Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260) comment rss

  • On the post: How Big Music Companies Are Stealing Hundreds Of Millions In Royalties From Artists

    Karl ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2012 @ 09:20am

    Re: Re: Let me take it, frame by frame it:

    sounds like you've been a good little CC drone

    Sounds like you have no idea what CC actually means. For instance, you can release your music under a CC-NC license, and still be a member of a PRO, be entitled to mechanical royalties, etc.

    We have a constitutional 'exclusive right' to our writings--oh yeah, except for when we don't.

    No, we don't. We never did.

    Congress has a Constitutional right to grant copyrights to our writings. ("Congress shall have the power...") It is up to Congress to decide how much of those rights it wants to grant, if any.

    This reflects the fact that copyright is only granted through the will of the public, and its primary purpose is to benefit the public, not artists or publishers.

    As Thomas Jefferson said: "Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody."

    My songs are on illegal sites by the millions, with everyone in the chain making $ from them --except me.

    Here's a suggestion. Many of those "illegal" sites have some sort of rewards program for popular content. This sort of deal was made for people like you. If your songs actually are on those sites "by the millions," then you can simply upload them yourself, and make half of whatever profits those "illegal" sites make. It's a much better deal than anything the labels will give you.

    Lots of rap artists were already doing this with Megaupload before it was shut down. (And, Megaupload was planning on unveiling Megabox, where 90% of the earnings went to artists.) Why do you think they agreed to be in that "Megasong?"

    It probably won't be that much money, though... because those "illegal" sites don't actually make much money in the grand scheme of things. The idea that the "pirate sites" are making millions in profits is disinformation from the RIAA.

    I don't have to scour the news for #'s, examples, I've seen it, lived it, watched friends and colleagues go under

    If your friends and colleagues worked for major labels, then I'm not surprised they've gone under.

    The reason is not due to "piracy." The reason is that the major labels are incompetent businessmen.

    You're behaving exactly like a UAW member who blames Japanese auto makers for the failure of the U.S. auto industry. If Chrysler isn't selling cars, and Toyota is, you blame Chrysler for making cars nobody wants to buy.

    And if you're a smart UAW member, you quit Chrysler and go work for the Toyota plant that just opened next door.

    their pals- and fellow profiteers- in big tech

    "Big tech?" The moment you start throwing terms like that around, is the moment you show you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    "Big tech" treats artists much better than the RIAA clients ever did, and always has. iTunes pays far more of the retail profits directly to copyright holders than labels do. YouTube alone has created an entire middle class of artists who simply didn't exist before. Even Spotify, which pays next to nothing, still pays more than terrestrial radio.

    That's not including new entities like Kickstarter, BandCamp, CDBaby, or even TuneCore itself, all of which couldn't exist without "big tech."

    Let's have this conversation when 95%+ of all p2p's movies and songs are no longer from the major labels and studios.

    As an underground artist, I can't wait for this to happen.

  • On the post: If Phishing Email Can Kill NY Power Grid, Lack Of Cybersecurity Legislation Is Not The Problem

    Karl ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2012 @ 08:29am

    Cause of the 2003 blackout

    I remember the Eastern blackout well. I was on tour at the time, or else I would have been in the dark, too.

    Amid all the talk about "cyberterrorism," it's important to remember what actually happened to cause that blackout:

    In February 2004, the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force released their final report, placing the causes of the blackout into four groups:

    First, that FirstEnergy and its reliability council "failed to assess and understand the inadequacies of FE?s system, particularly with respect to voltage instability and the vulnerability of the Cleveland-Akron area, and FE did not operate its system with appropriate voltage criteria". Second, that FirstEnergy "did not recognize or understand the deteriorating condition of its system". Third, that FirstEnergy "failed to manage adequately tree growth in its transmission rights-of-way". Finally, the "failure of the interconnected grid?s reliability organizations to provide effective real-time diagnostic support."
    - Wikipedia

    So it seems that, if anything, legislation should focus on the bad actors in the power industry (such as FirstEnergy), and not on any sort of "cyberattack."

    Here's a good place to start:
    On November 19, 2003, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said his department would not seek to punish FirstEnergy Corp for its role in the blackout because current U.S. law does not require electric reliability standards. Abraham stated, "The absence of enforceable reliability standards creates a situation in which there are limits in terms of federal level punishment."

  • On the post: MPAA's Argument Against Hotfile Assumes Any Popular Content Online Must Be Infringing

    Karl ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2012 @ 08:55am

    Re: Re:

    RIAA and MPAA are making money off someone else's work but I bet they make a few less million. They also listen to what customers want and give it to them.

    Who are "they?" The RIAA/MPAA, or the file lockers?

    Your statement only makes sense if "they" means the file lockers. Global recording industry profits in 2009 were $17 billion. I doubt that all the file lockers in the world put together could even approach that number by an order of magnitude, much less "a few less million."

    And it would be a total and complete joke to say that the RIAA/MPAA "listen to what customers want and give it to them." If anyone is doing that, it's the file lockers. If they weren't, nobody would use file lockers at all.

    The fact that the RIAA/MPAA clients refuse to listen to their customers, is one of the primary reasons people pirate (if not the primary reason).

    Furthermore, the notion that file lockers are "gatekeepers" can only be valid if the file lockers were the only way to get certain content, and if the only way to get specific content was from one file locker exclusively. None of that is true for file lockers; it is true for the RIAA/MPAA clients.

  • On the post: MPAA's Argument Against Hotfile Assumes Any Popular Content Online Must Be Infringing

    Karl ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2012 @ 10:53am

    Re:

    You keep whining about the gatekeepers, aren't these hosting services becoming the middlemen that you bitch and moan about?

    A middleman is not necessarily a gatekeeper.

    Let's take the traditional music model. Major labels were gatekeepers. Radio stations and record stores, by and large, were not. If you didn't like the advertisements on one radio station, you could tune into a different one and hear the same music. If you didn't like the prices at Tower Records, you could shop at Strawberry's.

    On the other hand, if you weren't willing to pay what the label wanted, you couldn't go to another label and get the same music for a different price. (Not just price, either; you couldn't get it in a different format, or without DRM, etc.)

    What makes someone a gatekeeper is if they have a monopoly on a certain product or service. The labels did, because they are copyright holders, and copyright is a monopoly.

    Now, even so, many of the radio stations and record stores did act kind of like gatekeepers, in that they had agreements that no music that was not on a major label would be played or sold. This was easier to overcome with record stores, because if there was a demand for indie music, someone could open up a record store that catered to that crowd. (Indeed, there were plenty that did; here in Boston, we had at least a dozen, and even Midwestern college towns had at least one or two.)

    Radio is a bit different, because the spectrum is regulated by the government, and there simply isn't enough bandwidth to allow more than a dozen or so stations in any one area. This, combined with the agreements (read: payola) stations had with the labels, made the labels and stations gatekeepers. Effectively, the major labels held a monopoly on the airwaves.

    Thank goodness it's not like that anymore.

  • On the post: MPAA's Argument Against Hotfile Assumes Any Popular Content Online Must Be Infringing

    Karl ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2012 @ 10:29am

    Re:

    Are there examples of websites that encourage people to post large video files that are subsequently downloaded in volume by the masses where the content is NOT infringing?

    You mean like Vodo, Clearbits, or Archive.org?

    Also, why are you assuming that someone from the studio didn't upload the files themselves? For an example, see YouTube v. Viacom. Viacom uploaded content to YouTube, and deliberately tried to hide that fact, to make it seem like the videos were "viral."

    those are dwarfed by copyrighted content

    It's completely meaningless to say "copyrighted content." Unless it's public domain, all content is copyrighted.

    The question is not whether the content is copyrighted, but whether it's infringing. It doesn't matter if the content is a TV show, for example. It only matters if the person who uploaded that TV show infringed on copyright.

    And unless a video host demands to see the licensing contract for every single video that is uploaded, then it is impossible to know that, unless they are explicitly told by the copyright holder. Hence the DMCA notice-and-takedown rules - which Hotfile followed.

    Hotfile doesn't have to have filters, they can have search capabilities (or not), they don't need to provide tools to copyright holders, etc. Legally, no host is required to do anything more than properly follow the notice-and-takedown procedure, and they're immune from liability for any infringement by their users.

    This was made quite clear in the Congressional record:

    section 512 is not intended to imply that a service provider is or is not liable as an infringer either for conduct that qualifies for a limitation of liability or for conduct that fails to so qualify. Rather, the limitations of liability apply if the provider is found to be liable under existing principles of law.
    - H.R. Rep. No. 105-551

    In fact, even following the notice-and-takedown procedures is optional. The service provider may still not be liable for infringement even if they don't (though it's not likely).

  • On the post: Obama Administration: ACTA Is Binding & Don't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads About TPP

    Karl ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2012 @ 07:34am

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

    Executive agreements are neither statutes nor treaties, and, thusly, do not enjoy the status of federal law as is the case with statutes and treaties.

    Then you should tell that to the other signatories of ACTA. I'm sure they would have just loved to sign if they had known the U.S. - the prime mover behind the agreement - could just opt out any time it wanted.

    You're also ignoring the consequences of the agreement. Theoretically, the U.S. could opt out of ACTA if Congress passed a law that conflicted with it. However, if they did so, they would face international sanctions. This would make Congress loathe to pass such laws; so much so, that it would effectively tie their hands.

    There's also the small issue that, as a tradition, executive agreements can only be negotiated if the subject of the agreement falls under the President's Article 2 powers. This agreement does not. It involves copyrights and patents, which fall exclusively under Congress' Article 1 powers.

    For example, neither TRIPS nor Berne could be entered into without Congress' approval (and the passing of two acts, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and the Berne Convention Implementation Act). ACTA is as far-reaching as these in some ways, yet the White House is claiming it can be entered into as a sole executive agreement.

  • On the post: Obama Administration: ACTA Is Binding & Don't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads About TPP

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2012 @ 08:16pm

    Re: Re: Correction

    Actually, the USA has been in a state of emergency continuously since 1979.

    Yeah, but now we're at State of Emergency Level Orange.

  • On the post: Chris Dodd: The Internet Developed Because Of Strict Copyright Enforcement

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2012 @ 11:12pm

    Re: He's right.

    Look at the major content sites today: Yahoo, NY Times, Huffington Post etc. If there were no threat of copyright enforcement, their content would be cloned everywhere and they wouldn't be on the web. They would have taken one step onto the web, made zero revenue and that would have been the end of it.

    Except that all of those entities put their content on the web long ago, and it was shared and copied widely and quickly. And they succeeded because the content was shared.

    In fact, the major tech and content firms got together and invented open standards (RSS and Atom) whose sole purpose was to syndicate and aggregate news articles for free.

    None of the surviving content creators succeeded because they enforced copyright. The succeeded because they encouraged sharing of their content.

    Furthermore, Dodd was probably not actually talking about "content sites" like the NY Times. He seems to be talking about the software that runs the web itself.

    And here he demonstrates his sheer and utter ignorance. None of the major software that runs the web is, or ever was, proprietary.

    Apache? Open source. PHP, Ruby, Perl? Open source. MySQL, PostgreSQL? Open source.

    You don't need a license to write HTML, or create Cascading Style Sheets, or code JavaScript.

    Even web browsers are moving towards open source. Internet Explorer, which ten years ago had a near-universal market share because it was bundled with Windows, is now used by less than 50% of the people browsing the web. Most are using open-source desktop browsers (Firefox, Chrome) or are browsing on cell phones using open-source browsers.

    On the other hand, you know what Mintel, MSN, AOL, and Prodigy all had in common? They were closed systems. That fact (and the fact that their services sucked) are the reason they're not around anymore.

    In fact, if any generalizations can be made, it's that the web is only successful because copyright was not enforced. Chris Dodd is absolutely, 100% wrong.

    And so are you. You've been coming on here for a few weeks now, and I have yet to see even a single post where you have said anything whatsoever that is factually correct.

    You would do yourself a favor if you actually did even a tiny bit of research before you posted here.

  • On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want

    Karl ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2012 @ 09:55pm

    Re:

    I still haven't figured out why the entertainment industry hasn't resorted to gorilla warfare against the pirate communities.

    As an interesting side note: They have.

    MPAA Caught Uploading Fake Torrents
    Exclusive: I Was a Hacker for the MPAA
    Madonna swears at music pirates

    And I've been watching, but I haven't seen "the targetted pirate sites whither and fade from existence."

  • On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want

    Karl ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2012 @ 09:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's how search engines already work - unless you want child porn or how to kill Danny

    I hate to tell you, but it's unlawful to use prior restraint for any crime before it's committed.

    I'm not exactly sure how to respond to that... mostly because it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with CDT v. Pappert, or why the Pennsylvania anti-child-pornography law was an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech.

    Perhaps you haven't read the court's ruling. That's understandable. Let me quote the relevant parts. It's a long quote, but you really should read the whole thing.

    In February of 2002, Pennsylvania enacted the Internet Child Pornography Act, 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. ?? 7621-7630, ("the Act"). The Act requires an Internet Service Provider ("ISP") to remove or disable access to child pornography items "residing on or accessible through its service" after notification by the Pennsylvania Attorney General. It is the first attempt by a state to impose criminal liability on an ISP which merely provides access to child pornography through its network and has no direct relationship with the source of the content. [...]

    Based on the evidence presented by the parties at trial, the Court concludes that, with the current state of technology, the Act cannot be implemented without excessive blocking of innocent speech in violation of the First Amendment. In addition, the procedures provided by the Act are insufficient to justify the prior restraint of material protected by the First Amendment and, given the current design of the Internet, the Act is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause because of its affect on interstate commerce. [...]

    The two filtering methods used by the ISPs to comply with the Informal Notices and the court order--IP filtering and DNS filtering--both resulted in overblocking. IP filtering blocks all web sites at an IP address and, given the prevalence of shared IP addresses, the implementation of this method results in blocking of a significant number of sites not related to the alleged child pornography. [...]

    The Act and Informal Notice process are not prior restraints in the traditional sense. They do not prevent speech from reaching the market place but remove material already available on the Internet from circulation. Alexander v. United States (1993) ("The term 'prior restraint' describes orders forbidding certain communications that are issued before the communications occur.") However, they are administrative prior restraints as that term has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. According to the Court, "only a judicial determination in an adversary proceeding ensures the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression, only a procedure requiring a judicial determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint." Freedman v. Maryland (1965). Thus, if material protected by the First Amendment is removed from circulation without these procedural protections, the seizure is invalid as a prior restraint.

    The Court used the term to describe a Rhode Island Commission's practice of sending letters to book distributors that asked the distributors to remove books from circulation in Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963) and a procedure that allowed courts to order pre-trial seizure of films alleged to be obscene in Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana (1989).

    In Bantam Books, the Court ruled on a regulatory scheme implemented by the state of Rhode Island. The state created the Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth, and this commission sent book distributors letters informing them that books they were distributing were "objectionable" and asking them to "cooperate" by removing this material from book stores. The letters also stated that "the Attorney General will act for us in the case of non-compliance." In response, plaintiffs stopped further circulation of copies and "instructed field men to visit retailers and to pick up all unsold copies." Although these materials were already in circulation, the Court referred to this system as a "prior administrative restraint" and ruled it was unconstitutional because there was not "an almost immediate judicial determination of the validity of the restraint" and the publisher or distributor was not entitled to notice and a hearing.

    In Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana, the Court held that a finding of probable cause by a state court was not sufficient to allow seizure of material "presumptively protected by the First Amendment." "While a single copy of a book or film may be seized and retained for evidentiary purposes based on a finding of probable cause, the publication may not be taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of obscenity after an adversary hearing." Like Bantam Books, the materials in Fort Wayne were already in circulation. They were removed from circulation by a state court order. According to the Court, "our cases firmly hold that mere probable cause to believe a legal violation has transpired is not adequate to remove books or films from circulation."

    Based on the decision in Bantam Books and Fort Wayne Books, this Court concludes the procedural protections provided by the Act are inadequate. These cases require a court to make a final determination that material is child pornography after an adversary hearing before the material is completely removed from circulation. [...]

    Defendant misses the mark when he focuses on the fact that criminal liability will not be imposed until after a criminal trial. The Court's First Amendment analysis must focus on when speech is suppressed and, under the Act, speech is suppressed when the court order is issued. Under the First Amendment, more procedures are necessary before speech can be suppressed than are required before an individual can be arrested. Although evidence of probable cause is sufficient to make an arrest, Fort Wayne holds that a finding of probable cause is not sufficient to completely remove a publication from circulation. As explained by the Seventh Circuit, "[w]hile at first glance it may seem odd to require more judicial protection for the liberty of one's books than for one's body, the distinction reflects this country's great concern with the chilling effect on protected speech brought on by a government seizure." United States v. Moore (7th Cir.2000). [...]

    For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Relief and Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief is granted. Pennsylvania's Internet Child Pornography Act and the Informal Notice process used by defendant to implement the Act are declared unconstitutional. Defendant is enjoined from taking any action against an ISP for failing to comply with an Informal Notice or court order under the Act. The ISPs which blocked web sites pursuant to Informal Notices and, with respect to WorldCom, a court order shall promptly remove the blocks.

    [Citations ommitted; emphasis mine.]

  • On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want

    Karl ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2012 @ 09:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's how search engines already work - unless you want child porn or how to kill Danny

    It's either you say anything goes including child porn and how to build suicide vests or the government or responsible companies or responsible taxi drivers just say NO to most requests for child porn, child prostitution, or suicide vests.

    Now, THAT is one false dichotomy.

    It's at this point that I'm obliged to point out that SOPA-style laws were declared unlawful prior restraint when they were targeted to child pornography. (CDT v. Pappert.)

    Also, the "taxi driver" analogy is really off the mark. A better analogy would be for NOW to demand that AT&T stop service to people who pay for phone sex.

  • On the post: EMI Sneakily Trying To Pretend Many Of Its Artists Can't Reclaim Their Copyrights

    Karl ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2012 @ 01:26pm

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

    I can't remember the name of the site/service, but there was one between those label attempts and iTunes early days that was essentially a cyberlocker, but ONLY for your own mp3s. [...] That site/service ended up being sued into oblivion. I'm thinking it was something like mp3.com

    You are correct, it was. Specifically, that was the "my.mp3.com" service:
    http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2000/04/35933

    I'm particularly amused by this quote from ASCAP's Dean Kay:

    "This ruling means that all entitled parties will participate in income generated by Net uses of music in business settings," Kay wrote in an email. "That insures the professional creation and delivery of new music, which is definitely in the consumer's best interest."

    Yeah, how'd that work out?

    I remember this vividly, because I (like thousands of other artists) used MP3.com to distribute my own music. I think I still have one of their tote bags kicking around somewhere.

    Admittedly, their distribution model sucked. They would sell "D.A.M. CD's" that were just burned from 128K MP3 files, so the sound quality was terrible; plus the packaging was all the same (2-panel CD cover & tray), you couldn't do extras, there was no tiered pricing scheme...

    Still, if it had been allowed to survive to modern times, it would have been a godsend to indie musicians. Yet another example of how the major labels' quashing of technology hurts all musicians.

  • On the post: EMI Sneakily Trying To Pretend Many Of Its Artists Can't Reclaim Their Copyrights

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2012 @ 07:27pm

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

    People didn't use it because it sucked.

    FTFY.

    The labels were trying to come up with digital music stores for a couple years before iTunes came along. Specifically, MusicNet and Pressplay, two huge pieces of shit that were laughably restrictive and backwards-thinking:

    PressPlay charged $15 per month for the right to listen to 500 low-quality audio streams, download 50 audio tracks, and burn 10 tracks to CD. It didn't sound like an awful deal, until you found out that not every song could be downloaded, and that you couldn't burn more than two tracks from the same artist. MusicNet cost $10 per month for 100 streamed songs and 100 downloads, but each downloaded audio file expired after only 30 days, and every time you renewed the song it counted against your allotment.

    - #9 on PCWorld's 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time

    It also bears mentioning that these services are the subject of yet another antitrust lawsuit against the labels:
    Major labels to face price-fixing lawsuit (the Guardian)

  • On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2012 @ 08:58am

    Re: Re: Re:

    A guy wants to get laid. He wants to get laid right now.
    But no girl is willing to bone him right now.

    That's a bad analogy. It would be more accurate to say that lots of women are willing to bone him right now, but only if he pays their pimp.

    And, if the guy has sex with a girl that looks like that prostitute, the pimp still demands money.

    Now, I'm not saying that the copyright industries are the moral equivalent of pimping... Wait, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

  • On the post: Hacktivist Judo: Musician Exploits New Spanish Law To Overwhelm System With Legitimate Infringement Complaints

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2012 @ 08:43am

    Re: Wow, framing unsuspecting people as a political act

    It's just wrong to frame someone as part of a political protest.

    Yet, Viacom sued Google over videos that Viacom uploaded themselves, and deliberately hid the fact that they were doing it. (By, for instance, ordering employees to upload at coffee shops under anonymous user names.)

    I guess it's "wrong" to frame websites as part of a political protest, but when a company does it to increase their profit margins, you're A-OK with it.

    Also, as others have pointed out, the websites themselves are in on it... Unlike the websites who would be taken down for user-generated content they don't know about under the proposed anti-piracy bills you support.

    ...Are you some sort of agent provocateur with an anti-copyright agenda? Because you couldn't make the copyright-maximalist side look worse if you tried.

  • On the post: Dear Big Newspapers: Keep Putting Up Silly Paywalls And Clear The Internet Field For Us 'Newcomers'

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2012 @ 08:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a thought

    Is there a big fuckin' terrorist prize out there that no one has told us about?

    Join us one week from tonight for our live coverage of The Terries! Only on Fox!

  • On the post: Dear Big Newspapers: Keep Putting Up Silly Paywalls And Clear The Internet Field For Us 'Newcomers'

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2012 @ 08:25am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If you really believe this is going on, type up a list of 20 big stories that were broken by basement bloggers who did serious reportage.

    The Lewinski scandal was broken by the Drudge Report. In fact, that site has broken most of the major (pro-Republican) stories in the past decade.

    I don't like the Drudge Report, not even a little, but it's irrefutable that it has done as much for "breaking news" as the WSJ or NYT.

    I'd also like to point out that most "local" newspapers are divisions of national newspapers. They usually report exactly the same stories, and throw in something from the local police report to make it appear that they're in the community. Very few any of them actually do much reporting on local events. So when people say "local news" is going to suffer, I take that not with a gran of salt, but with an entire salt lick.

  • On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke

    Karl ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2012 @ 08:44pm

    Re: 100% Nonsense

    The DMCA was written to protect ISPs that are passive conduits or providers of connectivity.

    Absolutely, positively false. 512(a) (and probably (b)) were written with ISP's and "passive conduits" in mind, but there are three more categories of entities covered under "safe harbors" laws: user-generated content sites such as YouTube (section (c)), search engines (section (d)), and schools (section (e)).

    These guys recruit and pay thieves to upload files that they know are stolen property.

    First, it's not "stolen property," according to the Supreme Court. Second, even the indictments do not claim that they "recruit and pay thieves." They offered rewards programs for popular content, but there is absolutely nothing unlawful about that whatsoever.

    I won't even touch the "all the files are stolen" line, which is obviously a flat-out lie, and many of the people who comment here have personally lost files that they did not share due to the seizures.

    Now, I don't think "DotCom" is innocent of copyright infringement. If the indictment is even half correct, I'm pretty sure that he's going to lose a lot of court battles.

    That doesn't mean you have to lie about it.

  • On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice

    Karl ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2012 @ 08:21pm

    Re: Re: New Points

    If our goal was to censor sites who have the right to Free Speech why are there only 2 false positives considering the rest are torrents.

    I'd like to interject here for a moment to point something out.

    It doesn't matter if "the rest are torrents." They absolutely must be torrents of material over which you hold the copyright. If you are sending takedown notices over torrent files (even infringing ones) and you do not hold the copyright to those files, then you are breaking the law.

    For example: if one of those searches resulted in a link to "Innocent High," the song by Blood On The Dance Floor, and you issue a takedown notice on that search, then you are breaking the law.

    Keeping this in mind, there are far, far more than just two false positives on there.

    Personally, I do appreciate your coming on here and explaining the situation. That is good of you to do. I sincerely hope that your new system will handle things better.

  • On the post: Trademark Lobby Wants To Help European Court of Justice Forget About EU Citizens' Rights

    Karl ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2012 @ 11:04pm

    Re:

    Glyn, I think you can sum it up by saying:

    AC, I think you can sum it up by saying:

    "I think anyone that criticizes copyright, for any reason whatsoever, is a damn dirty pirate who just wants stuff for free."

    More idiotic ad hominems from you. Nice!

Next >>