The analogy to robbing an open car is inaccurate. An unlocked car is passive, and doesn't interact with its environment. Digiprotect is actively distributing their copyrighted material. Therefore, this would be like a police officer disguised as a bartender giving you a free beer. After you drink it, he arrests you.
And as for the comment about the downloader's knowledge of how a P2P item is "authorized," it doesn't matter. To my knowledge, "attempted infringement" is not a crime. And no matter what the intent, if Digiprotect has a license to distribute, that there is no infringement going on.
But then it would no longer be just a clip of the song, it would be the entire song.
My bet is that The Pirate Bay owners are probably just doing this as a cash grab. Once they get the funds, they'll open up a new torrent tracker, and things will start all over again.
Jamie Thomas used kazaa to share her music, which is an entirely different type of P2P with no relationship to ISOhunt. Tenenbaum used a variety of different methods to acquire his music, none of which are proven to have been over torrents.
Your argument fails.
It could also be implied that it's illegal to download any music on a DoD computer, whereas it would only be infringing if the music was uploaded illegally. So no, it's not just playing with semantics.
Are you familiar with a lot of modern internet jargon? It started out as a way on usenet for avoiding the very censorship system you described. People couldn't post things about hacks, so they posted the about haxx0rs; they couldn't post Software became warez. People eventually got to the point where they had to use numbers to substitute in for letters, (thus 1337 was born). This system has been tried before, and it DOES NOT WORK. You cannot censor the flow of the internet, for information will simply find the path of least resistance around the blockage and resume its former course.
If this passes, get some people with registered copyrights to send violation notices to the ISPs of every MP that votes for this bill.
That looks pretty awesome. I really sort of want it now.
This may be a first; I don't think that France has surrendered to a private company before.
How is this any different that the case of Hustler v. Falwell? A disreputable source (in this case, one without an audience nearly as large as that of Hustlers) makes ridiculous statements about a celebrity. Since Ms. Cohen is a Public Figure, a higher standard must be used for defamation cases against her. An anonymous, not particularly credible, individual posted something untrue about a Public Figure. The chance of showing "actual malice" are fairly slim to none. This judge is wrong, and if the appeals court has even the semblance of justness, it will side with the anonymous coward.
That sounds Ex Post Facto to me.
Well, that's good. Even a competent lawyer and a half-honest judge would bar that evidence from court. Hell, if anything is found on there, they might be able to get FACT on Tampering charges.
Exactly. Everyone goes to the bathroom, but how many people would be willing to do so in a glass booth at the center of Times Square?
Since Katy/Katie Perry is a rather common name, trademarking it would not make sense; however, I see no reason that Katie Perry couldn't trademark the design of her signature.
Wow, this has to be the stupidest lawsuit I've ever seen. Part of me wants to cry about the stupidity of some people.
Instead of getting money by giving people patents, why doesn't the USPTO charge the full fee for any patent application it receives. That way, they still get funded (in fact, they would probably get funded more) and they don't have the financial pressure to approve wasteful patents.