What's your position on (highly complex subject A)? Come on then, just because it's extremely complex and nuanced, surely you can boil all of it down to simple bullet-points that address all of it?
What, you can't? Complex subject by their very nature require complex answers, and at times don't have any clear answer other than 'more data is needed'? Nonsense, every subject can be boiled down to bullet points! /s
If the sarcasm hasn't gotten the point across, maybe a more direct comment will, and that is the subject matter is a highly complex one, making the discussion and stances on it also complex. If you want to know Mike's, DH's, or the other writers' of the site's stance on the subject matter, get to reading. It's not the job of others to give you a nice cliff-notes version.
'...done in the right way and with sufficient solicitousness and it's very important to the privacy interests which I do think can be balanced.'
A statement I would agree with, if the 'right way' was 'get a gorram warrant'. As it stands though, the fact that they are fighting so hard against the laughably easy task of simply applying for a warrant before snooping makes it pretty clear the vast majority of their fishing expeditions are just that, baseless searches with no actual justification, and certainly not ones that would hold up under scrutiny.
What a change to 1201 would do would be to tip the balance that currently exists.
I think you mean a balance that currently doesn't exist. Removing the anti-curcumvention clause would likely have a minimal impact on piracy, at most.
Really, copyright infringement is already illegal, do you honestly think someone involved in it pays even the slightest bit of attention to DRM beyond removing it when it bothers them(a trivial task in pretty much every case as I understand it)? Heck, I'd be surprised if even a quarter of those engaged in copyright infringement even knew about the anti-circumvention clause at all, so I rather doubt removing it would have any effect on them.
The only people DRM screws over are legitimate, paying customers, pirates aren't bothered by the infection in the least, so allowing people to strip DRM would be a great help to legitimate customers, while not affecting copyright infringers in the least.
Unfortunately, it also seems unlikely that the bill has enough support to actually go anywhere. It seems a bit telling that Wyden released this bill the same day as the fast track bill, suggesting that it's a signal of some sort to people that he's not giving up on fixing copyright law.
Maybe I'm just a little bit jaded by politics, but I'd say the fact that he sponsored both makes this particular bit of effort nothing but empty words with no other purpose than some good PR.
He's sponsoring one bill(FTA) that, unless he hasn't been paying the slightest bit of attention, he knows would completely negate the other. What does it matter if he proposes a bill that would remove the anti-circumvention aspect of the DMCA, when he has to know that doing so would undoubtedly be very much at odds with the corporate wishlist that is the 'trade' agreements after all?
If he hadn't been one of those involved in pushing for FTA, I might have believed he was genuinely trying to fix the problem, but as it stands I doubt this is anything more than a cheap PR stunt.
Attacking either head on is a fool's errand. You want to eliminate them, go after the root causes(under-served customers and desperate and/or angry people respectively). Solve those(or at least do your best to), and the problems will drastically shrink.
Coming from someone who just above that comment seemed to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal(which much like conservative seems to be political speak for 'person I don't like/agree with), you really aren't in a position to criticize.
That said, the insult was over the top and uncalled for, and does deserve a report for it.
But you won't hear facts like that from someone that hates actors and musicians, will you?
What are you talking about, you lot say it all the time.
As for dollar amounts, check your source, Google is not in fact at the top, either individually as a company, or overall. No, the #1 spender when it comes to lobbying is the 'US Chamber of Commerce', that despite having a name that makes it sound like a government department, is most certainly anything but. On the list of top spenders for 2014 as far as lobbying goes, Google is ranked #9, right below Comcast($16.83M vs $16.97M respectively).
Just because one person, or many people, are making money, it doesn't automatically mean that someone else has to get paid.
And while it may suck for him, I personally hope the various news agencies tell him to get bent when his lawyer comes demanding cash, as Fair Use already gets attacked enough in other arenas, it doesn't need weakened in a case this obvious by them folding and acting like Fair Use doesn't include newsworthy items.
Well of course Dodd, the MPAA, and those that they represent would love to see Fair Use expanded, they absolutely adore Fair Use... when they are the ones making use of it to create something without paying out for it.
When it comes to other people making use of Fair Use however, they're much more of the opinion that any use that doesn't involve money changing hands is at best questionable, and more often than not should be downright illegal. Can't have just anyone creating things after all.
I can only guess that either there are no competing ISP's in your area, or you have got to be losing customers at a pretty regular rate if that's any indication of the kind of service customer can expect from the company you work for.
Depends on your perspective. I'm sure to those that are raking in billions in contracts, and those using the 'war' to justify the erosion and destruction of rights in order to give a select few more power, the current strategy is quite successful indeed.
At which point a new 'enemy' would be found so that the money keeps flowing, and the power stays with those who bought it. The ones so enamored with the 'war on terror' have no interest whatsoever of actually 'winning' it, as that could decrease their profits and power. If one 'threat' is dealt with, they will always find or create another in order to justify the perpetual 'war'.
Apparently, it's just going to keep up its questionable tactics until it's forced to stop, even though there's little indication they've resulted in anything more than a few scattered, small settlements.
Sure the individual 'settlements' may be small, but if they harass enough people often enough I'm sure they can get at least a decent amount of cash flowing in, and it's not like it costs them anything if they're automating it.
At worst a judge may tell them to knock it off, in which case they can just ignore him/her and continue on, business as usual, safe in the knowledge that as long as you claim you're acting to 'protect your copyrights' you can get away with almost anything, and no judge will have the guts or power to stop you.
Well, here's hoping enough on both sides oppose it to kill this bill right off. If they're that eager to not do their jobs, they are welcome to resign, and let those who actually give a damn about the public step up and take their places.
PR speak "In general, we feel developers should have tools which proactively prevent mass copyright infringement from occurring on their apps and not be solely reliant upon notifications."
English(if forced to be honest) "In general, we feel developers should go above and beyond what the law actually says that they are required to do, and proactively prevent mass copyright infringement from occurring on their apps, without of course being paid to do so, and despite the fact that they have no possible way to know what is and is not infringing without the actual owners of the copyrights sending the notifications required by the law.
We acknowledge that this will undoubtedly result in a massive number of false positives, as developers will take down a great many legal and legitimate posts on their services in order to play it safe, and will cause a massive drag on any service or site that offers to host user submitted content, heavily burdening them and both running a number of them out of business, as well as stopping many new ones from ever coming into being, but we can confidently say that this is a risk we are willing to take."