The plaintiff claims to be the "Inventor of Email", not the inventor of an email program. At the time he wrote his software EMAIL, he was a high school student working for a company in New Jersey, so this isn't a matter of being the first email software written in/for India. There is no question that the claim to being the "Inventor of Email" is a lie and very easily can be demonstrated as such. In fact, it's so easy to demonstrate that essentially every article that Techdirt has written to express the opinion that his claim is a lie has provided the evidence that said opinion is based on.
Also, the plaintiff does not have a judgement against Gawker. He and Gawker settled the suit for $750000.00 and it never went to trial. Thiel was funding multiple lawsuits against Gawker at the time and after the Bolea verdict against Gawker they could no longer afford further litigation so they settled any remaining suits as the path of least resistance. The plaintiff does not have any judgments in any court of law confirming his claim as correct. It would be almost unimaginable that any court could ever side in his favor. This is all about a war of attrition to use the cost of defending such a lawsuit to bankrupt the defendant. This is meritless weaponized litigation used for punishment, not justice.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me...
Insulting someone is not grounds for a lawsuit. Defamation is about materially untrue statements being made as fact in such a way that it injures someone's reputation. Mike has never said anything that is untrue about Ayyadurai. The man did not invent email, and this is established historical fact. The lawsuit is baseless and the fact that you are championing it as just deserts shows how little respect you have for the 1st Amendment.
Now, I certainly don't agree APIs should be covered by copyright, and Apple and Microsoft make no qualms about any software developers using their APIs within their OS software, but there's a distinction between Fair Use within the bounds of software and outright copyright infringement of those APIs.
The statement "I don't agree that API's should be covered by copyright", and the statement "there's a distinction between Fair Use within the bounds of software and outright copyright infringement of those APIs" are fundamentally incompatible. If API's shouldn't be covered by copyright, then there can't be infringement, and fair use isn't a consideration. If they aren't covered by copyright, anyone can use them, at any time, for any reason.
1. Do we keep logs? What is that? Seriously, we have a strict no-logs policy over our customers. The only information we keep is customers’ e-mail addresses which are needed for our service registration (we keep the e-mail addresses until the customer closes the account).
2. NordVPN is based out of Panama.
3. No tools are used to monitor our customers in any case. We are only able to see the servers’ load, which helps us optimize our service and provide the best possible Internet speed to our users.
4. We use the third-party live support tool, but it is not linked to the customers’ accounts.
5. When we receive any type of legal notices, we cannot do anything more than to ignore them, simply because they have no legal bearing to us. Since we are based in Panama, all legal notices have to be dealt with according to Panamanian laws first. Luckily they are very friendly to Internet users.
6.If we receive a valid court order, firstly it would have to comply with the laws of Panama. In that case, the court settlement should happen in Panama first, however were this to happen, we would not be able to provide any information because we keep exactly nothing about our users.
7. We do not have a warrant canary or any other alert system, because as it was mentioned above, we operate under the laws of Panama and we guarantee that any information about our customers will not be distributed to any third party.
8. We do not restrict any BitTorrent or other file-sharing applications on most of our servers.
9. We accept payments via Bitcoin, Credit Card, PayPal, Banklink, Webmoney (Paysera). Bitcoin is the best payment option to maintain your anonymity as it has only the paid amount linked to the client. Users who purchase services via PayPal are linked with the usual information the seller can see about the buyer.
10. We have high anonymity solutions which we would like to recommend to everyone seeking real privacy. One of them is Double VPN. The traffic is routed through at least two hoops before it reaches the Internet. The connection is encrypted within two layers of cipher AES-256-CBC encryption. Another security solution – Tor over VPN. Firstly, the traffic is encrypted within NordVPN layer and later sent to the Tor network and exits to the Internet through one of the Tor exit relays. Both of these security solutions give a great encryption and anonymity combination. The benefit of using these solutions is that the chances of being tracked are eliminated. In addition, you are able to access .onion websites when connected to Tor over VPN. Furthermore, our regular servers have a strong encryption which is 2048bit SSL for OpenVPN protocol, AES-256bit for L2TP.
In addition to that, we have advanced security solutions, such as the “kill switch” and DNS leak protection which provide the maximum possible security level for our customers.
11. NordVPN has its own DNS servers, also our customers can use any DNS server they like.
12. Our servers are outsourced and hosted by a third parties. Currently our servers are in 26 countries: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Iceland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Netherlands, Panama, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States.
Thank you for the response, but I honestly still don't see what the end game is once these studies have been done or what value they will provide in the decision making process of re-evaluating the current copyright system. The authority granted to Congress to enable the copyright monopoly was solely for the benefit of the public in that granting the limited monopoly would provide incentive to the creator to keep creating, and thus keep contributing to the progress of the arts, and by extension, the public. I can't really see what the public opinion on the morality of copyright has to do with determining what length of monopoly grant provides the greatest incentive to enable new creation.
People care deeply about things other than economics, and they're the ones who lobby for the laws, pass the laws, ignore or follow the laws.
I have to disagree with this statement to an extent. In an ideal world where laws are based on the benefit of the majority this may very well be true, but it is quite evident that we don't live in an ideal world. You identify 3 groups whose opinions should be studied: The lobbyists, the lawmakers, and the public subject to the laws. Those who lobby don't have an opinion relevant to this discussion because their lobbying is a paid service where they are expected to push the opinion of their paymasters. Those who make laws also don't have an opinion relevant to this discussion because while they are technically only supposed to represent the opinion of those they represent, they much more frequently represent the opinion of the paymasters who fund the lobbyists who push their agenda to these lawmakers in the form of financial incentives. Those who choose to "ignore or follow the laws" are really the ones who "care deeply about things other than economics", but they still have to make a decision based off of economics in the form of a cost/benefit analysis.
Once the laws have been passed, they now have to decide whether A) they agree with the law, which may be done subjectively in the instance of morality or objectively as is done through empirical analysis, and B) if they disagree with the law, whether breaking it is worth the consequence. Whether the decision is based on morality or objectivity, it is still an economic decision even if they don't know it, but I digress...
Those aren't necessarily the only purposes society wants its copyright law to acknowledge. By dismissing, marginalizing, or mischaracterizing non-economic intuitions about the purpose and the goals of copyright that are likely to be very widely held, would-be reformers ensure that their proposed reforms are less likely to successfully address such concerns, less likely to appeal to lawmakers and the public, and more likely to fail.
While you may have a valid point here, I believe it is rendered moot without changing the constitution. Because the authority granted to Congress allows them to grant the limited copyright monopoly solely to provide incentive towards the creation of new works, the public opinion as to it's morality doesn't factor into the decision making process. Whether this is morally right or wrong also doesn't factor in as it is what it is until it isn't. Under the guidance provided by the constitution, Congress should be basing copyright monopoly policy based on hard facts that empirically show that a specific term of monopoly length provides the greatest cost/benefit balance to maximize the greatest output of new creative material to the benefit of the public. Until their authority to grant this monopoly privilege is changed, I don't see how the plain language in the constitution can be interpreted any differently.
It is possible that the research you request could very well be the driving force behind changing the portion of the constitution granting this authority, but as it stands now it simply doesn't have a place in determining what is very much an economic policy decision.
I'm happy to admit that some people think in non-economic terms about copyright law. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should be allowed to freely express it and have it heard. That being said, I'm not completely sure I understand the reason behind your request to have empirical research done to show that people have opinions. Maybe I'm missing your point in all of this...
I think we all agree that the original purpose of copyright was to stop unauthorized publishers from copying and profiting from works they were not granted the privilege to publish and profit from. The constitution's stated definition of the purpose of copyright is quite clear as well, in that it is to promote the progress of the arts by granting a limited monopoly to the copyright holder to be the sole authorized entity to profit from the creative work in order to provide incentive to create new works.
My question to you is where do these moral rights come into play with this stated purpose? To what end will performing this empirical research be valuable to the discussion of how long this limited monopoly should last and whether or not the extension of this limited monopoly has ever provided additional incentive towards the creation of new works?
The courts did exactly that in this case, yet you advocate ignoring that result to judge him in the court of public opinion.
You are confusing 2 separate points. Mike clearly states that he agrees with the courts in rendering the evidence inadmissible and that he has no problem with the end result of the legal action. He is saying that it is irresponsible for the board of directors to allow someone who is known to have struck his girlfriend 117 times within 30 minutes to be the public face of the company. I think it says a lot about the moral character of the board of directors that they would knowingly allow an individual with a clearly demonstrated propensity for abuse and violence to be their representative voice.
No one disputes that this guy committed a heinous crime. He got off on a procedural technicality due to law enforcement incompetence, but again, no one is denying that he actually committed the crime. He simply can't be prosecuted for it. Mike is simply rendering the opinion that he finds it disgraceful that this company would allow him to publicly represent them, and I have to say that I agree with him.
I can understand your frustration, but every step of activism, no matter how small, is a step in the right direction. Today it may be signing a petition, tomorrow it may be donating to support an activist organization, and who knows... one day it may even be voting. It's these first steps that help encourage people to be more active in their own government, and because of that it's not a waste of time. Sitting around complaining about how terrible things are without taking any action is the true waste of time.
I was thinking the same thing. If this happens, I will absolutely contribute to funding it, and if I have time, I might setup the kickstarter myself. The only stipulation is that Wu would need to release it under a creative commons, free to share.
Yet another failed analogy. Ball kicking is a form of battery and therefore a criminal offense, which, as you pointed out, is punishable by incarceration. Infringement is a civil matter and punishable by ridiculously disproportionate fines. Both can have a deterrent effect when properly applied. The biggest problem with the penalties for infringement is that they are so astronomical that they are kind of a joke. Having the potential to be fined 150k for a $.99 single is so outside of the realm of common sense and unrealistic that most people will simply ignore it.
I've never paid for cable. Between the internet and OVA broadcasting, I've never seen the point. If I can't stream it, download it, or watch it OVA, then I've come to the conclusion I don't really need it. When I find something I like I'll get the DVD or Bluray. I guess never having cable as a kid made it easy for me. It always makes me laugh when I go to a friend's house, flip through 400 channels and still can't find anything worth watching, yet if I'm bored I can almost always find something at home OVA to settle on.