You might also want to look at this. It's a battery powered USB bridge. Probably the more expensive solution compared to this, but it's available today.
Everyone is talking about how this is a bad thing to do on someone else's network, but what about on your own network? Is it possible to get two cable modems to talk to each other over a coax cable? Can you hack the things to run distributed.net software? There are an awful lot of people out there with cable modems but no cable modem service.
The problem with abolishing all copyright laws is that things such as the GPL would no longer work for "Free Software" as it's based upon copyright law.
If there were no copyright law, there would be no need for the GPL.
With no copyright holders, code released as open source could freely be copied into proprietary software - that's right, companies such as Microsoft would be free to take whatever code from Linux they wanted and include it in a closed source product.
So what? If you don't want a closed source product, don't buy it. There's no reason not to let others who do want a closed source product to buy it.
Like it or lump it, copyright infringement must be dealt with the same on all sides
Sure, it should be abolished.
And if a movie's copyright owner sees fit to take action against citizens who infringe upon their copyright then this is totally correct too.
Well, I'm not going to say someone is wrong for using copyright law to their advantage. I oppose the law itself, and I certainly oppose criminal prosecution based on it.
Yeah. I program a site which runs on Linux and uses free software tools. We make money through ads and subscribers to our service, not through licensing our product.
Or don't you believe that programmers, actors, musicians, consultants (you get my point) should be paid?
Sure we should be paid - once, when we do the work to create the product. Not over and over again any time someone uses it.
Teachers get paid, don't they? Yet we don't require that Bill Gates pays his High School teachers every time he uses something they taught him. Plumbers get paid too. But I don't have to pay my plumber every time I flush the toilet. Thousands of people like me get paid for producing products for Linux every day. Abolishing copyright is just going to make that number higher, because the tools to create the products will now be free.
Unfortunately I don't have a Prius to look at:). But yeah, after reading more about it I found out that the gas engine in the Prius is small. I thought it had a standard gas engine and just shut it off when the car was cruising (relying on the electric engine), but I guess I got it backwards.
I was looking into the Honda hybrid a couple years ago, but the price difference was too much (I got a regular Civic instead). Hopefully this price difference will become a lot smaller in the next couple years, and I'll get a hybrid next time around.
The electric motor is the only motor that drives the wheels - the gas engine runs a genset that generates the electric.
That's not how the Prius works. " the electric motor can power the car by itself, the gas engine can power the car by itself or they can power the car together." http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car16.htm
Of course, I wasn't right either. The gas engine in the Prius is only 76 horsepower. The electric is 67 horsepower. In order to get maximum power, you've gotta run both engines at once.
Where hybrid and pure electric cars really need to improve is the all important ability to get up to speed quickly and smoothly
Why would a hybrid be any different at getting up to speed quickly and smoothly? The electric engine isn't used at all when you're accelerating. About the only difference between a hybrid and a traditional car during the 0-60 phase is the extra weight of the battery and second engine, which I would think is rather negligible.
You've gotta choose your battles. After all, you've only got one everything to give. I think you chose the wrong battle. So far all you've done is strengthened the DMCA. Now if someone who truly is completely innocent comes along, they can't use the same argument as you (at least not in the 9th circuit). You took a chance on winning it for all of us, and you wound up making things worse. Congratulations.
However, the DMCA does permit complainants to effectively censor people via filing complaints (with legal ramifications if the complaints are not addressed by the ISP) whether or not those people are actually infringing on the complainants' copyrights.
That's not exactly true. If the ISP ignored the DMCA complaint, they would not have broken any laws. By taking the site down they were protecting themselves from a copyright infringement lawsuit if there was a copyright infringement in the first place, but just because the **AA sends in a takedown notice doesn't mean it's illegal for you to ignore it.
If they were honest with you then I guess their not going to take any of your money when they enter into a frivolous appeal to the Supreme Court. I have no interest in calling them. They already know they have no chance of winning.
The wording by the 9th circuit was "his own customers often". That would imply it was multiple customers, not a single one.
Did you know that Movielink their site only rents movies in the USA but lets others outside the USA order on there site. Many email me telling me about this how they take there money and will not give them their movie they paid for.
No, I didn't. Are you trying to explain how two wrongs make a right or something?
So you see me as the bad guy take the time to really look at the MPAA.
I see the actions of you, the MPAA, and especially the lawyers of the two of you, as bad.
They say they are Nonprofit and Jack pulls in a 7 figure income.
They are non-profit. Non-profits often pay a salary to their executives.
More specifically, there are a number of people who dislike a number of their rulings. I put myself in that category. Doesn't mean they've committed reversible error in this case.
Debra Shapiro was acting on hear say.
There's nothing illegal about acting on hearsay.
I did send the counter-notification.
Your counter-notification was missing a key part.
I see your getting flames for your ideas.
From anonymous trolls... Probably you.
I hate to entrust our rights with you we would have none.
Yeah, I hate rights. That's me. Maybe I should now sue you for libel for saying that about me. Perhaps I can get a lowlife lawyer like the one you have.
I did not say that anyone could download Lord of the Rings Return of the King the MPAA said that not I.
And where did they get that idea? They just made it up to try to sue you? Is there a copy of the C&D available somewhere?
The movie poster for Lord of the Rings Return of the King was there for over a year the Ranger software scanned my site and spit that out to them and they did not review the info on that C&D Letter the Ranger software made.
Do you have any evidence to back up that accusation? By your own admission the investigation into your site began when it was noticed by someone at FOX.
The MPAA is negligent and needs to pay for that and learn not to try to put honest companies out of business
Now they put you out of business? Your $10/month site was down for a max of 3 days and that put you out of business? You don't think maybe your business model of selling links is what put you out of business? Or maybe the fact that you poured your money into a hopeless lawsuit?
Yes I am crazy but I still have rights and I am right. The Nazi hated crazy people too and love to put them to death. There is no crime in being crazy is there?
Nope, there's no crime in being crazy, and I don't hate you, I just don't like your business tactics.
I am the only one to sue them the MPAA admitted to that to.
That's ludicrous. The MPAA has been sued before. Maybe not for this particular issue, but the MPAA has certainly been sued before.
No one was tricked and that is your MPAA thinking and in the documents I did not admit to this.
Were the judges on the 9th circuit lying when they they said "In fact, Rossi even admitted that his own customers often believed that actual movies were available for downloading on his website."
This case got to the 9th circuit court because my members and I paid for it to be there to kick the MPAA's butts and are still trying we just need to show the courts what liars the MPAA are.
I didn't realize the 9th circuit had to take all cases presented to them. Fortunately the Supreme Court doesn't.
I am suing the MPAA not the RIAA ok.
Yes, I made a typo. Should I point out every one of your grammatical mistakes?
PrimeZone is a news wire that I use to try to get the news out there and it costs $400 to do this each time and that is why I ask for membership support.
Amazing. So the only link the submitter saw fit to give is propaganda from you? Are you the one who submitted this to slashdot too? I for one don't appreciate the spam.
See no big news picks up the story because they are all owned by the MPAA that is called corporate censorship.
All I can say is...LOL...good luck getting the Supreme Court to buy that one. Cut your losses now. Your lawyer is just taking money from you now. You have no chance (I suppose it was worth it for the publicity, but even that is probably starting to run out, I doubt slashdot will feature a story when your cert gets denied, but hey, they do still have Timoth working for them).
PrimeZone did not write my press release I did.
That explains why it was so heavily slanted and filled with nonsense.
Yes I am fighting the MPAA and yes I am right and we all need to try to make the courts see this and hope that they do the right thing for us all to restore our rights.
Our rights to sue the MPAA for talking to our ISP. That'll be a big a big win for free speech! LOL.
The MPAA did not have a good faith of any kind not subjective not objective they did not do their job right they did not even read the C&D the Ranger spit out at them they just sign off on it.
As I've said, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.
Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights it is called abridging the freedom of speech and by making me find a new ISP is abridging my freedom of speech.
Do you care to point to some case law which backs that up?
Marc Brandon from FOX sends an email to the MPAA "If you have not already initiated an Investigation, please review www.internetmovies.com."
Amazing. So you admit that the investigation began by a personal investigation, and yet you still accuse the MPAA of "not even read[ing] the C&D the Ranger [an automated tool to find copyright infringements] spit out at them".
I will let you all be the judge on this matter.
Based on the statement by Debra Shapiro, I think the MPAA acted in good faith. Shapiro might not have been correct when she said "internetmovies.com is offering downloads of trailers and features of member company product [....] They are not licensed by us.", but that alone should have been enough for a cease and desist.
If you had only sent in a proper counter-notification this all could have been avoided. Next time fill out something like this.
I hope in the end the courts change the DMCA where it reads fairly.
It'd be nice if they raised the standard from "good faith" to "reasonable investigation", but that's the job of the lesislators, not the courts.
Slashdot Mirror
You might also want to look at this. It's a battery powered USB bridge. Probably the more expensive solution compared to this, but it's available today.
An extension to file is not an extension to pay. Federal income tax is pay as you go.
1 in 37? Who'd be dumb enough to worry with odds like that?!
This from someone who suggests voting libertarian.
It will be when the Supreme Court rejects the case, won't it?
Two words: African safari
Everyone is talking about how this is a bad thing to do on someone else's network, but what about on your own network? Is it possible to get two cable modems to talk to each other over a coax cable? Can you hack the things to run distributed.net software? There are an awful lot of people out there with cable modems but no cable modem service.
The problem with abolishing all copyright laws is that things such as the GPL would no longer work for "Free Software" as it's based upon copyright law.
If there were no copyright law, there would be no need for the GPL.
With no copyright holders, code released as open source could freely be copied into proprietary software - that's right, companies such as Microsoft would be free to take whatever code from Linux they wanted and include it in a closed source product.
So what? If you don't want a closed source product, don't buy it. There's no reason not to let others who do want a closed source product to buy it.
Like it or lump it, copyright infringement must be dealt with the same on all sides
Sure, it should be abolished.
And if a movie's copyright owner sees fit to take action against citizens who infringe upon their copyright then this is totally correct too.
Well, I'm not going to say someone is wrong for using copyright law to their advantage. I oppose the law itself, and I certainly oppose criminal prosecution based on it.
Are you a programmer by any chance?
Yeah. I program a site which runs on Linux and uses free software tools. We make money through ads and subscribers to our service, not through licensing our product.
Or don't you believe that programmers, actors, musicians, consultants (you get my point) should be paid?
Sure we should be paid - once, when we do the work to create the product. Not over and over again any time someone uses it.
Teachers get paid, don't they? Yet we don't require that Bill Gates pays his High School teachers every time he uses something they taught him. Plumbers get paid too. But I don't have to pay my plumber every time I flush the toilet. Thousands of people like me get paid for producing products for Linux every day. Abolishing copyright is just going to make that number higher, because the tools to create the products will now be free.
Oh, so you're from the "I shouldn't have to pay for stuff that people work to produce" "Information wants to be FREE (as in beer)!!" crowd.
Pretty much. You should only have to pay for something if you're taking something from the person you're paying.
Furthermore it ignores all the gains to the industry by the people who pirated the software.
We pissed and moaned when the authorities went after the makers of P2P software, crying that they should go after the people doing the infringement.
I pissed and moaned, but I never said they should go after the people doing the infringement. I'd much rather they abolished all copyright laws.
Unfortunately I don't have a Prius to look at :). But yeah, after reading more about it I found out that the gas engine in the Prius is small. I thought it had a standard gas engine and just shut it off when the car was cruising (relying on the electric engine), but I guess I got it backwards.
I was looking into the Honda hybrid a couple years ago, but the price difference was too much (I got a regular Civic instead). Hopefully this price difference will become a lot smaller in the next couple years, and I'll get a hybrid next time around.
The electric motor is the only motor that drives the wheels - the gas engine runs a genset that generates the electric.
That's not how the Prius works. " the electric motor can power the car by itself, the gas engine can power the car by itself or they can power the car together." http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car16.htm
Of course, I wasn't right either. The gas engine in the Prius is only 76 horsepower. The electric is 67 horsepower. In order to get maximum power, you've gotta run both engines at once.
Where hybrid and pure electric cars really need to improve is the all important ability to get up to speed quickly and smoothly
Why would a hybrid be any different at getting up to speed quickly and smoothly? The electric engine isn't used at all when you're accelerating. About the only difference between a hybrid and a traditional car during the 0-60 phase is the extra weight of the battery and second engine, which I would think is rather negligible.
I thought the electric motor only kicked in when you didn't need much power.
You've gotta choose your battles. After all, you've only got one everything to give. I think you chose the wrong battle. So far all you've done is strengthened the DMCA. Now if someone who truly is completely innocent comes along, they can't use the same argument as you (at least not in the 9th circuit). You took a chance on winning it for all of us, and you wound up making things worse. Congratulations.
However, the DMCA does permit complainants to effectively censor people via filing complaints (with legal ramifications if the complaints are not addressed by the ISP) whether or not those people are actually infringing on the complainants' copyrights.
That's not exactly true. If the ISP ignored the DMCA complaint, they would not have broken any laws. By taking the site down they were protecting themselves from a copyright infringement lawsuit if there was a copyright infringement in the first place, but just because the **AA sends in a takedown notice doesn't mean it's illegal for you to ignore it.
If they were honest with you then I guess their not going to take any of your money when they enter into a frivolous appeal to the Supreme Court. I have no interest in calling them. They already know they have no chance of winning.
That is Member not Members one member not many.
The wording by the 9th circuit was "his own customers often". That would imply it was multiple customers, not a single one.
Did you know that Movielink their site only rents movies in the USA but lets others outside the USA order on there site. Many email me telling me about this how they take there money and will not give them their movie they paid for.
No, I didn't. Are you trying to explain how two wrongs make a right or something?
So you see me as the bad guy take the time to really look at the MPAA.
I see the actions of you, the MPAA, and especially the lawyers of the two of you, as bad.
They say they are Nonprofit and Jack pulls in a 7 figure income.
They are non-profit. Non-profits often pay a salary to their executives.
9th Circuit Court is not liked by many.
More specifically, there are a number of people who dislike a number of their rulings. I put myself in that category. Doesn't mean they've committed reversible error in this case.
Debra Shapiro was acting on hear say.
There's nothing illegal about acting on hearsay.
I did send the counter-notification.
Your counter-notification was missing a key part.
I see your getting flames for your ideas.
From anonymous trolls... Probably you.
I hate to entrust our rights with you we would have none.
Yeah, I hate rights. That's me. Maybe I should now sue you for libel for saying that about me. Perhaps I can get a lowlife lawyer like the one you have.
I did not say that anyone could download Lord of the Rings Return of the King the MPAA said that not I.
And where did they get that idea? They just made it up to try to sue you? Is there a copy of the C&D available somewhere?
The movie poster for Lord of the Rings Return of the King was there for over a year the Ranger software scanned my site and spit that out to them and they did not review the info on that C&D Letter the Ranger software made.
Do you have any evidence to back up that accusation? By your own admission the investigation into your site began when it was noticed by someone at FOX.
The MPAA is negligent and needs to pay for that and learn not to try to put honest companies out of business
Now they put you out of business? Your $10/month site was down for a max of 3 days and that put you out of business? You don't think maybe your business model of selling links is what put you out of business? Or maybe the fact that you poured your money into a hopeless lawsuit?
Yes I am crazy but I still have rights and I am right. The Nazi hated crazy people too and love to put them to death. There is no crime in being crazy is there?
Nope, there's no crime in being crazy, and I don't hate you, I just don't like your business tactics.
I am the only one to sue them the MPAA admitted to that to.
That's ludicrous. The MPAA has been sued before. Maybe not for this particular issue, but the MPAA has certainly been sued before.
No one was tricked and that is your MPAA thinking and in the documents I did not admit to this.
Were the judges on the 9th circuit lying when they they said "In fact, Rossi even admitted that his own customers often believed that actual movies were available for downloading on his website."
If the MPAA could use the (US Congress) DMCA to stifle his free speach via his ISP, then the DMCA is unconstitutional.
True. But they didn't and couldn't. They just told an untruth (Rossi would call it a lie) to his ISP claiming that they could.
If I tell slashdot that I'll sue them for murderr unless they remove your post, does that mean that the laws against murder are unconstitutional?
This case got to the 9th circuit court because my members and I paid for it to be there to kick the MPAA's butts and are still trying we just need to show the courts what liars the MPAA are.
I didn't realize the 9th circuit had to take all cases presented to them. Fortunately the Supreme Court doesn't.
I am suing the MPAA not the RIAA ok.
Yes, I made a typo. Should I point out every one of your grammatical mistakes?
PrimeZone is a news wire that I use to try to get the news out there and it costs $400 to do this each time and that is why I ask for membership support.
Amazing. So the only link the submitter saw fit to give is propaganda from you? Are you the one who submitted this to slashdot too? I for one don't appreciate the spam.
See no big news picks up the story because they are all owned by the MPAA that is called corporate censorship.
All I can say is...LOL...good luck getting the Supreme Court to buy that one. Cut your losses now. Your lawyer is just taking money from you now. You have no chance (I suppose it was worth it for the publicity, but even that is probably starting to run out, I doubt slashdot will feature a story when your cert gets denied, but hey, they do still have Timoth working for them).
PrimeZone did not write my press release I did.
That explains why it was so heavily slanted and filled with nonsense.
Yes I am fighting the MPAA and yes I am right and we all need to try to make the courts see this and hope that they do the right thing for us all to restore our rights.
Our rights to sue the MPAA for talking to our ISP. That'll be a big a big win for free speech! LOL.
The MPAA did not have a good faith of any kind not subjective not objective they did not do their job right they did not even read the C&D the Ranger spit out at them they just sign off on it.
As I've said, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.
Yes they did violate my First Amendment rights it is called abridging the freedom of speech and by making me find a new ISP is abridging my freedom of speech.
Do you care to point to some case law which backs that up?
Marc Brandon from FOX sends an email to the MPAA "If you have not already initiated an Investigation, please review www.internetmovies.com."
Amazing. So you admit that the investigation began by a personal investigation, and yet you still accuse the MPAA of "not even read[ing] the C&D the Ranger [an automated tool to find copyright infringements] spit out at them".
I will let you all be the judge on this matter.
Based on the statement by Debra Shapiro, I think the MPAA acted in good faith. Shapiro might not have been correct when she said "internetmovies.com is offering downloads of trailers and features of member company product [....] They are not licensed by us.", but that alone should have been enough for a cease and desist.
If you had only sent in a proper counter-notification this all could have been avoided. Next time fill out something like this.
I hope in the end the courts change the DMCA where it reads fairly.
It'd be nice if they raised the standard from "good faith" to "reasonable investigation", but that's the job of the lesislators, not the courts.