No, that is entirely incorrect. This has nothing to do with different works. If you are hosting a web site that is distributing music, movies, etc, and you are distributing those things without authorization, you could be charged with or sued for copyright infringement. This would be very bad for sites like YouTube, etc, where the content is put there by users. So the law has a provision to protect you from that liability. This is sometimes called the safe harbor.
To get the safe harbor protection, there are things you must do. The paragraph I quoted is one of those things. If someone sends you a notice that they are the copyright holder of work X, and work X has been found on your server, then you must delete work X from your server. If you do that (and some other things), you are protected from copyright infringement actions.
What the other poster was claiming was that there might be multiple instances of work X on your server, and some of those might be authorized. He was using this scenario as an excuse as to why MegaUpload did not delete the actual infringing file, but only one link to it. However, they are required to remove the file, not just one link. If some other user had an AUTHORIZED link to that file, they can file a counter-notice, and the host would restore the file.
There seem to be a few 'facts' in your post which are nothing more than wishful thinking.
First, you do not have the 'right' to make a backup copy of a movie. So that example is invalid.
Secondly, the exact text from the DMCA is:
`(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
The 'material' is the contents of the file (song, movie, whatever), not a URL. The law does not say 'remove a single link to the material', or 'remove one copy of the material', it says 'remove the material'.
The same law which protects the host from liability to the copyright holder also protects them from liability in the case of improper takedowns, so your 'tortious interference' does not apply. If someone legitimately had the file there, they can file a counter notice stating they have the right to have the data there. It is not the hosting providers call.
Buying stock does not cause ANY money to be put 'in the companies coffers', unless it is newly issued stock (which is rare). Whoever owned the stock before you has the money. You, in turn, have an asset that will hopefully earn you more than you paid for it, over time. That worth could be realized as income from dividends or from sale of the stock at a higher price than you paid.
Germany buying stock in a German company in no way helps the company, so what is the point of doing it?
Why do other countries contribute to the foundation? Because they trust that the money will be managed and spent wisely. Could they do the same things themselves? Of course - but what makes you think they would do any better managing or spending the money?
Do they NEED to invest the money? Of course not - they could keep it in the proverbial vault and dole it out to orgs as needed. However, that would GUARANTEE that the money will eventually run out. With well-managed money you can theoretically continue handing out money forever.
If I were on trial, and the prosecution presented evidence against me, I would like the opportunity to refute that evidence. Some idiot searching on the web for the 'real' evidence does not give me the opportunity to do that.
If I were prosecuting a case, I want any challenge to the science the lab uses to come from the defense, so I can refute it. Some idiot searching on the web for the 'real answers' does not give me the opportunity to do that.
If I were on trial, and the police had improperly obtained evidence, I would want that evidence excluded from the trial (fourth amendment and all that). Some idiot searching on the web for the 'real' evidence can find that improper evidence.
If I were prosecuting a case, I want any challenge to the law to come from the defense, so I can rebut it. Some idiot searching the web for the 'real' law does not give me the chance to do that.
And here is the best part of your incredibly stupid argument: you refer to the jurors as 'half wits' who are 'easily brainwashed', yet you expect them to do independent research and be able to sort out the bullshit from the truth on webpages dealing with subjects they know nothing about. Brilliant.
Actually, if what the GP is suggesting is true there is very much wrong with it. That would be Google using its dominant position in one area (search) to harm competition in another area (selling ads). If Google were not selling ads, then no problem. But, since they do sell ads (as their primary business no less), restricting pages where other people are selling ads is a huge anti-trust issue.
Of course, that is the way grand juries work in every case. The conviction rate in federal court where an indictment has been handed down by a grand jury is 99.8%.
What are you talking about? Read the very first page of the indictment. Notice the five charges and the exact law that each violates. The activities are illegal.
Second, look at the bottom of the page. Notice how it says 'THE GRAND JURY CHARGES'. A jury, drawn from the same people who would make up a trial jury, have already determined laws were broken and there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. I don't know where you get the 'unable to find a jury willing to convict' BS from. Just wishful thinking maybe.
Sorry, but you are the one who doesn't get it. First, learn what a balance sheet is and how to read it. Here is Disney's. Notice the three categories: assets ($72B), liabilities ($35B), and equity ($37B). Nowhere does your figure at $107B appear - because it doesn't exist. The equity (value) of the company right now is $37B.
Your last paragraph makes even less sense than your math. Disney is a publicly traded company. The only way you can buy it is to buy all of the stock from all of the shareholders. So if Apple wants to buy Disney, it has to cough up $70B of real cash to buy out all of Disney's shareholders, which gets it $37B in equity. In other words, Apple now has $33B LESS equity than it had before the purchase. Alternatively, if Disney approves it, Apple could buy the Disney shares with shares of Apple stock. However, to do that they would either need to buy back their own shares so they could give them to the Disney shareholders (thus costing Apple real dollars to buy back the shares), or they could issue new stock, which would dilute the value of the existing Apple shares. In either case, a rise in the price of Disney stock most certainly DOES affect how much the purchase costs. If the price of Disney stock rises 10% on the news of a buyout it is now going to cost Apple $77B is real dollars to buy Disney. They are still only getting $37B of equity, so now Apple's equity has dropped by $40B
So the only reason Apple would buy Disney is because they think that the $37B they lost in equity is going to be made up by the profits gained by having Disney.
What??? Your post makes no sense at all. The cost to buy a company is how much it would take to buy all of the stock. For Disney, that is about $70B today. As soon as it became apparent that there was going to be a buyer, the stock price would rise and the cost to buy the company would go up. The price of a company has absolutely nothing to do with 'the money it has available'.
If you were to buy Disney at todays price, you would need to use up your assets or gain liabilities to the tune of $70B. In exchange for that, you would get $72B in assets from Disney, and inherit $35B in liabilities. Your net assets just went down $33B.
So, you most certainly DO buy a company to 'make the money back', in the form of profits. Disney's most recent profits were a little under $5B/yr, so in about 14 years you would have made your money back, assuming the profits stay the same. Companies buy other companies for many reasons, the liquidation value is seldom one of them.
What studies say the turning a blind eye to piracy increases total sales? AFAIK, what the studies (may) say is that piracy may increase sales among people who pirate. However, as soon a 'turn a blind eye to piracy' becomes policy, all of the people who currently don't pirate are suddenly free to pirate. That represents billions of dollars of sales that need to happen even though people can 'legally' get the content for free. Unless every one of those current buyers continues to buy (not likely), or a large percentage of pirates decide to start paying (equally unlikely), sales are going down, not up.
Furthermore, when you start talking about getting at 'lockdown' on copyrights, etc, all you are suggesting is a transfer of ownership, with no real change in business model. Sure, it would give a buyer a jump start in movies or whatever, but it would hardly 'kill Hollywood' - it would just change the name.
Oh, that makes perfect sense. Investors would just LOVE it if MS or Apple threw away billions of dollars like that. Or do you have some ingenious business plan that would recoup the $70B someone would spend on Disney, without doing the exact same things that Disney is currently doing?
I believe that the people who were supposed to be operating lifeboats know how to operate them. However, because of the extremely poor command of the captain, people (including crew) were left to fend for themselves, so some lifeboats wound up without a qualified operator on them.
It's unfair at this point to say the people involved were incompetent. Most likely they were doing exactly what they were trained to do - follow orders. The problem was, the captain was the completely incompetent one and was not giving the orders the crew needed. You have to remember that on a cruise ship most of the crew are cooks, waiters, bartenders, entertainers, painters, photographers, etc. These are not people who are authorized in any way to determine when or how to evacuate a ship. They are certainly trained in how to follow orders during an evacuation, but absent those orders it is every man for himself - which is apparently what this turned into.
On one cruise I was on I was up on deck enjoying lunch and drinks, when the captain made an announcement that said 'passengers ignore the following alarm - this is for crew only. Passengers may continue with what you are doing'. Then there were a series of alarms, and the crew quite literally dropped what they were doing and disappeared quickly. About 15 minutes later the crew returned to what they were doing. I asked our waiter what that was all about, and he said there was an alarm for a fire in the engine room, and each crew member is assigned specific things they must do in that situation (we never did hear if there was an actual fire or if it was a false alarm).
Can you imagine what would happen to the crew member who heard the alarm and decided on his own 'holy crap! fire in the engine room! Get the passengers on lifeboats now!'?
Every aspect of this disaster falls directly on the captain.
I suggest you consult a dictionary before making idiotic statements like that. Definition #1 (Webster's) of steal: to take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc) without permission.
Well then, you wouldn't mind if we all came to your house and used your water, right? Because after all, it is the same water. The fact that you paid for it and we didn't is immaterial, right?
Nope, not the same thing at all. If a bottling plant pays for and uses tap water, that is OK. If I pay for and use tap water, that is OK. If I use the bottling plants water (which is not mine), that is NOT OK, it is theft.
Of course nobody would be sued if the download Debian ISOs - they have authorization to do so, granted by the copyright holders. They do not have authorization to download MPAA movies. It has nothing to do with bandwidth - where did that come from?
When you use tap water, you are getting that water from an authorized source (ie the water company has the right to sell you that water). The fact that a bottling company exists is immaterial - you are not taking their water. If you tapped into your neighbors pipes you would probably consider that an 'alternate source', but most thinking people would call it stealing.
You make it sound like the case is about a legitimate alternate source of movies and music. It isn't. It is siphoning off your neighbors tap.
Slashdot Mirror
Insightful, really? How about 'complete bullshit'. Maybe you (and the idiot mods) should read about GINA.
Hah! Good luck with that argument.
No, that is entirely incorrect. This has nothing to do with different works. If you are hosting a web site that is distributing music, movies, etc, and you are distributing those things without authorization, you could be charged with or sued for copyright infringement. This would be very bad for sites like YouTube, etc, where the content is put there by users. So the law has a provision to protect you from that liability. This is sometimes called the safe harbor.
To get the safe harbor protection, there are things you must do. The paragraph I quoted is one of those things. If someone sends you a notice that they are the copyright holder of work X, and work X has been found on your server, then you must delete work X from your server. If you do that (and some other things), you are protected from copyright infringement actions.
What the other poster was claiming was that there might be multiple instances of work X on your server, and some of those might be authorized. He was using this scenario as an excuse as to why MegaUpload did not delete the actual infringing file, but only one link to it. However, they are required to remove the file, not just one link. If some other user had an AUTHORIZED link to that file, they can file a counter-notice, and the host would restore the file.
There seem to be a few 'facts' in your post which are nothing more than wishful thinking.
First, you do not have the 'right' to make a backup copy of a movie. So that example is invalid.
Secondly, the exact text from the DMCA is:
`(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
The 'material' is the contents of the file (song, movie, whatever), not a URL. The law does not say 'remove a single link to the material', or 'remove one copy of the material', it says 'remove the material'.
The same law which protects the host from liability to the copyright holder also protects them from liability in the case of improper takedowns, so your 'tortious interference' does not apply. If someone legitimately had the file there, they can file a counter notice stating they have the right to have the data there. It is not the hosting providers call.
Buying stock does not cause ANY money to be put 'in the companies coffers', unless it is newly issued stock (which is rare). Whoever owned the stock before you has the money. You, in turn, have an asset that will hopefully earn you more than you paid for it, over time. That worth could be realized as income from dividends or from sale of the stock at a higher price than you paid.
Germany buying stock in a German company in no way helps the company, so what is the point of doing it?
Why do other countries contribute to the foundation? Because they trust that the money will be managed and spent wisely. Could they do the same things themselves? Of course - but what makes you think they would do any better managing or spending the money?
Do they NEED to invest the money? Of course not - they could keep it in the proverbial vault and dole it out to orgs as needed. However, that would GUARANTEE that the money will eventually run out. With well-managed money you can theoretically continue handing out money forever.
If I were on trial, and the prosecution presented evidence against me, I would like the opportunity to refute that evidence. Some idiot searching on the web for the 'real' evidence does not give me the opportunity to do that.
If I were prosecuting a case, I want any challenge to the science the lab uses to come from the defense, so I can refute it. Some idiot searching on the web for the 'real answers' does not give me the opportunity to do that.
If I were on trial, and the police had improperly obtained evidence, I would want that evidence excluded from the trial (fourth amendment and all that). Some idiot searching on the web for the 'real' evidence can find that improper evidence.
If I were prosecuting a case, I want any challenge to the law to come from the defense, so I can rebut it. Some idiot searching the web for the 'real' law does not give me the chance to do that.
And here is the best part of your incredibly stupid argument: you refer to the jurors as 'half wits' who are 'easily brainwashed', yet you expect them to do independent research and be able to sort out the bullshit from the truth on webpages dealing with subjects they know nothing about. Brilliant.
Actually, if what the GP is suggesting is true there is very much wrong with it. That would be Google using its dominant position in one area (search) to harm competition in another area (selling ads). If Google were not selling ads, then no problem. But, since they do sell ads (as their primary business no less), restricting pages where other people are selling ads is a huge anti-trust issue.
What distance? It says the pictures were from a Russian landing probe.
Of course, that is the way grand juries work in every case. The conviction rate in federal court where an indictment has been handed down by a grand jury is 99.8%.
You think there would have been as many ad views and premium accounts sold if the infringing material wasn't there? Good luck trying to sell that one.
What are you talking about? Read the very first page of the indictment. Notice the five charges and the exact law that each violates. The activities are illegal.
Second, look at the bottom of the page. Notice how it says 'THE GRAND JURY CHARGES'. A jury, drawn from the same people who would make up a trial jury, have already determined laws were broken and there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. I don't know where you get the 'unable to find a jury willing to convict' BS from. Just wishful thinking maybe.
Sorry, but you are the one who doesn't get it. First, learn what a balance sheet is and how to read it. Here is Disney's. Notice the three categories: assets ($72B), liabilities ($35B), and equity ($37B). Nowhere does your figure at $107B appear - because it doesn't exist. The equity (value) of the company right now is $37B.
Your last paragraph makes even less sense than your math. Disney is a publicly traded company. The only way you can buy it is to buy all of the stock from all of the shareholders. So if Apple wants to buy Disney, it has to cough up $70B of real cash to buy out all of Disney's shareholders, which gets it $37B in equity. In other words, Apple now has $33B LESS equity than it had before the purchase. Alternatively, if Disney approves it, Apple could buy the Disney shares with shares of Apple stock. However, to do that they would either need to buy back their own shares so they could give them to the Disney shareholders (thus costing Apple real dollars to buy back the shares), or they could issue new stock, which would dilute the value of the existing Apple shares. In either case, a rise in the price of Disney stock most certainly DOES affect how much the purchase costs. If the price of Disney stock rises 10% on the news of a buyout it is now going to cost Apple $77B is real dollars to buy Disney. They are still only getting $37B of equity, so now Apple's equity has dropped by $40B
So the only reason Apple would buy Disney is because they think that the $37B they lost in equity is going to be made up by the profits gained by having Disney.
What??? Your post makes no sense at all. The cost to buy a company is how much it would take to buy all of the stock. For Disney, that is about $70B today. As soon as it became apparent that there was going to be a buyer, the stock price would rise and the cost to buy the company would go up. The price of a company has absolutely nothing to do with 'the money it has available'.
If you were to buy Disney at todays price, you would need to use up your assets or gain liabilities to the tune of $70B. In exchange for that, you would get $72B in assets from Disney, and inherit $35B in liabilities. Your net assets just went down $33B.
So, you most certainly DO buy a company to 'make the money back', in the form of profits. Disney's most recent profits were a little under $5B/yr, so in about 14 years you would have made your money back, assuming the profits stay the same. Companies buy other companies for many reasons, the liquidation value is seldom one of them.
What studies say the turning a blind eye to piracy increases total sales? AFAIK, what the studies (may) say is that piracy may increase sales among people who pirate. However, as soon a 'turn a blind eye to piracy' becomes policy, all of the people who currently don't pirate are suddenly free to pirate. That represents billions of dollars of sales that need to happen even though people can 'legally' get the content for free. Unless every one of those current buyers continues to buy (not likely), or a large percentage of pirates decide to start paying (equally unlikely), sales are going down, not up.
Furthermore, when you start talking about getting at 'lockdown' on copyrights, etc, all you are suggesting is a transfer of ownership, with no real change in business model. Sure, it would give a buyer a jump start in movies or whatever, but it would hardly 'kill Hollywood' - it would just change the name.
Say what? Where do you get that silly idea? There are hundreds or thousands of lawsuits against medical device makers and drug makers.
The only protection from liability is for vaccines, where there is a government program to pay lost lawsuits.
WTF??? Giving authors and inventors EXCLUSIVE rights is exactly what copyright does. What are these 'other permutations'?
Oh, that makes perfect sense. Investors would just LOVE it if MS or Apple threw away billions of dollars like that. Or do you have some ingenious business plan that would recoup the $70B someone would spend on Disney, without doing the exact same things that Disney is currently doing?
Yeah, that's all they have. And ABC, ESPN, etc. And 47 square miles of theme parks and resorts in Florida alone.
I believe that the people who were supposed to be operating lifeboats know how to operate them. However, because of the extremely poor command of the captain, people (including crew) were left to fend for themselves, so some lifeboats wound up without a qualified operator on them.
It's unfair at this point to say the people involved were incompetent. Most likely they were doing exactly what they were trained to do - follow orders. The problem was, the captain was the completely incompetent one and was not giving the orders the crew needed. You have to remember that on a cruise ship most of the crew are cooks, waiters, bartenders, entertainers, painters, photographers, etc. These are not people who are authorized in any way to determine when or how to evacuate a ship. They are certainly trained in how to follow orders during an evacuation, but absent those orders it is every man for himself - which is apparently what this turned into.
On one cruise I was on I was up on deck enjoying lunch and drinks, when the captain made an announcement that said 'passengers ignore the following alarm - this is for crew only. Passengers may continue with what you are doing'. Then there were a series of alarms, and the crew quite literally dropped what they were doing and disappeared quickly. About 15 minutes later the crew returned to what they were doing. I asked our waiter what that was all about, and he said there was an alarm for a fire in the engine room, and each crew member is assigned specific things they must do in that situation (we never did hear if there was an actual fire or if it was a false alarm).
Can you imagine what would happen to the crew member who heard the alarm and decided on his own 'holy crap! fire in the engine room! Get the passengers on lifeboats now!'?
Every aspect of this disaster falls directly on the captain.
I suggest you consult a dictionary before making idiotic statements like that. Definition #1 (Webster's) of steal: to take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc) without permission.
Well then, you wouldn't mind if we all came to your house and used your water, right? Because after all, it is the same water. The fact that you paid for it and we didn't is immaterial, right?
Nope, not the same thing at all. If a bottling plant pays for and uses tap water, that is OK. If I pay for and use tap water, that is OK. If I use the bottling plants water (which is not mine), that is NOT OK, it is theft.
Of course nobody would be sued if the download Debian ISOs - they have authorization to do so, granted by the copyright holders. They do not have authorization to download MPAA movies. It has nothing to do with bandwidth - where did that come from?
When you use tap water, you are getting that water from an authorized source (ie the water company has the right to sell you that water). The fact that a bottling company exists is immaterial - you are not taking their water. If you tapped into your neighbors pipes you would probably consider that an 'alternate source', but most thinking people would call it stealing.
You make it sound like the case is about a legitimate alternate source of movies and music. It isn't. It is siphoning off your neighbors tap.