Delays followed by 'miscommunications', searching for the 'proper' forms and authorizations before releasing documents, claiming that what's blatantly written isn't nearly as bad as it could have been, utterly ignoring how bad it is, 'accidentally' forgetting to release certain parts until people specifically ask for them, and then dragging their feet regarding releasing those parts...
Given the utter secrecy that has infused the 'negotiations' so far, and the overwhelming contempt they've shown towards the public and it's concerns, I fully expect that those involved will do everything in their power to continue to hide any real details from the public until it becomes a moot point, maintaining a condescending and dismissive attitude the entire time.
So long as there remains absolutely no penalty for sending bogus, even clearly bogus DMCA claims, this will continue. Why aim for accuracy when you're not penalized for screwing up after all? Why care if you target a few innocent sites if you aren't the one who has to deal with the consequences of your actions?
Put some real penalties in the DMCA, penalties matching if not exceeding what those who post infringing works face if found guilty, or even simply enforce the penalties already there, and then you'll see this sort of thing stop happening. Until that happens though, the only surprise is that it doesn't happen more often.
Seems to me you could use the same logic to drastically cut down on all other forms of crime, simply by letting those that perform the acts judge whether or not their actions are justified, and letting them choose what they want to report.
Murders by non-cops? Simply don't happen, every last reported incident is found to be an act of self-defense by the one who committed the action.
Assault? Not reported or justified.
Robbery? Not reported or justified.
Fraud? Not reported or justified.
Arson? Not reported or justified.
And so on.
The FBI and police actions here are exactly the kinds of behavior that leads to loss of trust from the public. They are blatantly indifferent to the problem, and show no interest in anything more than the most transparently laughable 'solutions' that don't involve merely brushing it under the rug, and people see this. And when people see that those in charge, whether government agency or police, have no interest in holding their own accountable, it's not hard to understand why people would lose any trust towards those in charge.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can get away with pretty much anything so long as you claim to be doing it in the name of copyright. Extortion, censorship, gutting the public domain and sabotaging cultural growth, destroying the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty'... it's all good as long as it's in the name of protecting the holy 'copyright'.
Less irresponsible or insane, just apathetic. They don't care, so long as they get people to watch. If that means handing some assholes all the fame they could ever want, then that's an acceptable price to them.
Lipscomb & Co, as they did many times before, poorly redacted the document and exposed the defendant's name in violation of the protective order.
Yeah, if they've 'accidentally' exposed the names of defendants before, in direct conflict with orders from the court, I'd say it's time to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. They're either incredibly incompetent, or doing it on purpose as part of their scam to add pressure to pay up.
'Accidentally' revealing the defendant's name like that should be grounds for immediate dismissal of the case, with prejudice. Maybe having a few cases gutted would teach them to actually pay attention when the court tells them to not do something.
When they start treating even city mayors like this, you know they've reached the point where they don't believe they answer to anyone, and can do whatever they want.
That said, I hope this happens more often, not less. Let those in positions of power get a taste of what it's like for those without the shield of position or money to protect them, maybe then they'll consider doing something about the problem(though most likely that would just entail adding laws that make them exempt from searches).
At this point this has nothing to do with 'protecting' their stuff, they're just making an example out of someone who can't fight back, simply because they can.
I can't help but suspect that if he was able to fight back, by retaining a lawyer, they would be a lot less bloodthirsty, and a lot more willing to just drop the matter now that the party has been killed off. But with no lawyer, they know they can make whatever claims they want, and he has no way of knowing whether or not they're valid.
Oh but I'm sure they'd be glad to set up an extor- I mean collections agency to handle that sort of thing. And if they can't or aren't interested in finding the actual photographers to give them their money, why I suppose they'd just have to keep that tiny amount of money all for themselves, what else could they do with it?
You'd be wasting your time if you were crunching the numbers for any reason other than curiosity. The ones pushing for ContentID and similar things care less about money than they do control(if for no other reason than they believe, not without reason, that control results in profits).
Even if they were shown, flat out and with no room for mis-interpretation, that their actions were costing them more than they were gaining, so long as the 'better' solution gave them less control(and it would) they would still oppose it.
Life plus 70 years, where have I seen that before? Ah yes, that would be the copyright duration in several other countries, leaving me wondering if this is yet another example of a country trying to slip in changes to the law prior to a 'trade' agreement being passed, so they can lie and claim that the agreement had nothing to do with the law changing.
Well, either that or a few palms were greased, some not insignificant amounts of 'donations' changed hands, and a few politicians are pushing the law for the ones who bought them.
What tripped him up, and he really should have seen it coming, is that he foolishly thought that they wouldn't lie to him if they thought it would help them and/or they could get away with it.
He foolishly thought that what they told him was the truth, acted accordingly, and was screwed as a result, and is now faced with the prospect of paying an insane amount if he wants his property to have an internet connection.
Their actions are sleazy, and their excuse is laughably bogus, but I don't see them breaking any real laws here by not selling their competitors' products. The idea that a company without a monopoly position could be forced to sell certain products is not a precedent I think I'd care to see set.