vivaelamor 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1585) comment rss

  • On the post: Groups Still Slamming Craigslist

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2010 @ 01:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: The reason...

    "Read the comment again. My whole point was that if your goal is to end exploitation, shutting down or censoring CL doesn't make sense. But, if your goal is to stop people from knowingly profitting from that stuff, then it MIGHT...."

    I cannot see how it matters that Craiglist knowingly profit from exploitation unless they are involved or encouraging it. If they were not profiting from exploitation then the money would stay with those actually exploiting and presumably be used for no better purpose. It seems like a faux moral dilemma that diverts from the relevant question, which would appear to be whether the censorship prevents exploitation.

    Rigorously applied, the faux dilemma would result in businesses being required to not provide any service that may be knowingly used by a criminal. Selling knives? Not if you haven't vetted everyone to make sure that they have a legitimate use for one.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 03:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "If I've miscommunicated something, I apologize. I'm also sorry if I'm short with you. People jump on everything I say, and usually without any knowledge of what they're talking about. It gets old."

    I'm short with people all the time, though I try to make sure that I'm only reflecting the attitude of those I'm talking to. Being 100% polite when others are taking the piss is a sure way to get them to ignore you.

    I tend to focus on how people are communicating because that is a universal constant and often seems to me the biggest barrier to two sides of an argument reaching a consensus (even if it is a disagreement). The great thing about language skills (or reasoning skills) is being able to butt in on subjects that you don't necessarily know anything about. Most of my time on here is spent not trying to convince people that they are wrong, but that what they said isn't what they meant. I don't mind disagreeing with people, I'd just like them to know why I disagree with them as that tends to be the first step towards them changing their own minds.

    "I do love what I do very much. I'm researching the legality of reverse engineering software at the moment--got a presentation to make at school tomorrow. Interesting stuff."

    Presentations are one of the reasons that I'm glad I dropped out of school. I find it easier to write than talk.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 03:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Life's too short to go back and read what I posted just to make you happy. If I called them infringers when I should have said alleged infringers, then I apologize. You may have found a flaw in one of my posts. Good for you."

    This from the guy who brought up something I said days or weeks ago? Still, your contrition moves me.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 03:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Here you go again, arguing about the meaning of a single word."

    Does this mean that you'd rather I argued the meaning of several? What a silly statement.

    "Evidence is proof."

    It isn't. If it were then we wouldn't need two words. Evidence may constitute proof, but that is not necessarily so. Evidence is pretty much anything presented in support of an assertion. Proof is evidence that supports an assertion to some degree of certainty. For an example of the distinction, you can have false evidence but you cannot have false proof, because that would be a contradiction in terms.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 02:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Nope. Wrong again. It's not anyone's guess what is considered prima facie evidence. Case law spells it out clearly. The complaint alleges prima facie evidence, and that is sufficient at this point of the proceedings."

    Just because it is alleged does not make it so. Having said that, I hold little hope that the court will throw this out like it should. I am not contesting the fact that they can do this, I am saying that they should not do this, ideally because the court would spank them for wasting time (wishful thinking, I know).

    "Read a bunch of case law and then we'll talk more. Until then, you have no idea what you're talking about."

    Honestly, I wouldn't claim to know more about law than you. Pretty much everything I've brought up here is based on you saying stuff that just doesn't make sense with a basic knowledge of English. That you appear to have some odd ideas about certain legal concepts is possibly also your communications skills at fault.

    "I've read 7 cases about copyright infringement just today for pleasure reading. I read case law every day. I read case law for class. I read case law for work. And in my spare time, guess what, I read case law. Maybe that's why I'm at the top of my class."

    I am glad that you appear to enjoy your work so much. Few people enjoy their work enough to be able to stand it in their spare time. Personally I prefer martial arts as a hobby, it makes a nice contrast to sitting at a desk trying to help people all day.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 02:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I implied no such thing. There is prima facie evidence that those being sued are infringers of the work in question. Read the complaint to see this evidence. You might want to do some homework on what constitutes prima facie evidence of infringement while you're there, so you know what to look for in the complaint. Whether or not they in fact infringed remains to be seen."

    Yes, you implied that they are guilty when you referred to them as infringers. When I said evidence I meant proof. Now I'm mixing the two up, glad I'm not a lawyer. If you didn't mean to imply that then fair enough, but again you keep acting as if what you said means something completely different to how the rest of the English speaking world might interpret it. The fact that they are presenting their evidence as prima facie doesn't give you cause to imply that the accused are infringers. I hope you're not a defence lawyer if you don't get the whole innocent until proven guilty premise.

    "I perfectly well understand the difference. Got anything that's actually interesting to debate about?"

    I'm patiently waiting for you to get past the language barrier so that we can progress.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 02:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Read the complaint in any of these cases. Believe it or not, the plaintiffs lay out their case in the complaint. People can then read these complaints and see what the plaintiff is alleging. Amazing!"

    Yes, as I suspected the evidence is a list of IP addresses. Why that is considered prima facie evidence is anyone's guess. If that is evidence then this IOU I just typed is evidence that someone owes me money.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 02:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I dismiss your comment as pedantic and boring."

    But not wrong, I note.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 02:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Like I said, I don't know if the laws in the UK are analogous. Maybe they are or maybe they aren't. I don't presume to know, nor do I presume they are. Snore."

    The laws don't have to be analogous because he was not drawing an analogy between the laws, but between the cases. If you fall asleep this easily in your law lectures then it might explain a lot.

    'I recall you were upset by my saying "cite to authority." You tried to correct me. Guess what, "cite to authority" is a phrase I'm familiar with. Perhaps you are not. Who cares? Don't you have anything substantive to debate rather than my choice of phrase? People use phrases and terms you aren't familiar with. ZZZzzzzzz.'

    I am unsure as to what you refer to? I am afraid I do not have a very good memory and cannot make sense of your reference without some context.

    "Prima facie evidence is just that--evidence. If not rebutted, it is accepted by the court at face value. Boring."

    You claimed that I was wrong that there is no proof because there is prima facie evidence, which implied that the prima facie evidence constitutes proof, which is wrong. Is there a reason that I should not have taken your words literally? I cannot imagine that you meant them as some sort of idiom. Your inability to communicate your point is only furthered by your refusal to admit that you did not mean what you said. If you wish to avoid all the boring semantics then just say 'no, I didn't mean that' instead of ignoring what you previously said altogether.

    "You are less compelling than you were before. Find somebody else to play with. So desperate to find even the slightest flaw in my posts. Yawn."

    Play with? I guess you don't care that people find your arguments lacking if you're just doing it for some sort of game. On the plus side, I appear to be winning whether this is a game or a genuine attempt to communicate.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 01:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry, hit refresh and didn't realise the thread had shifted so much. Didn't realise this wasn't a reply to me.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 01:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The complaint in the "Debbie Does Dallas" case is here if you're interested: http://www.slyck.com/misc/Debbie_dallas.pdf"

    Thank you, but I have already been through the complaint to check what evidence they were providing.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "abuse, n. 1. A departure from legal or reasonable use; misuse."

    As explained in another comment, a crime can be an abuse; however, the fact that a crime is abuse does not make a crime an abuse of the law. No one is contesting that infringement may not be considered abuse in law, but that it is not an abuse of law.

    Feel free to dismiss my comment as pedantic or boring or whatever it is you're trying to paint me as. I don't mind being any of those as much as you appear to mind being wrong.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "This isn't a very interesting thing to debate."

    I'm sorry I bore you. No, that wasn't sincerely.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Mike was saying that UK politicians were against infringement suits, and he was saying that US politicians should do the same. My thought is that the laws there are different, so it's most likely not analogous. Like I said, I don't know what the laws are there. Maybe it is analogous, maybe it isn't, I don't know."

    If you don't believe Mike's analogy is correct then you should admit ignorance and move on (I doubt anyone would mind you not wanting to read about the UK cases), or read them and tell him why they are not analogous. Instead you claimed that no one's opinion from the UK mattered for the reason that you are ignorant of UK law. At best you insulted a whole country.

    "I remember our last "debate" and honestly, it wasn't very fruitful. As I recall you were questioning my choice of words. For example, you told me my use of "appropriate" was incorrect. Obviously you haven't read a lot of U.S. IP jurisprudence, because if you had, you'd know that "appropriate" and "misappropriate" are used all the time. You were incorrect to point out my misuse of the word."

    Putting that next to your assertion that someone who murders is an abuser of murder laws can only help convince people of whatever my previous argument was. While I appreciate that lawyers have their own lingo, I find it a stretch to believe that you've distorted the English language quite so badly. It would lend credence to the theory that the law is poorly written just to keep lawyers in work.

    "And you are wrong that there's no proof in these infringement cases. There is prima facie evidence. Read the complaints."

    Stoke my verisimilitude! A law student who believes prima facie evidence constitutes proof. Not requiring proof is not the same as having proof.

    "You are also wrong that I assume all of the defendants are guilty. I never said that, nor have I ever thought it. I do think there's a prima facie case against them, as the sworn statements in the complaints indicate."

    I address this in another comment.

    "And again, I don't dismiss opinions of everyone outside my own country. It's the comparison of U.S. law to foreign law that I don't think is apples and oranges."

    I'm pretty sure you mean 'I think is apples and oranges'. If he were comparing the laws then I would agree.

    "I don't find any of this particularly interesting or compelling..."

    I sincerely hope that no one is forcing you to post. If it helps, I included a six syllable word to lighten the mood.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2010 @ 10:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I don't really follow you here."

    I'll simplify it then. You implied that those sued are guilty of infringement. On the safe presumption that you have no evidence of this, we can conclude that you assumed they are guilty.

    "I don't find you compelling, vivaelamor."

    I am very grateful that you would publicly state this.

  • On the post: Software Startups Realizing That Cookie-Cutter Freemium Doesn't Always Work Well

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Sep, 2010 @ 05:01am

    Re: Going Beyond Freemium

    "It may very well influence how you decide to optimize your company's software monetization and customer acquisition strategy."

    You sound like the sort of person who might actually come up with a word like 'freemium'.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Sep, 2010 @ 04:46am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "I do not assume they are "guilty." I've never said any such thing. I believe that the complaint alleges sufficient reasons to bring a suit against the defendants. Two different things."

    You said: "By definition, the people who infringe on other people's rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law. Only in some silly alternate universe are the victims the abusers."

    If that isn't an assumption then I might assume we're in the silly alternate universe anyway.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Sep, 2010 @ 04:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "There is evidence that they are not, hence the lawsuit."

    Where? Show us the facts! The cases in the UK seemed to consist of a list of IP addresses and we all know how well that works. I wouldn't be surprised if they sued a network printer again.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Sep, 2010 @ 04:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Legally speaking, the rights holder is a victim when someone infringes on his rights. And a person who breaks copyright laws is by definition an abuser."

    How does that work when they are sending pre settlement letters without proof? You'll dismiss the evidence because it's from the UK, but the fact is that not everyone receiving a letter has been guilty.

  • On the post: Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Sep, 2010 @ 04:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "No, a person who breaks copyright laws is a lawbreaker. A person who "misuses" the law is an abuser. For (an intentionally trite) example, someone who jaywalks is a lawbreaker; a cop who only writes you a jaywalking ticket if you're wearing white after Labor Day, is abusing the law."

    You said it better than I did. I worry when a law student can't grasp that simple distinction.

Next >>