Thanks for that, I am immediately moved to email them to tell them that urging people to contact their representatives is a staple of democracy and by trying to gag that with a cease and desist is completely undemocratic.
The fact is, the issue makes me (living in Canada, not even in the same country - let alone the same municipality) want to write in.
The powers that be in the United States are afraid of Bitcoin. The US Dollar is going to collapse and its going to do it soon - the soaring prices of BitCoin show that people are flocking to it and away from the USD. (Gold and Silver too, FWIW)
I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened sooner - BitCoin presents a real threat to the 'status quo'. However that's exactly the reason why so many people support it.
Did some more digging - it is used because early cartoons used a certain sound effect when something is snatched or runs away quickly - anyone who grew up with those cartoons would use this word to describe that sound, so we tend to say "Yoink!" when we take something quickly - or 'steal' something when we're making it obvious we're taking it.
There's a saying, and I forget which way it goes, but both are true; Any sufficiently extreme satire is indistinguishable from extremist viewpoint. Any sufficiently extreme viewpoint is indistinguishable from satire.
The TV Show the Colbert Report is a good example. Liberals love him, because they think it's humorous satire. Conservatives love him because they agree with him.
A conservative group taking an image that was designed as satire because they feel it fits their ideology is par for the course for this 'law'.
I don't know what the labour laws are there - but if this happened in Alberta they would all be entitled to severance because of how short the notice was, depending on how long they've worked there (Starts at minimum 2 weeks if they've been their 90 days.) If you don't get 2 weeks notice, you get paid for 2 week anyway. Goes up to 3 weeks after 2 years working for the same employer, and then increases over time.
This is exactly the type of thing that turns otherwise paying customers into pirates. The logic goes something like this;
1) WTF? I can't watch the content that I paid to watch?? 2) Hrm... I've heard that you can download stuff online - I've paid for this, and I really want to watch it.. so maybe it's justified for me to try it - just this once. 3) Wow - downloading content was a lot quicker and easier than I thought it would be - and there's fewer digital rights crap stuff I have to jump through. It's both free _and_ I get better service, maybe I'll just do this from now on.
Dion is such a total hack, that's why liberal minded voters have put NDP as the official opposition last federal election. (The 'Liberal' party, despite their name is actually centrist, politically)
The NDP espouses most of the values that the Pirate Party does, which is why the Pirate Party of Canada hasn't fared well up here - we already have a dominant party that cares about Net Neutrality and Copyright Reform. I hope the Liberals don't succeed in 'taking back' the official opposition slot (unless it's to a majority NDP government)
Yes, that makes sense in keeping with "Innocent until proven guilty." You have to prove that it isn't in good faith.
I think in this case it should be obvious - the system is 100% automated with absolutely NO checks, and errors are made all the time. If the system worked reliably most of the time, they could say that they have good faith in their automated system, but with the number of errors that DO happen (and they know about these) I don't think that 'good faith' can be applied here.
I don't know if a Judge would agree with that reasoning, however.
The companies doing mass filings will never agree to file size checks. Most infringement comes via torrents which themselves are only a couple of KB in size, and they only have the name to go on with those.
The 'problem' is that piracy is so wide spread doing it by hand and having to _actually_ validate each one would take way, way to much work and make the DMCA pretty much ineffective. (Problem in quotes because I would actually like to see the perjury penalty applied for misuse!)
It's important to realise that the DMCA notifications are made under penalty of perjury that the submitter actually owns the rights to the infringing work. I think a serious litigation for damages AND the perjury charge thrown in will be enough for these companies to wake up to the problems with their auto-submitting practices.
Either that or it will be just another 'nuisance' and they'll go about their business (that's more likely) but at least it will be a bit of a sting.