I just fundamentally don't understand why they are allowed to use the phrase "buy" or "purchase" for these kinds of indefinite rentals.
That should absolutely be false advertising, and any judge that says consumers should read the fine print of the licensing terms associated with the purchase demands far too much of the consumer.
They shouldn't be required to label these as "rentals", with a call to action such as "RENT" (and then they can explain that it's an indefinite rental that can be revoked at any time, or may last forever).
If I responded to a court order in this way then the judge's response would definitely include threats of contempt of court if I didn't comply. I'm glad that we have two separate systems (even if it's unwritten). I'd hate to think that they have to live by the same rules I have to live with.
"Only 75%? Those damn rat-bastards at the WSJ! Do they have any idea how hard it was to capture 99% of internet traffic! That took a shitload of our time and money. And now they short-sell us with this 75% bullshit??" -The NSA
Alan Rusbridger (editor in chief of The Guardian) has said that a prolonged legal challenge would have impacted their reporting more than destroying the hard-drives. They chose to comply with the "slightly pointless task" because they had other copies and it wouldn't really affect their reporting.
Just as a heads up to any gamers that may be considering sending off angry e-mails: There are several games companies with the name Gaijin. The offender in this case was Gaijin Entertainment (ent.com/en/games/navigation/57/).
There is another company that would be easy to confuse with this action. Gaijin Games (makers of the excellent BitTrip runner games) are not involved in this action as far as I can tell.
Just want to make sure we all point our angry in the right direction.
I think we have to put odds on the closing line "Judge Wright simply doesn't believe anything coming out of Team Prenda these days." showing up at some point during an appeal of Judge Wright's eventual ruling. 2:1?
Fifth Amendment protections apply in many scenarios outside of being on the stand, under oath. For example, the Fifth Amendment is the reason you have a right to remain silent when being questioned by police.
The Fifth Amendment applies pretty much any time the government is asking you to provide information to it. The government cannot compel you to provide evidence against you that will later be used in a criminal prosecution against you. That latter portion is important, because they can provide you with blanket immunity and then compel you to provide testimony that would have incriminated you, had you not had immunity.
It looks like they've now retained competent representation. I think they'll keep quiet and begin preparing a defense while trying to minimize signaling their future strategy in the event of a investigation / prosecution by the US Attorneys.
I'm guessing the game of watching Prenda continually shooting themselves in the foot has ended. That said, I think the game of watching Prenda slowly die of the already inflicted wounds will still be quite entertaining.
This really shouldn't be the case. Watch this video, and recognize that the fifth amendment protects the innocent in many scenarios if you are wise enough to invoke it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
My understanding is that the fifth can be plead in a civil action, if it's possible that the testimony could be interpreted in a way that would lead to a future criminal action.
So, if in a civil action a lawyer asked me if I had committed some felony, I could plead the fifth amendment to avoid answering the question.
Ken White has a good rundown of the options available to him: http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/31/as-prendas-next-big-day-approaches-what-could-judge-wright-do/
Most of these options are still applicable in light of the parties involved pleading the fifth amendment. Pleading the fifth is probably a wise thing to do in light of possible future criminal actions. However, the pleading probably hurts their current civil case.
While the pleading itself can't be construed as an admission of guilt, it's clear that the judge is currently under the impression that improper actions have been taken by the Prenda team. The OSCs are an opportunity for the Prenda team to explain why these actions weren't improper. By taking the fifth, they are waiving the opportunity to "clear their names". By missing this opportunity to clear the air, they hurt their civil case.
So it's not pleading the fifth that damages them; it's the failure to say anything that clears up the air.
DMCA may be the root of the issue. His point that these aren't DMCA claims is accurate though.
A lawsuit against YouTube will go nowhere. They can take down any videos they want for whatever reason they please (read their terms of service). They're a private entity, so you can't make first amendment arguments.
It's unfortunate that they can do this and get away with it. If you really want the issue to stop, don't sue them. Make a competitor that _doesn't_ have these flaws. Compete in the market.
"Wrong. If I create the work, it's easy for me to give permission to a site to redistribute it. I own the copyright and I can license it as I choose."
Most legitimate user generated sites require the user to check a box indicating they have the legal right to upload the work, and grant a license to the site to use the uploaded work (don't believe me? Read the terms of service).
Given this, how is UKnova supposed to know ahead of time which uploads are legitimate users (like yourself), who created the work and are legally uploading it? How do they determine which users lied on the checkbox?
You argue that they must be proactive in policing the works, but you also seem to think that if the user says: "I created this, it's OK to use it" that's sufficient grounds to use a work. Which is it?
If Mike replied to this very comment, and said openly:
"I do not condone piracy. I think it is morally wrong, and I do not engage in it myself. That being said, I think it is a reality of doing business and smart people will therefore take it into account when planning a business model"
Would you stop asking what is opinion is? Would you stop asking what he's hiding?
While I think it's important to note that there was significant collateral damage in the form of the censorship (what would be a violation of the First Amendment in the United States), it still isn't theft.
Much in the same way that collateral damage due to copyright infringement isn't theft, neither is censorship theft.
"The UK Home Office can't keep pretending that this is a minor issue that it can brush under the rug to keep the American government (and Hollywood) happy."
Unfortunately, the UK Home Office can and probably will ignore its citizens, pretend this is a minor issue, try and brush it under the rug, and extradite him anyway.
Once it's said and done the story will die (at least, the UK extradition portion of the story).
IndieGoGo only ever held about half of the money (all those donated via credit card). The amount donated via PayPal goes directly from PayPal to Matt Inman, and IndieGoGo never deals with it.
False Advertising
I just fundamentally don't understand why they are allowed to use the phrase "buy" or "purchase" for these kinds of indefinite rentals. That should absolutely be false advertising, and any judge that says consumers should read the fine print of the licensing terms associated with the purchase demands far too much of the consumer. They shouldn't be required to label these as "rentals", with a call to action such as "RENT" (and then they can explain that it's an indefinite rental that can be revoked at any time, or may last forever).
If I responded to a court order in this way then the judge's response would definitely include threats of contempt of court if I didn't comply. I'm glad that we have two separate systems (even if it's unwritten). I'd hate to think that they have to live by the same rules I have to live with.
Re: Re:
"Only 75%? Those damn rat-bastards at the WSJ! Do they have any idea how hard it was to capture 99% of internet traffic! That took a shitload of our time and money. And now they short-sell us with this 75% bullshit??" -The NSA
Re:
Alan Rusbridger (editor in chief of The Guardian) has said that a prolonged legal challenge would have impacted their reporting more than destroying the hard-drives. They chose to comply with the "slightly pointless task" because they had other copies and it wouldn't really affect their reporting.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/20/guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-nsa
Gaijin Entertainment, not Gaijin Games
Just as a heads up to any gamers that may be considering sending off angry e-mails: There are several games companies with the name Gaijin. The offender in this case was Gaijin Entertainment (ent.com/en/games/navigation/57/).
There is another company that would be easy to confuse with this action. Gaijin Games (makers of the excellent BitTrip runner games) are not involved in this action as far as I can tell.
Just want to make sure we all point our angry in the right direction.
I think we have to put odds on the closing line "Judge Wright simply doesn't believe anything coming out of Team Prenda these days." showing up at some point during an appeal of Judge Wright's eventual ruling. 2:1?
Re: Did they actually "plead the fifth"?
Fifth Amendment protections apply in many scenarios outside of being on the stand, under oath. For example, the Fifth Amendment is the reason you have a right to remain silent when being questioned by police.
The Fifth Amendment applies pretty much any time the government is asking you to provide information to it. The government cannot compel you to provide evidence against you that will later be used in a criminal prosecution against you. That latter portion is important, because they can provide you with blanket immunity and then compel you to provide testimony that would have incriminated you, had you not had immunity.
Re:
It looks like they've now retained competent representation. I think they'll keep quiet and begin preparing a defense while trying to minimize signaling their future strategy in the event of a investigation / prosecution by the US Attorneys.
I'm guessing the game of watching Prenda continually shooting themselves in the foot has ended. That said, I think the game of watching Prenda slowly die of the already inflicted wounds will still be quite entertaining.
Re: Pretty much what I expected to hear.
This really shouldn't be the case. Watch this video, and recognize that the fifth amendment protects the innocent in many scenarios if you are wise enough to invoke it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Re: Re: Wow
My understanding is that the fifth can be plead in a civil action, if it's possible that the testimony could be interpreted in a way that would lead to a future criminal action.
So, if in a civil action a lawyer asked me if I had committed some felony, I could plead the fifth amendment to avoid answering the question.
Re: Wow
Ken White has a good rundown of the options available to him: http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/31/as-prendas-next-big-day-approaches-what-could-judge-wright-do/
Most of these options are still applicable in light of the parties involved pleading the fifth amendment. Pleading the fifth is probably a wise thing to do in light of possible future criminal actions. However, the pleading probably hurts their current civil case.
While the pleading itself can't be construed as an admission of guilt, it's clear that the judge is currently under the impression that improper actions have been taken by the Prenda team. The OSCs are an opportunity for the Prenda team to explain why these actions weren't improper. By taking the fifth, they are waiving the opportunity to "clear their names". By missing this opportunity to clear the air, they hurt their civil case.
So it's not pleading the fifth that damages them; it's the failure to say anything that clears up the air.
There goes pirate mike trying to force people to make copies of everything!! Maybe they just don't like stealing their copyright from themselves.
/troll
Re: Re: Re:
DMCA may be the root of the issue. His point that these aren't DMCA claims is accurate though.
A lawsuit against YouTube will go nowhere. They can take down any videos they want for whatever reason they please (read their terms of service). They're a private entity, so you can't make first amendment arguments.
It's unfortunate that they can do this and get away with it. If you really want the issue to stop, don't sue them. Make a competitor that _doesn't_ have these flaws. Compete in the market.
Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
"Wrong. If I create the work, it's easy for me to give permission to a site to redistribute it. I own the copyright and I can license it as I choose."
Most legitimate user generated sites require the user to check a box indicating they have the legal right to upload the work, and grant a license to the site to use the uploaded work (don't believe me? Read the terms of service).
Given this, how is UKnova supposed to know ahead of time which uploads are legitimate users (like yourself), who created the work and are legally uploading it? How do they determine which users lied on the checkbox?
You argue that they must be proactive in policing the works, but you also seem to think that if the user says: "I created this, it's OK to use it" that's sufficient grounds to use a work. Which is it?
Re: Re: Re:
I really should know better, but...
If Mike replied to this very comment, and said openly:
"I do not condone piracy. I think it is morally wrong, and I do not engage in it myself. That being said, I think it is a reality of doing business and smart people will therefore take it into account when planning a business model"
Would you stop asking what is opinion is? Would you stop asking what he's hiding?
Basically, what can we do to make you shut up?
Re:
While I think it's important to note that there was significant collateral damage in the form of the censorship (what would be a violation of the First Amendment in the United States), it still isn't theft.
Much in the same way that collateral damage due to copyright infringement isn't theft, neither is censorship theft.
Re: 4 million
I will twist it back. If it's a drop in the bucket, then Oracle has no reason to bother fighting it.
Ignore the Citizens!
"The UK Home Office can't keep pretending that this is a minor issue that it can brush under the rug to keep the American government (and Hollywood) happy."
Unfortunately, the UK Home Office can and probably will ignore its citizens, pretend this is a minor issue, try and brush it under the rug, and extradite him anyway.
Once it's said and done the story will die (at least, the UK extradition portion of the story).
Re: The heartless one has a point
Slow clap for having troll in your name, leaving obvious trolling comments, and STILL getting a big response.
Sir, you are clearly a professional.
Re: Show me the money.
IndieGoGo only ever held about half of the money (all those donated via credit card). The amount donated via PayPal goes directly from PayPal to Matt Inman, and IndieGoGo never deals with it.