You're right, of course.. what I meant to ask was how can SD enforce its tax laws on a business that is resident in a different state? It's not like they're able to extradite over a civil issue..
Just wondering how this is enforceable. What mechanism under civil law would allow the state of South Dakota to bring an enforcement action against a resident of, say, Pennsylvania?
Please forgive if this is obvious, IANAL.
I'd take.5 Gbit in a New York second.
Verizon Fios Internet (but no tv, oddly) in rural Chester County PA (so I should not complain), but the best on offer is 150/75, and at an exorbitant price.
Well I guess that's the part I'm not understanding.
You're saying that my decision to pirate a CD rather than buying it, with its $10 (or whatever) loss to the studio system, has zero impact on their bottom line?
I did read the post, the article and also several of the legal document that undergird this entire thing.
I agree that there is ZERO basis for the suit in the first place, as there is no connection between the ip and the person. But I also note that several courts have allowed cases to proceed despite all of that, which is what I apparently am incapable of articulating in a way that resonates with anyone but me.
So, I apologize for deigning to imagine that I could grasp the complexities here, and will return to my lurking, never to thank anyone for anything here ever again, since apparently l am not nearly as clever as I thought.
I think we're agreeing on the same thing, just in different ways..:)
To this point, it seems like many courts in the past have accepted at face value that there is SOME linkage between an IP address and a person, so unless this one MJs decision becomes binding or is made a precedent across more than the EDNY, wouldn't the next logical question be to ask what actually constitutes illegal file sharing?
In other words, if some other court somewhere accepts (seemingly without any actual evidence) that there is a link between 10.1.1.1 and Joe Smith, but ALSO notes that mere possession of a file fragment does not constitute an action for which relief may be granted, doesn't it moot the suit anyway?
Yes, totally agree, but also thinking that the net result may still be that the standard of what constitutes a tort (and again, IANAL, I just enjoy this sort of thing, so please forgive me if I'm using incorrect or imprecise language) in the case of file sharing might be shaped by the larger question of who may be sued.
If a file fragment is not enough to sustain an action against a downloader, wouldn't that also raise a 12(6)(b) question?
Yep, I'm a regular reader of Popehat, and he frequently links to the others you mention, and Prenda is an even MORE egregious user of these very same tactics.
No doubt that the potential liability here is truly epic.
As to the profit side of the equation, I'm not really sure how that's quantifiable, since there is no real way of knowing what their potential income could have been absent the ability to get their content for free.
I mean, I can admit freely that I've been a beneficiary of free content over the years, and the hundreds of dollars I've NOT spent are certainly small potatoes in a vacuum, but multiply me by a few million and that suddenly real money.
All that said, I'd certainly never disagree publicly with a/. member with a nearly 3-digit member #, considering I'm a damn/. elder statesman with my low 6-digit one..:)
IANAL but I read court documents for fun (Sad, no?) via well-oilied PACER account, and this whole case has made for some very entertaining reading.
Regardless of the merits of the practices that Mailbu Media use, it's hard to see how the film industry as a whole (not just the adult version) can really survive if the standard of proof for infringement is a concrete connection to a specific user AND a requirement that the downloader receive a usable section of the overall file(s). One of the key points in the documents seem to be that the mere possession of a file fragment is not sufficient to rise to the level of an actionable tort is pretty telling, since that would require the court to make some sort of threshold for when a piece of an overall file becomes infringing.
Create a host file in the OS you're giving them redirecting any http requests to known online shopping tv channels (QVC and the like), reverse mortgage companies, life insurance companies that prey on the elderly, etc.
Maybe redirect to something to do negative reinforcement, like goatse.
Speaking as one that utilizes their int'l calling options, I can't imagine how they're making a raft of money off of me when I'm only paying $.02/min for calls to France..
The X-Ray they did was apparently to confirm their thoughts on the pneumonia, but the rest of the diagnosis seemed (to my admittedly untrained eye) to be good deduction and experience.
I can speak to the "Physician Assistant" thing personally, as an ex-girlfriend was one.. The law varies from state to state, but at least in Pennsylvania, becoming a PA requires several years of graduate-school education and a sort of mini-internship/residency period. They can pretty much do anything a doctor can do, short of surgery, with the supervision of a LOCAL (meaning in the building, within no more than a minute or two distance).
So, need to reply to just a few things here, not just your point, so hope you don't mind me hijacking your post.
Little story:
About 2 years ago, I was having coughing fits severe and long enough that I was on the verge of blacking out (from lack of oxygen) several times. I called my primary care doctor, but even with the description I gave, their only advice was to either come in the following day or go to the ER.
So, being a reasonable sort of person, I decided to take the middle path. I went to one of those "Doc in a box" clinics, and within 45 minutes, I'd been seen, x-rayed, given a lung capacity test (one of those plastic things with the little red ball inside), advised of my diganosis, handed some prescription cough syrup and some STRONG antibiotics (turned out I was developing pneumonia) and sent on my way.
Cost.. $20, same as an office visit (since they're not open 24/7, they don't count as an ER).
I can find no fault with the entire experience. Now, if I thought that I'd developed meningitis or Parkisons or whatever, sure, I'd get an appointment with a "real" doctors office. But for probably 95% (total guess on that percentage, but seems reasonable to me) of what people go into their GP for, this was a perfect solution.
The clinic was staffed with 5 or so Physician Assistants and 2 Nurse Practitioners, with only one "real" doctor, but at no point was I concerned about the level of care or knowledge-base of those non-doctor staff people.
In short, I got quality care, in virtually no time at all, for the cost of an office visit. I simply cannot find anything to complain about in the entire experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Well done, sir.
Hmm.. ok, and since I live literally three minutes from Delaware, I guess I could just get a PO box or something..
You're right, of course.. what I meant to ask was how can SD enforce its tax laws on a business that is resident in a different state? It's not like they're able to extradite over a civil issue..
Unless you're reshipping high value items with a super cheap carrier and no insurance, I wonder if the economics of that works out..
Just wondering how this is enforceable. What mechanism under civil law would allow the state of South Dakota to bring an enforcement action against a resident of, say, Pennsylvania? Please forgive if this is obvious, IANAL.
I agree. And don't call me Shirley.
Hijack's what?
I'd take .5 Gbit in a New York second.
Verizon Fios Internet (but no tv, oddly) in rural Chester County PA (so I should not complain), but the best on offer is 150/75, and at an exorbitant price.
Well I guess that's the part I'm not understanding. You're saying that my decision to pirate a CD rather than buying it, with its $10 (or whatever) loss to the studio system, has zero impact on their bottom line?
Well, yes, money is fungible.
But that fungibility does not alter the fact that the funds went to someone other than the studio/actors/crew/etc.
As you note, at the end of the day, the input is the same, but the path that input takes just HAS to have some impact, doesn't it?
I did read the post, the article and also several of the legal document that undergird this entire thing. I agree that there is ZERO basis for the suit in the first place, as there is no connection between the ip and the person. But I also note that several courts have allowed cases to proceed despite all of that, which is what I apparently am incapable of articulating in a way that resonates with anyone but me. So, I apologize for deigning to imagine that I could grasp the complexities here, and will return to my lurking, never to thank anyone for anything here ever again, since apparently l am not nearly as clever as I thought.
I think we're agreeing on the same thing, just in different ways.. :)
To this point, it seems like many courts in the past have accepted at face value that there is SOME linkage between an IP address and a person, so unless this one MJs decision becomes binding or is made a precedent across more than the EDNY, wouldn't the next logical question be to ask what actually constitutes illegal file sharing?
In other words, if some other court somewhere accepts (seemingly without any actual evidence) that there is a link between 10.1.1.1 and Joe Smith, but ALSO notes that mere possession of a file fragment does not constitute an action for which relief may be granted, doesn't it moot the suit anyway?
Yes, totally agree, but also thinking that the net result may still be that the standard of what constitutes a tort (and again, IANAL, I just enjoy this sort of thing, so please forgive me if I'm using incorrect or imprecise language) in the case of file sharing might be shaped by the larger question of who may be sued.
If a file fragment is not enough to sustain an action against a downloader, wouldn't that also raise a 12(6)(b) question?
Yep, I'm a regular reader of Popehat, and he frequently links to the others you mention, and Prenda is an even MORE egregious user of these very same tactics.
No doubt that the potential liability here is truly epic.
/. member with a nearly 3-digit member #, considering I'm a damn /. elder statesman with my low 6-digit one..:)
As to the profit side of the equation, I'm not really sure how that's quantifiable, since there is no real way of knowing what their potential income could have been absent the ability to get their content for free.
I mean, I can admit freely that I've been a beneficiary of free content over the years, and the hundreds of dollars I've NOT spent are certainly small potatoes in a vacuum, but multiply me by a few million and that suddenly real money.
All that said, I'd certainly never disagree publicly with a
IANAL but I read court documents for fun (Sad, no?) via well-oilied PACER account, and this whole case has made for some very entertaining reading.
Regardless of the merits of the practices that Mailbu Media use, it's hard to see how the film industry as a whole (not just the adult version) can really survive if the standard of proof for infringement is a concrete connection to a specific user AND a requirement that the downloader receive a usable section of the overall file(s). One of the key points in the documents seem to be that the mere possession of a file fragment is not sufficient to rise to the level of an actionable tort is pretty telling, since that would require the court to make some sort of threshold for when a piece of an overall file becomes infringing.
I'm sure your local notaire thanks you for the clarification. :)
Mine is MÃitre Marty here in Olonzac (down here in the Languedoc)
Z
How about me? :)
Create a host file in the OS you're giving them redirecting any http requests to known online shopping tv channels (QVC and the like), reverse mortgage companies, life insurance companies that prey on the elderly, etc. Maybe redirect to something to do negative reinforcement, like goatse.
Speaking as one that utilizes their int'l calling options, I can't imagine how they're making a raft of money off of me when I'm only paying $.02/min for calls to France..
Nazingifying? :)
All your phone numbers are belong to us.
forgot to add the word "physician" at the end there.... ;)
The X-Ray they did was apparently to confirm their thoughts on the pneumonia, but the rest of the diagnosis seemed (to my admittedly untrained eye) to be good deduction and experience.
I can speak to the "Physician Assistant" thing personally, as an ex-girlfriend was one.. The law varies from state to state, but at least in Pennsylvania, becoming a PA requires several years of graduate-school education and a sort of mini-internship/residency period. They can pretty much do anything a doctor can do, short of surgery, with the supervision of a LOCAL (meaning in the building, within no more than a minute or two distance).
Little story:
About 2 years ago, I was having coughing fits severe and long enough that I was on the verge of blacking out (from lack of oxygen) several times. I called my primary care doctor, but even with the description I gave, their only advice was to either come in the following day or go to the ER.
So, being a reasonable sort of person, I decided to take the middle path. I went to one of those "Doc in a box" clinics, and within 45 minutes, I'd been seen, x-rayed, given a lung capacity test (one of those plastic things with the little red ball inside), advised of my diganosis, handed some prescription cough syrup and some STRONG antibiotics (turned out I was developing pneumonia) and sent on my way.
Cost.. $20, same as an office visit (since they're not open 24/7, they don't count as an ER).
I can find no fault with the entire experience. Now, if I thought that I'd developed meningitis or Parkisons or whatever, sure, I'd get an appointment with a "real" doctors office. But for probably 95% (total guess on that percentage, but seems reasonable to me) of what people go into their GP for, this was a perfect solution.
The clinic was staffed with 5 or so Physician Assistants and 2 Nurse Practitioners, with only one "real" doctor, but at no point was I concerned about the level of care or knowledge-base of those non-doctor staff people.
In short, I got quality care, in virtually no time at all, for the cost of an office visit. I simply cannot find anything to complain about in the entire experience.