On one side, you've got an AG who was exposed for having his 'investigation' paid for by a third party with an axe to grind, and his legal documents written by the same third party. And who also tried, badly, to bluff his way out of it and act as though he had never even met or talked to the people writing his press releases and legal filings.
On the other hand you've got a judge who sees something off with the AG and his request, and refuses his fishing request.
And the judge is the one you imply is acting suspicious.
If you have any actual, you know, evidence that those commenting who don't agree with you are pirates, please, by all means share, because I don't know about other posters, but even completely free, legal or not, I still could not care enough about the rubbish the *AA's put out to bother with it.
Really, don't you lot have any better arguments other than the tired 'Everyone who disagrees with me must be doing it because they're a criminal!' line?
Had the issue been dealt with via legislation, and considering how in the pockets of the cable companies the ones who would be writing that legislation are, the resulting bill would have basically been little more than 'The cable companies can do anything they want, and no one is allowed to do anything about it. Also the billions in tax-breaks and subsidies they currently receive will be doubled, because money.'
If you're going to accuse someone of a crime, then you'd better be damn sure that they actually did it, given the potential consequences they face should you be wrong.
If you are going to knowingly lie about them committing a crime(or in the case of bogus DMCA claims, not care in the slightest if you lie), then the punishment for doing so should be severe, at the very least as bad as the punishment for what you are accusing them of, and ideally significantly more, along the lines of doubling the punishment the accused was facing for the crime in question.
I like to call it a 'self-fulfilling prophecy', and it goes like this:
1. Police are trained to see everyone around them as potential threats and enemies. 2. In response to this trained paranoia/'Us vs Them' mentality, police treat everyone around them as potential threats and enemies. 3. The public, upon being treated as potential threats and enemies, ceases to be on the side of the police, and instead see and treat them as likely threats and enemies. 4. The police, now being treated as they treat those around them, use this to justify their training/mentality, and further enshrine it in their training and how they act.
"We will not stand by idly as the White House, using the FCC, attempts to advance rules that imperil the future of the Internet.
I love how they still insist that Obama's behind this whole thing, as though he's just got to be the cause.
As a scapegoat, he seems rather lacking, but I suppose the alternative, admitting that the main driving forces behind the shift were the actions of the ISP's showing how needed the change was, and the massive support on both sides for said change, wouldn't fit the spin they've decided on.
As the White House said [link to WH statement], the Administration welcomes the opportunity to work with the new Congress to implement the changes the President has called for
I know both parties fully support government spying, and would sooner vote collectively to link their pay to the current minimum wage than agree to end mass spying, but I can't help but think how funny it would be if they called his bluff here, and crafting a bill or two designed to destroy the programs in place.
Watching the WH panic and desperately backpedal, and start calling for extensive 'studies' and 'examinations' before shutting down the programs would be pretty hilarious.
Of course, because clearly a government agency spying on americans and grabbing every bit of their data they can get their hands on is exactly like another government agency putting into place rules to if not eliminate, at least lesson cable company fuckery(and thanks to John Oliver for such a catchy, and accurate way of putting it).
and given the importance of maintaining the capabilities of the telephony metadata program
Each and every time they trot out that tired old lie, people and the press need to respond with a simple 'According to what evidence.?' Because to date, they haven't provided so much as a scrap of evidence showing how important their precious program is at stopping any real threats, or that it has even done so.
Wanting all the data they can scoop up is very different than needing all the data they can scoop up, and while they've certainly shown the first, they have yet to show evidence for the second.
Ah yes, straight to the insults, that's certainly a convincing argument.
But hey, I've got a few minutes to burn, so here:
'This is a cheap shot that is beneath you. Techdirt has always been an OPINION site. We express our opinion. Always have. We've never suggested that the site is some sort of bogus "objective reporting of both sides" of a story, because we think anyone doing that is misrepresenting the truth. We present our opinion.'
There, that was Mike stating pretty clearly that TD is a site for opinions, nor 'journalistic reporting', and hence has no requirement for both sides to present their take on something(and in fact he notes that be doesn't believe that such is always a good thing).
Now then, if you can, go ahead and provide a quote where he states the opposite.
Yup. If you don't remove links to infringing instances of a file, then you're supporting and encouraging piracy. If you do remove links, then you're supporting and encouraging piracy and trying to hide it.
If you need any more indication that the 'trial' he would get should he wind up in the US would be nothing but a pre-determined one, this would certainly be a prime example. They've already determined that he's guilty, now it's just a matter of twisting the law until it does what they want.
In your eagerness to brush this off, you seem to have missed the fact that Paypal's half of the story was included in the source article, making contacting them for 'their side of the story' redundant.
You are also mistaken in claiming that this is a 'journalism' site, it isn't, and in fact Mike has stated this fact repeatedly and consistently. It's a site for analysis and opinions, and as such there's no absolute need to get every side of the story before writing up an article. But hey, if you want to go the extra mile, and contact Paypal for their statement on the matter, feel free.
So I'm curious, do you honestly not know better, or are you assuming we don't?
The FCC's actions have nothing to do with 'taking over the internet', the purpose for the change was to apply some much needed regulations to the companies that provide access to it, and keep them from using their monopoly/duopoly positions to their own advantage, at the price of their 'customers'.