I could claim that without committing perjury. The claim that the Metallica album infringes the copyright on my post is (IIRC) supposed to be made in good faith, but I don't know that there are any penalties there. Someone who's an actual lawyer would be likely to know.
I'd think "good faith" allows for errors sometimes, but a penalty for a continued pattern of DMCA abuse would be nice.
Suppose I send a DMCA takedown notice, claiming that a site has illegally put up this post (automatically copyright me as soon as I type it). As long as I do hold the copyright on this post, and claim that a site is distributing this post without a license, I am not committing perjury, no matter what I claim infringes.
There's no double standard here. If Google accepts a DMCA takedown notice and takes the material down, Google is not liable for copyright infringement. If Google doesn't take the material down, and there is infringement, Google is liable.
Google likely has a list of sites that are authorized by the appropriate copyright authors, and doesn't take those down, because there is no infringement. They may well have an agreement with MAFIAA members and the like to that effect. No infringement, no liability. On the other hand, Google doesn't know that that ostensible Ubuntu torrent isn't actually distributing something else, and Google's not going to become liable for that.
The hosting company doesn't have to put anything back up. This section of the DMCA is instructions on how to avoid legal liability, not a mandatory procedure.
If Google receives a takedown notice, Google doesn't have to take down anything. However, if Google doesn't and the content is found to be infringing, Google is legally liable for infringing the copyright. If Google receives a counterclaim, Google doesn't have to put anything back up. However, if Google doesn't and Google has some sort of legal obligation to host the material, Google is legally liable for not meeting that obligation.
In most cases, Google doesn't want to be liable for copyright infringement, but doesn't have any legal obligation to host the content in the first place, so can safely ignore the counterclaim.
If I understand the DMCA aright, Google doesn't have to put whatever it is back up, since it doesn't have any legal obligation to host it in the first place.
So, if Google wants, it can put the link up after receiving the counterclaim and send the counterclaim to WB. After that, it's between whoever put it up and WB, and I'm betting on WB.
No, nobody's legally required to put stuff back up after a counterclaim, just as nobody's required to take stuff down after a claim.
These are safe harbor provisions. If the website takes down stuff after a DMCA takedown is issued, it's not liable for any copyright infringement that may have happened. (There are people who want to change this, of course.) If the website puts the stuff back up after the counterclaim, it's not liable for any breach of contractual or other duty towards whoever put it up in the first place.
In most of these cases, the website has no agreement to keep anything up. Typically, the terms of service say the website can take anything down for any reason, and then there's no liability in just leaving the stuff inaccessible.
You seem to believe that Apple pays what's legally required. There are a lot of people who know about EU treaty and Irish law that think Apple didn't pay what was legally required.
If the sweetheart deal was illegal, then it's legally null and void and Apple owes the taxes it would have owed without it.
No, you're still wrong. The general rule is that, if companies could make more money by raising their prices, they would. (There are exceptions to this, such as concert tickets, which are typically set below the level for maximum profit.) The situation doesn't change if there's multiple players in the market. Either they're conspiring together, in which case they've already set the prices at the optimum monopolistic level, or they're in true competition, in which case they've set them at the optimum competitive market level.
Another way to look at this: companies try to maximize profit, and corporate taxes are based on profit. The actions needed to maximize profit are the exact same as are needed to maximize profit*0.8.
The question is not whether the Irish government acted against its treaty obligations. That's very clear. The question is whether the agreement with the Irish government was legal at the time or not. If the agreement was legal at the time, then Ireland should be penalized but Apple should be in the clear. If it wasn't, then the agreement is legally null and void, and Apple needs to pay back taxes.
Personally, I know far too little about EU and Irish jurisprudence to know, but a lot of people who know a lot more than I do think that the agreement was illegal from the start.
No, it really doesn't, because 47% of people in the US pay ZERO percent... Or really close to it...
You're talking about income taxes here. The 47% still pay other taxes. If you define taxes as money allocated as payroll that goes to government(s) by law, you'll find they pay about 15% in SS/Medicare/whatever payroll taxes.
The EU claims that laws were in fact broken. I don't know enough about the jurisprudence involved to judge for myself, but it's quite believable that the agreement between Apple and Ireland was illegal when it was made.
In the US, you may get into situations where you don't pay your income taxes properly, either deliberately or inadvertently. In both cases, you're required to pay back taxes. In the former case, you're likely to be hit with penalties and possibly criminal prosecution. You don't seem to be making a distinction between taxes due and penalties.
In countries without strong governments, the rich, well-connected, and powerful generally take what they want without the need to go through corruption and graft.
Most of what the US government does is Constitutional. I'll agree that it has overstepped in some areas, but there's a heck of a lot covered by the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause.
As a leftist, I could say pretty much what you did. We're not different in basic principles. We differ in the details, such as what government should do and how we should pay for it.
And, yes, we like to avoid oppression, but not all oppression comes from government. Governments frequently defend us from oppression by corporations, for example.
What I never hear from liberal/socialists is them admit that government ever fails at anything. In fact, that is the first "go to" option for every solution they offer.
You're not paying attention. To give one example, most of us think the War on Drugs is a failure, and many of us think the War on Terror has gone horribly wrong.
What I never hear from liberal/socialists is them admit that government ever fails at anything. In fact, that is the first "go to" option for every solution they offer.
If a problem was going to be solved well without government intervention, it probably has been already. Most of the remaining big problems are going to require some sort of collective action or some sort of adjustment to the marketplace (very often in accounting for externalities somehow or other).
Your argument is that because Government does some services, that it should be doing more and more and more and more.. regardless of the effectiveness of those services?
Would you like to point out where GP claimed that? I never have. I think the US government should do more and tax more, but that's specific things and limited additional taxes.
In addition, people in general are better off than they were fifty years ago (I do remember 1966), and there's a large array of things the US government does to our benefit. It maintains parks, funds scientific research, provides a control system to allow airplanes to fly safely, and provides some assurance that our food won't poison us, for example.
In that case, you have never tested enough. Nobody will ever think of all the possible things to test in any real-world scenario. If you listed all the possible situations with a trailer, there's a good chance I could look through it and find something you'd missed.
Sure. That doesn't mean we should do everything possible to extend every single life. People who do dumb things in potentially dangerous situations are going to die at a higher rate than people who don't, and there's really nothing we can do about that.
For non commercial use, any old idiot can drive a boat.
I used to sail on rented sloops about 36' long fairly frequently, around Wisconsin's Apostle Islands. On one trip, we had a blind guy take the helm for a while, and also a seriously developmentally disabled woman with sensory problems. Neither of them were ever going to be able to drive a car.
Another thing amazon.com gives me is incredible selection. If something's for sale and can reasonably be shipped, I can probably buy it on Amazon. A brick and mortar store can't possibly do that.
At least back when Jobs was in charge, Apple kept expanding its market by introducing new neat things. A cult of users can be useful to maintain a market, but it's not going to expand it. It's also hard to maintain a decent cult by mistreating the members, and Apple provides benefits in compatibility and ease of use that counterbalance problems that tend to matter mostly to techies.
Right now, we don't have any knowledge of extraterrestrial life, and getting some to study would be incredibly valuable scientifically. This means that we really, really don't want to destroy it if it exists. Eventually, we may come to a state where another planet with life is essentially useless scientifically, and then we may proceed differently.
The EU is not charging tax law, but rather enforcing it. Apple made a deal with Ireland that Ireland didn't have the authority to make under EEC treaties, and so there legally was no deal, and Apple is responsible for a lot of back taxes it didn't pay. If you had an illegal deal with a US State government to evade Federal taxes, you'd still owe the taxes when the IRS found out.
The legal question here is whether Ireland can make valid tax law that contravenes its treaty obligations, and it appears that the answer is "no".
Slashdot Mirror
I could claim that without committing perjury. The claim that the Metallica album infringes the copyright on my post is (IIRC) supposed to be made in good faith, but I don't know that there are any penalties there. Someone who's an actual lawyer would be likely to know.
I'd think "good faith" allows for errors sometimes, but a penalty for a continued pattern of DMCA abuse would be nice.
Suppose I send a DMCA takedown notice, claiming that a site has illegally put up this post (automatically copyright me as soon as I type it). As long as I do hold the copyright on this post, and claim that a site is distributing this post without a license, I am not committing perjury, no matter what I claim infringes.
There's no double standard here. If Google accepts a DMCA takedown notice and takes the material down, Google is not liable for copyright infringement. If Google doesn't take the material down, and there is infringement, Google is liable.
Google likely has a list of sites that are authorized by the appropriate copyright authors, and doesn't take those down, because there is no infringement. They may well have an agreement with MAFIAA members and the like to that effect. No infringement, no liability. On the other hand, Google doesn't know that that ostensible Ubuntu torrent isn't actually distributing something else, and Google's not going to become liable for that.
The hosting company doesn't have to put anything back up. This section of the DMCA is instructions on how to avoid legal liability, not a mandatory procedure.
If Google receives a takedown notice, Google doesn't have to take down anything. However, if Google doesn't and the content is found to be infringing, Google is legally liable for infringing the copyright. If Google receives a counterclaim, Google doesn't have to put anything back up. However, if Google doesn't and Google has some sort of legal obligation to host the material, Google is legally liable for not meeting that obligation.
In most cases, Google doesn't want to be liable for copyright infringement, but doesn't have any legal obligation to host the content in the first place, so can safely ignore the counterclaim.
If I understand the DMCA aright, Google doesn't have to put whatever it is back up, since it doesn't have any legal obligation to host it in the first place. So, if Google wants, it can put the link up after receiving the counterclaim and send the counterclaim to WB. After that, it's between whoever put it up and WB, and I'm betting on WB.
No, nobody's legally required to put stuff back up after a counterclaim, just as nobody's required to take stuff down after a claim.
These are safe harbor provisions. If the website takes down stuff after a DMCA takedown is issued, it's not liable for any copyright infringement that may have happened. (There are people who want to change this, of course.) If the website puts the stuff back up after the counterclaim, it's not liable for any breach of contractual or other duty towards whoever put it up in the first place.
In most of these cases, the website has no agreement to keep anything up. Typically, the terms of service say the website can take anything down for any reason, and then there's no liability in just leaving the stuff inaccessible.
You seem to believe that Apple pays what's legally required. There are a lot of people who know about EU treaty and Irish law that think Apple didn't pay what was legally required.
If the sweetheart deal was illegal, then it's legally null and void and Apple owes the taxes it would have owed without it.
No, you're still wrong. The general rule is that, if companies could make more money by raising their prices, they would. (There are exceptions to this, such as concert tickets, which are typically set below the level for maximum profit.) The situation doesn't change if there's multiple players in the market. Either they're conspiring together, in which case they've already set the prices at the optimum monopolistic level, or they're in true competition, in which case they've set them at the optimum competitive market level.
Another way to look at this: companies try to maximize profit, and corporate taxes are based on profit. The actions needed to maximize profit are the exact same as are needed to maximize profit*0.8.
The question is not whether the Irish government acted against its treaty obligations. That's very clear. The question is whether the agreement with the Irish government was legal at the time or not. If the agreement was legal at the time, then Ireland should be penalized but Apple should be in the clear. If it wasn't, then the agreement is legally null and void, and Apple needs to pay back taxes.
Personally, I know far too little about EU and Irish jurisprudence to know, but a lot of people who know a lot more than I do think that the agreement was illegal from the start.
You're talking about income taxes here. The 47% still pay other taxes. If you define taxes as money allocated as payroll that goes to government(s) by law, you'll find they pay about 15% in SS/Medicare/whatever payroll taxes.
The EU claims that laws were in fact broken. I don't know enough about the jurisprudence involved to judge for myself, but it's quite believable that the agreement between Apple and Ireland was illegal when it was made.
In the US, you may get into situations where you don't pay your income taxes properly, either deliberately or inadvertently. In both cases, you're required to pay back taxes. In the former case, you're likely to be hit with penalties and possibly criminal prosecution. You don't seem to be making a distinction between taxes due and penalties.
In countries without strong governments, the rich, well-connected, and powerful generally take what they want without the need to go through corruption and graft.
Most of what the US government does is Constitutional. I'll agree that it has overstepped in some areas, but there's a heck of a lot covered by the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause.
As a leftist, I could say pretty much what you did. We're not different in basic principles. We differ in the details, such as what government should do and how we should pay for it.
And, yes, we like to avoid oppression, but not all oppression comes from government. Governments frequently defend us from oppression by corporations, for example.
You're not paying attention. To give one example, most of us think the War on Drugs is a failure, and many of us think the War on Terror has gone horribly wrong.
If a problem was going to be solved well without government intervention, it probably has been already. Most of the remaining big problems are going to require some sort of collective action or some sort of adjustment to the marketplace (very often in accounting for externalities somehow or other).
Would you like to point out where GP claimed that? I never have. I think the US government should do more and tax more, but that's specific things and limited additional taxes.
In addition, people in general are better off than they were fifty years ago (I do remember 1966), and there's a large array of things the US government does to our benefit. It maintains parks, funds scientific research, provides a control system to allow airplanes to fly safely, and provides some assurance that our food won't poison us, for example.
"Heinlein did not see all and know all" - me
In that case, you have never tested enough. Nobody will ever think of all the possible things to test in any real-world scenario. If you listed all the possible situations with a trailer, there's a good chance I could look through it and find something you'd missed.
Sure. That doesn't mean we should do everything possible to extend every single life. People who do dumb things in potentially dangerous situations are going to die at a higher rate than people who don't, and there's really nothing we can do about that.
I used to sail on rented sloops about 36' long fairly frequently, around Wisconsin's Apostle Islands. On one trip, we had a blind guy take the helm for a while, and also a seriously developmentally disabled woman with sensory problems. Neither of them were ever going to be able to drive a car.
Just emphasizing your "any old idiot".
Another thing amazon.com gives me is incredible selection. If something's for sale and can reasonably be shipped, I can probably buy it on Amazon. A brick and mortar store can't possibly do that.
At least back when Jobs was in charge, Apple kept expanding its market by introducing new neat things. A cult of users can be useful to maintain a market, but it's not going to expand it. It's also hard to maintain a decent cult by mistreating the members, and Apple provides benefits in compatibility and ease of use that counterbalance problems that tend to matter mostly to techies.
Right now, we don't have any knowledge of extraterrestrial life, and getting some to study would be incredibly valuable scientifically. This means that we really, really don't want to destroy it if it exists. Eventually, we may come to a state where another planet with life is essentially useless scientifically, and then we may proceed differently.
The EU is not charging tax law, but rather enforcing it. Apple made a deal with Ireland that Ireland didn't have the authority to make under EEC treaties, and so there legally was no deal, and Apple is responsible for a lot of back taxes it didn't pay. If you had an illegal deal with a US State government to evade Federal taxes, you'd still owe the taxes when the IRS found out.
The legal question here is whether Ireland can make valid tax law that contravenes its treaty obligations, and it appears that the answer is "no".