E. Zachary Knight 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1445) comment rss

  • On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'? Except He Doesn't

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 01:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.

    I see 3 situations where copyright infringement is a criminal offense:

    (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

    (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

    (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.


    A) says that the person needs to be making money, or at least attempting to make money.

    B) says the total value of the infringing works needs to be more than $1000

    3) says it must be done prior to the commercial release of the product with full knowledge of that.

    In none of those cases is your average citizen going to commit a criminal offense. The average person using bittorrent or youtube is not seeking a profit. The average person is not going to make available $1000 worth of product available. The average person is not going to have access to the prerelease product.

    So I will take my lashing and admit that yes the user doesn't have to make money, but the people who are convicted of criminal copyright infringement are not your average crop of people. That is why Thomas-Rasset was being tried in a civil trial and not a criminal trial.

  • On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'? Except He Doesn't

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 01:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.

    To continue from my other comment,

    A site shouldn't have to sue in order to get back in business. They should first be convicted of illegal activity before losing their site. That is how real justice works. Innocent until proven guilty.

    Like I have said before, even with all the flaws of the DMCA, one thing it did right was putting the liability on the actual infringer and not the tool the infringer used. Another thing it did right was the notice and counter-notice process. That is much like the bail process of the current justice system. an Infringer is accused, the video is taken down (arrested), the accused posts a counter-notice (bail), the video is brought back and then it goes to trial.

    SOPA throws all that out the window and under the bus.

  • On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'? Except He Doesn't

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 01:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.

    Yes because everyone can afford a protracted legal battle that will take 5-10 years to finally clear up. However in reality land, the person's site is offline cannot take payments, cannot display ads and generally cannot do business until the trial is over.

  • On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'? Except He Doesn't

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 01:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.

    You don't even need to make a profit to be guilty of criminal infringement.

    Yes you do. Otherwise it is a civil offense. It might help your position if you actually understood copyright law.

  • On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'? Except He Doesn't

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 01:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.

    See my later comment about bail. Everyone arrested has an opportunity to seek and pay bail so that they may be free during the trial. That does not happen under SOPA.

  • On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'? Except He Doesn't

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 01:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.

    Except, everyone arrested and tried has an opportunity to seek bail that allows them to go free while on trial. There is no such process under SOPA for an accused site. They are tried sentenced and punished by the purported copyright owner long before the justice system gets involved.

  • On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'? Except He Doesn't

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 01:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.

    The legal system is not involved at all. All the copyright owner, or purported copyright owner, has to do is send in a DMCA style notice to any and all ad provider, payment processor and ISP that may be involved in the site and the site is effectively cut off from the world.

    Sure the site can send in a counter notice, but there is no obligation for the ad/payment/ISP entities to reconnect service. At least not until a court says they have too. But that only happens after irreparable harm has already happened to a non-infringing but accused site.

    So yeah, wonderful process. Guilty until proven innocent. Ask the Salem witches and the targets of the inquisition, That always worked in the past, why not now.

  • On the post: A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 11:03am

    Re:

    Let me get this straight. Using 20/20 hindsight, we find that every time the content industry freaked out about a new technology claiming it will destroy said content industry, yet in the end, everything worked out for the better of said content industry, that this time it will be different?

  • On the post: RIAA Admits It Wants DMCA Overhaul; Blames Judges For 'Wrong' Interpretation

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2011 @ 08:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!

    One problem with your comparison. The newspaper and magazines seeks, hire and publish material. The magazines and newspaper have complete editorial control over what gets published. YouTube does not. YouTube has no editorial control over the content. None at all. To claim otherwise is a lie.

    Those rankings and ads? Those are all controlled by the users. No video gets advertising unless the uploader requests it. No video get ranked unless the viewers rank it. Nothing is done by YouTube that would give it editorial control over content.

  • On the post: Record Labels: When You Make It Impossible For People To Pay You, You Drive Them To Unauthorized Versions

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2011 @ 06:47am

    Re:

    Set a single price that maximizes worldwide sales.

    No matter what you do, it will be cheaper in some countries that can afford to pay more and too expensive for countries that can only afford less. But that is a problem that one must accept and experiment with.

  • On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2011 @ 02:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I am not claiming that bootleg tapes or other forms of offline and online infringement should be made legal.

    The DMCA addressed the issue of online infringement in a manner that was actually fair to all parties involved. The owner of the copyright is the only entity or person responsible for policing their copyrights. That responsibility should not be thrust onto a third party.

    Under SOPA, it will no longer be the copyright owner who is responsible for policing, it will now be the service provider. Under SOPA, YouTube will be responsible for reviewing 48 hours of video uploaded ever hour. They will be responsible for ensuring that all proper licenses and releases are in place. That is an undue burden for a single provider. They will not be able to do this job without an army of lawyers. If they were to go this route, the service would be unusable by the public that currently uses it. And it will fail.

    So yes it SOPA would end up censoring legal speech and other legit content. If the regulatory burdens don't kill the services, the false accusations of copyright infringement will.

  • On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2011 @ 01:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Except Viacom lost. Big time at that.

    To say that YouTube was founded on infringement is a baseless accusation. YouTube was founded on the same principles as Facebook, MySpace, GeoCities, Twitter and many many other user controlled sites. Those principals are the ability for the users of the internet to express themselves and share content with one another.

    That is noble and should be encouraged. SOPA will discourage such innovation.

  • On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2011 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re:

    Mike censored nothing. The post is still there to be viewed and read. Because you are incapable of clicking the text that reads "Click to show comment" does not mean it is not available to be read.

  • On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2011 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Copyright Maximalist debate technique number one:

    When faced with simple logic that reduces your maximalist rationalizations to a laughable pile of ash,

    resort to ad hominem.

  • On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2011 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Of course in a world where no one breaks the law and everyone respects everyone else's rights, everything would be fine and dandy.

    Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world .We live in a world where that doesn't happen. So we need a balance between respect of individual rights and prosecution of law breakers.

    SOPA does not provide that. It puts the prosecution of law breakers over the rights of individuals. It does not allow for a distinction of legal content and free speech on sites content companies deem "dedicated to infringing activities"

    We have shown numerous times just what sort of sites the content industry deems infringing. Many of which are completely legal. Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Craigslist, eBay etc all would have been blocked from the web had they come under this law.

    That is extremely sad and scary.

  • On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2011 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you are saying that Youtube should be illegal and anyone who uses it legally to spread their protected speech or legal copyrighted content should be censored all because a few bad apples post infringing content? Gotcha.

    In reality land, Youtube was protected prior to the DMCA because of the Betamax ruling. In that ruling Sony's Betmax player and other VCRs could not be blocked from the market because a few of the uses were infringing. The Supreme Court's ruling clearly stated that banning the Betamax because of the infringing uses would have cause irreparable harm to those who rely on it for legal uses.

    That is what SOPA intends to do. Those who support SOPA do not care about the legal content and the free speech that will, not maybe, be censored.

  • On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2011 @ 11:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That is exactly what the Betamax ruling and the DMCA currently allows. Youtube cannot be blocked censored or banned because some users infringes on someone else's copyright. Why? Because there is a large ammount of free speech and other legal content on the site as well.

    SOPA will allow for future YouTubes to be blocked for acting exactly as Youtube does currently. That is unacceptable to me and all the people whose speech would be censored.

  • On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2011 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes because the ability to speed is protected by the first amendment.

    I have a better question than that posed above and that reflects on comments you have just made.

    You said:

    I am smart enough to understand that my unlimited rights to free expression are balanced against the rights of others. There are limits to almost everything.

    If that is the case, is it right to silence 1000 people's legitimate free speech in order to stop 1 pirate?

  • On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Quickly Showing That It's Out Of Touch, As Google, CEA Consider Dropping Out

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2011 @ 07:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

    If this law shuts down Youtube or another similar site, it is censoring speech that is not infringing. That is what this law does. It is a shotgun approach to a problem that needs surgical precision.

  • On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Quickly Showing That It's Out Of Touch, As Google, CEA Consider Dropping Out

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2011 @ 07:10am

    Re: not to be confused with local chambers either

    Regulatory capture is just as much a Democratic platform as it is a Republican platform. Add to that, the whims of Hollywood are just as obeyed by both major parties. So It is hard to really blame this just on Republicans.

Next >>