since its all pirates.
Well, you've got official channels from Taylor Swift, WWE, Spinnin Rec, and EMI. So no piracy there. 3 Original content channels, Disney collector, Littlebabybum, and stampylonghead.
Then we get to the stuff that you need to look at a little closer. movieclipsTRAILERS, for instance. They have a significant amount of original content. But they do Have official trailers from major movie studios. If they do monetize trailers, its likely revenue sharing with the studio, as I doubt the studio didn't upload the trailer to ContentID. So likely an accepted advertising strategy, since the goal of a trailer is not to make money but to put the trailer to eyeballs. They spend money doing it. Here they get eyeballs for free. getmovies is strange. They have a lot of Russian childrens programming, and its unclear whether its pirated or not. Given their size I doubt unsanctioned media from them would go unnoticed long, and some of their content has been up for at least 4 years suggesting their content is licenced/owned by them. Finally we have pewdiepie. A sweedish video game commentator. Video game commentary is an unclear area of copyright law right now. Some creative elements come from the game. But many do not, leading to a new transformative work which generally doesn't hurt the market for the original game. Given the wide acceptance he gets from developers (except nintendo) it seems to be legit. You can't say pewdiepie didn't create the videos they uploaded, even if they didn't create the underlying game.
$100 million dollar movies are rapidly taken down, if they even manage to get put up in the first place. hell 1 million dollar movies get taken down pretty quickly if they manage to get past ContentID in the first place.
Now tell me, how is YouTube legally liable for the actions of others? Why, legally, should Youtube, which not only adheres to the law when it comes to copyright, but goes beyond the law to protect legacy content creators at the expense of smaller, independent content creators, be liable for the actions of a 'greasy blob'.
All Mike is saying in this article is that the target of a civil suit (or a criminal investigation) should be the person who committed the Tort (or crime), not a secondary party who happens to have bigger pockets.
The affordable care act was released when announced. You are conflating the (errornous) debate that no one READ the bill with the issue of announcing a bill to the news that the news (and congress) haven't received yet.
I think the big story here is that by this logic I should get replacements for any lost, stolen or broken DVDs/Blue-Rays. Because its not the disc I am buying. Its access to that content in a specific format. And my access to that content shouldn't be limited to the Temporal nature of the delivery mechanism.
More seriously, Music tried this very argument against format shifting (ripping and using an MP3 player), that we only bought the music in the cd format. It failed.
A) the government prefers dragnet survalence to targeted surveillance, B) by having the SIM encryption keys, they don't need malware to surveil your phone, and 3) If they can install malware on your phone wirelessly from a drone, its unlikely the SIM card encryption, which involves how the phone talks to the network, is of any benefit.