It also seems an inexplicable role reversal of the big fish cooperating to catch the little fish.
In a drug bust, they bust the little guy to get the middleman, and pressure the middleman to get the big kahuna. In this case, they started at the top, and so every link in the chain leads further down instead of up. Oh, also, the big guys have better lawyers. These IT guys sure don't look innocent to me, but you can be sure that they're being sold out by bigger fish who want to stay out of the fire.
Had these Maddoff programmer guys gotten excessively large bonuses, they would have quit and retired. When you're a millionaire, why keep grinding away with that long commute...
When they wanted to leave (because their hands were dirty and getting dirtier), they were offered good money to stay and set things up so someone else could do most of the dirty work. Why keep doing it? Heck, if you'll sell out for $xx,000 once, you keep at it because you want the next payday too.
Because when you get sued for a bajillion dollars by someone who wants to own you, it pays to go back throught you servers' IP logs and see if you can find exactly where all their copyrighted content actually came from. Gee, will you look at this; a lot of it comes from these 18 marketing firms. Hmm. They all list Viacom as a client. That's odd. And Kinko's? Hmmm. (Subpoenaing user CC information for workstation abc at Kinko's xyz on day/month/yr/time... comparing to Viacom org chart... *exact match*!)
In the supplemantary acticle, Google also alleges that Viacom hired 18 marketing companies to upload clips, and took steps to make the content look pirated. Viacom allegedly even sent employees Kinko's to upload clips, so Youtube couldn't trace the origin back to Viacom. I don't know what evidence they have of this, but if we give them the benefit of the doubt (that's a pretty specific bunch of allegations to simply invent), that would indicate some pretty clear malfeasance on Viacom's part. They were trying to poison the well and not get caught.
Thanks for the insight. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with the recording industry and their antics, but I still am. Still, if this passes, it is just going to pour money into corporate pockets. If it is less than the big labels would hope for, I can't say I feel sorry for them.
Ok, so it's obvious by your post that you are a liberal. I'm not (I hold some views that some would call deeply liberal, but I tend to align more to the right on most other issues) , but I respect the fact that you are. What I don't respect is your hypocrisy.
Not all conservatives are Glenn beck fans, or Rush Limbaugh fans, or fans of anyone who prostitutes their conscience for ratings and money. You complain of lies and distortions by the right, yet you yourself are more than willing to collectively and dismissively denigrate the right. You don't do your cause any favors by adopting the tactics you claim to despise.
I'm not so simplistic that I would equate Obama with W, but as you've already pointed out, Obama's track record is vastly different from the raft of campaign promises he rode into office. Openness in governance was one of his key promises, it does not appear that he has fulfilled that promise, and this AP article is right to call him on it. It doesn't require being a conservative to see that.
Speaking of conservatives, Bush wasn't much of a one, aside from hawkish foreign policy and support for conservative religious views. His vast inflation of government and government spending was one of the least conservative things to happen under a Republican.
It's also possible that the right-wing media are making requests for information that is expected to be embargoed, in an attempt to pump up these numbers.
Highly speculative, and likely not the case. There was an 11% decrease in requests. I would expect a substantial jump in the number of requests if the right wing press were trying to skew the numbers.
Good luck to them fighting off DMCA, ACTA, and any other international IP legislation designed to limit their rights.
If they were a small business then they would go belly up, but since they are large they are safe and can bully everyone into bowing to their whim.
Yeah, we have that in the States, too. We call it "Too big to fail". They prefer to receive their fair share of tax revenue as one lump sum, or "bailout".
I thought you guys already enjoyed a certain legal tolerance for sharing because you get taxed on CDs and such. If that's the case, what do you have to gain from another tax? If this one is passed, how many more taxes are you guys going to be hit up for? If sharing is quasi-legal indefinitely, they can come back in a few years and demand a tax on hard drives, SSDs, and any other storage media, most of which will likely never hold the copyrighted music files they are paying for.
Yvan already debunked this. The recording companies aren't paying artists properly already. This tax will be another form of corporate welfare, pouring money into the pockets of the real music pirates... Sony, BMG, etc.
The problem here is that we aren't dealing with purely criminal matters. We're dealing with combat, which is martial rather than criminal. If an American is in the camp of our enemies, and is wilfully engaged in combat against the US, or the support of those who do, they shouldn't expect to be treated as a mere criminal.
Why should they need a warrant to see your publicly available profile? Why shouldn't they be able to invent a virtual identity to facilitate talking to a suspect or their friends online? How is that different from undercover work in the real world?
It's coming soon. In MA, ignoring the state and US Constitutions is an art form. There is a giant billboard (the length of 4 or 5 regular billboards) facing the Mass Turnpike by Fenway Park that is dedicated to anti-2nd amendment propaganda. Has been for years.
I agree that email should be protected by the 4th, but just for argument sake, how does the 4th apply to postcards? If I send an unencrypted email, my message can be read by anyone, just as if it were on a postcard. Since the 4th does not (AFAIK) protect against anything that is in plain sight, my guess is that in the same way, a postcard (as well as unencrypted emails perhaps?) would be fair game.
Any law-educated folks care to weigh in?
OTOH, if I encrypt my email, I am effectively wrapping it in an envelope to keep others from viewing it. Ideally, that should invoke 4th amendment protections, because by my logic, if I encrypt a transmission, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Practically speaking, sufficient encryption would render the point largely moot.
Not if the faster one screws it up trying to be fast. Call me old-fashioned, but when jockeying hardware, I prefer taking my time, being careful, and wearing a static wrist strap. Not that I can't be fast, I just prefer not to.
Slashdot Mirror
It also seems an inexplicable role reversal of the big fish cooperating to catch the little fish.
In a drug bust, they bust the little guy to get the middleman, and pressure the middleman to get the big kahuna. In this case, they started at the top, and so every link in the chain leads further down instead of up. Oh, also, the big guys have better lawyers. These IT guys sure don't look innocent to me, but you can be sure that they're being sold out by bigger fish who want to stay out of the fire.
Had these Maddoff programmer guys gotten excessively large bonuses, they would have quit and retired. When you're a millionaire, why keep grinding away with that long commute...
When they wanted to leave (because their hands were dirty and getting dirtier), they were offered good money to stay and set things up so someone else could do most of the dirty work. Why keep doing it? Heck, if you'll sell out for $xx,000 once, you keep at it because you want the next payday too.
These guys almost left Madoff's operation, who then paid them a boatload of money to stay.
Where does that leave content owners who upload their content on purpose, hide their tracks, and then sue for infringement?
And with Google in charge, there is a hair-trigger copyrighted material takedown policy. Things are a lot different now than they were 4 years ago.
No one had their retirement account drained to zero because of Youtube.
Isn't suing a bigger company just because they have deeper pockets evil?
Whether it's evil of not, it's standard practice in the business world.
Thanks for the info.
Because when you get sued for a bajillion dollars by someone who wants to own you, it pays to go back throught you servers' IP logs and see if you can find exactly where all their copyrighted content actually came from. Gee, will you look at this; a lot of it comes from these 18 marketing firms. Hmm. They all list Viacom as a client. That's odd. And Kinko's? Hmmm. (Subpoenaing user CC information for workstation abc at Kinko's xyz on day/month/yr/time ... comparing to Viacom org chart ... *exact match*!)
In the supplemantary acticle, Google also alleges that Viacom hired 18 marketing companies to upload clips, and took steps to make the content look pirated. Viacom allegedly even sent employees Kinko's to upload clips, so Youtube couldn't trace the origin back to Viacom. I don't know what evidence they have of this, but if we give them the benefit of the doubt (that's a pretty specific bunch of allegations to simply invent), that would indicate some pretty clear malfeasance on Viacom's part. They were trying to poison the well and not get caught.
Thanks for the insight. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with the recording industry and their antics, but I still am. Still, if this passes, it is just going to pour money into corporate pockets. If it is less than the big labels would hope for, I can't say I feel sorry for them.
Ok, so it's obvious by your post that you are a liberal. I'm not (I hold some views that some would call deeply liberal, but I tend to align more to the right on most other issues) , but I respect the fact that you are. What I don't respect is your hypocrisy.
Not all conservatives are Glenn beck fans, or Rush Limbaugh fans, or fans of anyone who prostitutes their conscience for ratings and money. You complain of lies and distortions by the right, yet you yourself are more than willing to collectively and dismissively denigrate the right. You don't do your cause any favors by adopting the tactics you claim to despise.
I'm not so simplistic that I would equate Obama with W, but as you've already pointed out, Obama's track record is vastly different from the raft of campaign promises he rode into office. Openness in governance was one of his key promises, it does not appear that he has fulfilled that promise, and this AP article is right to call him on it. It doesn't require being a conservative to see that.
Speaking of conservatives, Bush wasn't much of a one, aside from hawkish foreign policy and support for conservative religious views. His vast inflation of government and government spending was one of the least conservative things to happen under a Republican.
It's also possible that the right-wing media are making requests for information that is expected to be embargoed, in an attempt to pump up these numbers.
Highly speculative, and likely not the case. There was an 11% decrease in requests. I would expect a substantial jump in the number of requests if the right wing press were trying to skew the numbers.
If they were a small business then they would go belly up, but since they are large they are safe and can bully everyone into bowing to their whim.
Yeah, we have that in the States, too. We call it "Too big to fail". They prefer to receive their fair share of tax revenue as one lump sum, or "bailout".
I thought you guys already enjoyed a certain legal tolerance for sharing because you get taxed on CDs and such. If that's the case, what do you have to gain from another tax? If this one is passed, how many more taxes are you guys going to be hit up for? If sharing is quasi-legal indefinitely, they can come back in a few years and demand a tax on hard drives, SSDs, and any other storage media, most of which will likely never hold the copyrighted music files they are paying for.
Yvan already debunked this. The recording companies aren't paying artists properly already. This tax will be another form of corporate welfare, pouring money into the pockets of the real music pirates ... Sony, BMG, etc.
But tastes great on brraaaaiiiinnnnsssss ........
WHOOOOOOSH!
criminal prosecutions
The problem here is that we aren't dealing with purely criminal matters. We're dealing with combat, which is martial rather than criminal. If an American is in the camp of our enemies, and is wilfully engaged in combat against the US, or the support of those who do, they shouldn't expect to be treated as a mere criminal.
Why should they need a warrant to see your publicly available profile? Why shouldn't they be able to invent a virtual identity to facilitate talking to a suspect or their friends online? How is that different from undercover work in the real world?
It's coming soon. In MA, ignoring the state and US Constitutions is an art form. There is a giant billboard (the length of 4 or 5 regular billboards) facing the Mass Turnpike by Fenway Park that is dedicated to anti-2nd amendment propaganda. Has been for years.
I agree that email should be protected by the 4th, but just for argument sake, how does the 4th apply to postcards? If I send an unencrypted email, my message can be read by anyone, just as if it were on a postcard. Since the 4th does not (AFAIK) protect against anything that is in plain sight, my guess is that in the same way, a postcard (as well as unencrypted emails perhaps?) would be fair game.
Any law-educated folks care to weigh in?
OTOH, if I encrypt my email, I am effectively wrapping it in an envelope to keep others from viewing it. Ideally, that should invoke 4th amendment protections, because by my logic, if I encrypt a transmission, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Practically speaking, sufficient encryption would render the point largely moot.
There's got to be a masturbation joke somewhere in there.
who the frack cares what a college student has to say?
Like it or not, today's kids are the ones who will be running things tomorrow. Especially the ones coming from Ivy league law schools.
Not if the faster one screws it up trying to be fast. Call me old-fashioned, but when jockeying hardware, I prefer taking my time, being careful, and wearing a static wrist strap. Not that I can't be fast, I just prefer not to.