Aren't the points I make valid or at the very least wrong but answer-worthy?
No, in my personal opinion. Either you do not know what you are talking about, or you are a troll. I would like to think it's the former, rather than the latter.
I do not know what I'm talking about, that's the whole point. "IANAL" and "Anyone cares to explain?" in my OP is there to explicitly state that I don't understand and would like to. I made no statement of fact (ie, "the RIAA is right"), I asked a question...
I went the trouble of reading the documents, that of both parties and the judge (which, I admit, is very unslashdot-like) to make my own idea on the thing. And was left with those questions.
I realize you probably wouldn't be able to say that the arguments may be [somewhat] valid even if you thought it to be the case as it could be used against you, which is why I didn't ask you specifically. However I thought the "comment" part of stories was for discussing the topic...
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment however, and for posting these stories.
Unlicensed investigator? It's a civil trial, "illegal evidence" applies only to criminal cases, and by government agents, not by civil parties.
Yes, but remember, the RIAA and MPAA keep calling it "stealing" which is not a civil offense. Meanwhile, if it actually was classified as "stealing" and "theft" then said investigatory practices wouldn't be allowed in the first place.
I totally agree about everything you say, this is one of my pet peeves too. However this is a civil lawsuit in this case, and they're calling it "copyright infringement" in the suit.
An unlicensed investigator is not allowed to investigate at all. You can ask a friend to check what your wife is doing when you're not at home, you can ask a licensed investigator, but if you hire an unlicensed investigator, he or she is breaking the law. In other words, the so-called "evidence" was found by someone who was breaking the law in doing so. That on its own is not the problem, if the evidence can be checked independently of how it was found. If an unlicensed investigator finds physical evidence, calls the police and the police checks the physical evidence, that's fine. But here, the evidence is the investigator saying "I downloaded this music from this computer". Since the investigator was already breaking the law, clearly anything he or she says cannot be trusted.
Hiring unlicensed investigators also means that the person suing cannot be trusted. In a civil court case, the judge goes by the weight of the evidence. If I can show that I am sued by a person who used illegal means to find evidence, that makes it more likely that the same person will be lying about other things as well.
Absolutely, and Mediasentry's evidence should be thoroughly examined and disputed, but rejecting it out of hand because the person is unlicensed is wrong IMO.
How about you bring suit based on your friend reporting whatever. Should the judge basically say "your friend is not a license investigator, you thereby have no argument whatsoever"? I realize the weakness of the analogy, but shouldn't the validity of the argument be discussed rather than dismissed without examining?
Just because I am willing to play the Devil's Advocate (in all the sense of the word in this case) doesn't mean my question is invalid. And labelling me a troll is as ad hominem as the attacks that were made against you. Aren't the points I make valid or at the very least wrong but answer-worthy?
I'm genuinely wondering what the problem is. I agree with the misjoinder, it should have been 16 separate cases, but the rest of the arguments the Does make are not sensible at all. And about the misjoinder, the judge says that it is premature at this stage, not that it's invalid at all (I'm a lay person, so I don't see that it is a problem).
I mean, let's turn the tables here, I'm an individual developer, I find people putting my software on the net and sharing them, I track down their IP addresses, is it unreasonable to ask the ISP one time rather than 20, assuming they've all been doing the same illegal activity (downloading my software illegally)?
If you want to actually reply, I'll recap which of the arguments they make are questionable to me:
- 1st amendement? P2P isn't speech.
- Insufficiency of the complain? the RIAA says what and when.
- Unlicensed Investigator? It's not a criminal case, and while MediaSentry's findings' truth value are questionable, shouldn't that come after?
- Lack of jurisdiction? How can the RIAA (or the Court) know it has jurisdiction or not before actually finding out who the Does are. The judge clearly says that's a valid point that could be brought up after the Does are identified.
IANAL, etc. and I'm no fan of the MAFIAA at all... However...
I just read the lower court judge's ruling in denying the motion to quash and I frankly don't see a problem with the judge's reasoning.
The first amendment response by the Does is stupid. P2P considered speech?
Insuficiency of the complaint? It seems to me it states clearly what/when.
Unlicensed investigator? It's a civil trial, "illegal evidence" applies only to criminal cases, and by government agents, not by civil parties.
Am I missing something?
It's great that the appeal court is willing to hear it however, but I fail to see how an entity claiming copyright infringement could go on to discover the identities of infringers without going through that motion...
Anyone care to explain?
The problem is her attorney will have to work like a slave, without compensation, to make that happen.
Not saying her attorney is a publicity whore or anything, but this statement is stricto sensu false, [s]he's getting free publicity, and another easy win in court. One could also view that as a normal limited reward for people of good character though.
I think you'll agree that reputation means much. I, for one, know that if I were sued for copyright stuff in the US, the first name that would spring to my mind is yours.
And to reply to your earlier quote:
And to those of you who think that it's okay to bring suits against helpless people, I repeat what I've said to you before; that is not a legal question, it's a moral question. And if you really believe what you're saying, you have different morals than I have. And if you think it's okay, my personal moral evaluation is as follows: you can rot in hell along with the RIAA ghouls who do this sort of thing.
As much as I respect the work you do, blanket statements like this one are really idiotic. Wouldn't you sue a terminally-ill cancer nanny who torched your house? stole your car? killed your cat?
Being sick does not warrant getting a free pass with regards to justice. For something as "harmless" as personal use copyright infringement, I would most definately agree though. (as with your multiple sclerosis patient)
While half-life had good storytelling, the best imho is Deus Ex. That one was excellent.
In a way, max payne was too, except it told a story too passively, you shot stuff, then a bit story, the more shooting. In Deus Ex, you lived the story.
Is this informative because of its "anti-american" bend or because it has information? If its because of the provided "information" than the Moderators should actually check out these "factiods" before modding the post. For example:
"Valeri Polyakov did a 437 day flight, with a flight distance covering more than 7 thousand times the circumference of the earth.
Of course, his flight being disregarded isn't surprising, him not being an American."
Yeah... 437 day SPACE FLIGHT....
I like how you attack the single one item that is definately debatable in the GP's list (note that he mentionned it was space flight too...)
How about focusing on the 7 prominent relevant others? Nothing to say on that?
I can imagine this:
Customer: Hi, I'd like a clean online reputation, can you do that?
Company: Sure, just a couple of clicks, 100 bucks and you're clean... What's your name?
Customer: Kevin Mitnick.
Company:...
Company:...
Company: -_-'
We translate acronyms (how arrogant!)
AIDS = SIDA
kB = kO
OPEC = OPEP
Except for some wildly used acronyms like CD-ROM and DVD-ROM that the académie française decided would be written "cédérome" and "dévédérome", respectively. Pathetic... (I'm a native french speaker by the way).
Either way hurricanes aren't going to cross the Atlantic, too much cold water. So unless someone wants to attack Mexico, the southern coast of the US (and has the resources to do something like that) or maybe a South American country, the hurricane would in no way reach them.
FYI, there's other CONTINENTS out there, if it's doable over north-america from space, it's doable anywhere from space. How about Korea?
Now, steering hurricane from space, that's pushing the concept of MWD to a brand new level.
And you can always deny that it's you who did it. Wonderful...
You are, effectively, immortal. You can keep coming back. That changes the economics. Instead of a single run (life), you can have multiple runs. Without the tedious childhood and learning parts.
But death has a real cost. You lose your ship, your equipment on the ship (typically worth several times the value of the ship itself) you may lose your investment in yourself if your "escape pod" gets destroyed. So while you're immortal, the losses can be very big.
The choices you make thus have a very real impact on your financial situation...
Well I don't know about the rest of it, and I can't speak for Mr. Rogers, but that "Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize" would be nice.
I don't know about the Nobel something, but at the very least you're making it apparent that not all lawyers are scum (and that's quite an accomplishment)...
May seem strange to you, but I've yet to meet one likable lawyer.
I'm curious about something though.
Did Mrs Foster have to pay the money already (what she owes you) or are you waiting for the collection of the RIAA money?
Software as a service as in "web hosted" somewhere also means that there is no distribution anymore...
The practical impact of that means that if I develop a cool web app and someone (a company?) uses it, suddenly they don't have to give the changes they make back to me anymore, which is the goal of most open source/free software licenses.
If he was universally adored then such laws would be unnecessary.
That's the dumbest thing I've read (on slashdot [this hour]).
Keeping with your line of reasoning:
If murder is universally considered a bad thing, then laws against it are unnecessary.
If rape is universally considered a bad thing, the laws against it are unnecessary.
Laws (should) exist to make sure that what is (sort of) universally accepted is indeed enforced.
it's more likely that the way it is said is a result of the way it is written, not the other way around...
Well, I beg to disagree... Speech comes before writing. And before knowing how to spell something, the word has been pronounced. With maybe the exclusion of the "new" language that originates from the internet where no word is spoken but typed.
But with the American format you start with the month, then go to the smallest, then to the largest. It just seems totally illogical to me, anyone know why it's done that way?
Probably because of the way they say the dates, "I have an appointment on March 14th" rather than "I have an appointment on the 14th of March".
As opposed to, says, french "J'ai un rendez-vous le 14 mars" or spanish "tengo una cita el 14 de marzo".
Might be the reason...
I loved this part, very witty;-)
Q. And you have no idea how they obtained that information; is that correct?
A. I have no firsthand knowledge of how they obtained that information.
Q. Do you have some secondhand knowledge of how they operated?
A. I could speculate as to how they might do it.
Q. But you don't know? You just would be speculating?
A. Yes.
Q. I am sure Mr. Gabriel wouldn't want you to speculate. Did you make any attempt to verify the information?
Perhaps a more practical example? How long will it take me to walk the 5km into town given that I walk at 5km/hour? Simple.
If you want to use practical example, pick good ones at least... Here's a challenge for you. How long will it take you to walk the 4 miles into town knowing you walk at 4 miles/hour? Equally simple...
The advantage of the metric system lies in convertion between different types of units (volume, speed, etc.) and parts of said units...
Example: How many cubic boxes sized 1 feet and 5 inches can I store into a space that's 4 feet 3 inches big?
Same problem, How many cubic boxes sized 42 centimeters can I store in a space that's 1.3 meter big?
Or: I walk 4 miles per hour. How long will it take me to walk 200 yards?
If you have the time and/or inclination, read up on the research of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. She (and others) have demonstrated that it is trivial to create false memories in people. More importantly, once a false memory has been created, it is otherwise indistinguishable from a real one. That means a person cannot rid themselves of a false memory any more than they can rid themselves of a real memory. The implications of this are significant.
Loftus, M.K. Johnson, Marsh, Landau, Hicks, McRae. These guys have worked quite some on false memories. But parent is right, E. Loftus and M.K. Johnson are really interesting to read on these topic.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that creating false memories in people is trivial, but some experiments reach upwards of 20% of success in creating false memories in normal people. Problem is, though, that these experiment create extremely simple false memories.
It is quite possible, though, to make the difference between a real and false memory. False memories tend to exhibit much less phenomenological characteristics. For instance you can remember very well the sound of a sentence, but not the emotional state you were in when you heard it or in whose company you were at the time or what you thought of the sentence at that time. There has been some work done recently on what these differences. (see Brédart, Defeldre on the topic).
You know, you really should warn us of the site you're sending us to in these kinds of cases.
"from the jokes-that-some-people-just-wont-get dept." and the foot icon "it's funny, laugh" should be more than enough for everyone. Except the blind;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't the points I make valid or at the very least wrong but answer-worthy?
No, in my personal opinion. Either you do not know what you are talking about, or you are a troll. I would like to think it's the former, rather than the latter.
I do not know what I'm talking about, that's the whole point. "IANAL" and "Anyone cares to explain?" in my OP is there to explicitly state that I don't understand and would like to. I made no statement of fact (ie, "the RIAA is right"), I asked a question...
I went the trouble of reading the documents, that of both parties and the judge (which, I admit, is very unslashdot-like) to make my own idea on the thing. And was left with those questions.
I realize you probably wouldn't be able to say that the arguments may be [somewhat] valid even if you thought it to be the case as it could be used against you, which is why I didn't ask you specifically. However I thought the "comment" part of stories was for discussing the topic...
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment however, and for posting these stories.
Unlicensed investigator? It's a civil trial, "illegal evidence" applies only to criminal cases, and by government agents, not by civil parties.
Yes, but remember, the RIAA and MPAA keep calling it "stealing" which is not a civil offense. Meanwhile, if it actually was classified as "stealing" and "theft" then said investigatory practices wouldn't be allowed in the first place.
I totally agree about everything you say, this is one of my pet peeves too. However this is a civil lawsuit in this case, and they're calling it "copyright infringement" in the suit.
Whatever PR spin they put on the thing, or the bullshit they tried to pull in other cases (or even in this one, actually, just read their opposition to the quashing here: http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/arista_does1-16_081014RIAAOppos.pdf ), this doesn't invalidate my point...
Unlicensed investigator?
An unlicensed investigator is not allowed to investigate at all. You can ask a friend to check what your wife is doing when you're not at home, you can ask a licensed investigator, but if you hire an unlicensed investigator, he or she is breaking the law. In other words, the so-called "evidence" was found by someone who was breaking the law in doing so. That on its own is not the problem, if the evidence can be checked independently of how it was found. If an unlicensed investigator finds physical evidence, calls the police and the police checks the physical evidence, that's fine. But here, the evidence is the investigator saying "I downloaded this music from this computer". Since the investigator was already breaking the law, clearly anything he or she says cannot be trusted. Hiring unlicensed investigators also means that the person suing cannot be trusted. In a civil court case, the judge goes by the weight of the evidence. If I can show that I am sued by a person who used illegal means to find evidence, that makes it more likely that the same person will be lying about other things as well.
Absolutely, and Mediasentry's evidence should be thoroughly examined and disputed, but rejecting it out of hand because the person is unlicensed is wrong IMO.
How about you bring suit based on your friend reporting whatever. Should the judge basically say "your friend is not a license investigator, you thereby have no argument whatsoever"? I realize the weakness of the analogy, but shouldn't the validity of the argument be discussed rather than dismissed without examining?
Just because I am willing to play the Devil's Advocate (in all the sense of the word in this case) doesn't mean my question is invalid. And labelling me a troll is as ad hominem as the attacks that were made against you. Aren't the points I make valid or at the very least wrong but answer-worthy?
I'm genuinely wondering what the problem is. I agree with the misjoinder, it should have been 16 separate cases, but the rest of the arguments the Does make are not sensible at all. And about the misjoinder, the judge says that it is premature at this stage, not that it's invalid at all (I'm a lay person, so I don't see that it is a problem).
I mean, let's turn the tables here, I'm an individual developer, I find people putting my software on the net and sharing them, I track down their IP addresses, is it unreasonable to ask the ISP one time rather than 20, assuming they've all been doing the same illegal activity (downloading my software illegally)?
If you want to actually reply, I'll recap which of the arguments they make are questionable to me:
- 1st amendement? P2P isn't speech.
- Insufficiency of the complain? the RIAA says what and when.
- Unlicensed Investigator? It's not a criminal case, and while MediaSentry's findings' truth value are questionable, shouldn't that come after?
- Lack of jurisdiction? How can the RIAA (or the Court) know it has jurisdiction or not before actually finding out who the Does are. The judge clearly says that's a valid point that could be brought up after the Does are identified.
Thanks
nsuficiency of the complaint? It seems to me it states clearly what/when.
How about "who?"
The who is the whole point of the case, they don't know who they are so they bring a suit to find out.
I just read the lower court judge's ruling in denying the motion to quash and I frankly don't see a problem with the judge's reasoning.
The first amendment response by the Does is stupid. P2P considered speech?
Insuficiency of the complaint? It seems to me it states clearly what/when.
Unlicensed investigator? It's a civil trial, "illegal evidence" applies only to criminal cases, and by government agents, not by civil parties. Am I missing something? It's great that the appeal court is willing to hear it however, but I fail to see how an entity claiming copyright infringement could go on to discover the identities of infringers without going through that motion... Anyone care to explain?
The problem is her attorney will have to work like a slave, without compensation, to make that happen.
Not saying her attorney is a publicity whore or anything, but this statement is stricto sensu false, [s]he's getting free publicity, and another easy win in court. One could also view that as a normal limited reward for people of good character though.
I think you'll agree that reputation means much. I, for one, know that if I were sued for copyright stuff in the US, the first name that would spring to my mind is yours.
And to reply to your earlier quote:
And to those of you who think that it's okay to bring suits against helpless people, I repeat what I've said to you before; that is not a legal question, it's a moral question. And if you really believe what you're saying, you have different morals than I have. And if you think it's okay, my personal moral evaluation is as follows: you can rot in hell along with the RIAA ghouls who do this sort of thing.
As much as I respect the work you do, blanket statements like this one are really idiotic. Wouldn't you sue a terminally-ill cancer nanny who torched your house? stole your car? killed your cat?
Being sick does not warrant getting a free pass with regards to justice. For something as "harmless" as personal use copyright infringement, I would most definately agree though. (as with your multiple sclerosis patient)
Car passengers don't get to make phone calls either?
But more importantly, what is Iron Man going to do to call off missiles being shot at him now?
In a way, max payne was too, except it told a story too passively, you shot stuff, then a bit story, the more shooting. In Deus Ex, you lived the story.
Is this informative because of its "anti-american" bend or because it has information? If its because of the provided "information" than the Moderators should actually check out these "factiods" before modding the post. For example: "Valeri Polyakov did a 437 day flight, with a flight distance covering more than 7 thousand times the circumference of the earth. Of course, his flight being disregarded isn't surprising, him not being an American." Yeah... 437 day SPACE FLIGHT....
I like how you attack the single one item that is definately debatable in the GP's list (note that he mentionned it was space flight too...)
How about focusing on the 7 prominent relevant others? Nothing to say on that?
I can imagine this: ...
...
Customer: Hi, I'd like a clean online reputation, can you do that?
Company: Sure, just a couple of clicks, 100 bucks and you're clean... What's your name?
Customer: Kevin Mitnick.
Company:
Company:
Company: -_-'
FYI, there's other CONTINENTS out there, if it's doable over north-america from space, it's doable anywhere from space. How about Korea?
Now, steering hurricane from space, that's pushing the concept of MWD to a brand new level. And you can always deny that it's you who did it. Wonderful...
But death has a real cost. You lose your ship, your equipment on the ship (typically worth several times the value of the ship itself) you may lose your investment in yourself if your "escape pod" gets destroyed. So while you're immortal, the losses can be very big.
The choices you make thus have a very real impact on your financial situation...
Aaah, for once someone who takes the time to read TFA!
I think the answer to your question might be in the fact that it's not an article but a transcript ;-)
The practical impact of that means that if I develop a cool web app and someone (a company?) uses it, suddenly they don't have to give the changes they make back to me anymore, which is the goal of most open source/free software licenses.
I wouldn't like that one bit...
That's the dumbest thing I've read (on slashdot [this hour]).
Keeping with your line of reasoning:
If murder is universally considered a bad thing, then laws against it are unnecessary.
If rape is universally considered a bad thing, the laws against it are unnecessary.
Laws (should) exist to make sure that what is (sort of) universally accepted is indeed enforced.
As opposed to, says, french "J'ai un rendez-vous le 14 mars" or spanish "tengo una cita el 14 de marzo". Might be the reason...
I loved this part, very witty ;-)
Q. And you have no idea how they obtained that information; is that correct?
A. I have no firsthand knowledge of how they obtained that information.
Q. Do you have some secondhand knowledge of how they operated?
A. I could speculate as to how they might do it.
Q. But you don't know? You just would be speculating?
A. Yes.
Q. I am sure Mr. Gabriel wouldn't want you to speculate. Did you make any attempt to verify the information?