7.5 Million according to the FCC. According to Kao, his number is "more than a million". So who do believe the FCC or Kao. I'm not likely to believe Pai since he won't actually disclose the methodology and the numbers.
Of course it's happening here. Neither party disagrees that it's happening here. There is not a disagreement on the question of facts. The disagreement is on whether Redbox's justification is a question of law. However in this case that is superseded by case law and contract law both of which Redbox loses. You of all people proved yourself wrong when you cited ProCD.
Again false logic: I'm pretty if something does not change the numbers of ISPs before or after it's implementation for 2 WHOLE years, it had no real effect. My Axe body spray is definitely keeping away supermodels. It has no bearing to the fact I don't live or work anywhere near supermodels and can never meet them.
I read his argument as being that NN rules help entrench incumbents and prevent new entrants. So no, the fact that all new entrants were in place before the 2015 NN rules seems perfectly consistent with his argument. It doesn't really support his argument, either (hard to discern signal from noise in two years), but I guess I'm not seeing why you think it's a smoking gun in the other direction.
And in the many, many years before NN, hordes and multitudes of new ISPs were created every year? That's against basic facts that the number of ISPs have dwindled down to a handful before NN and continued to do so after NN. Or did NN have really no effect on the creation of ISPs before or after. That's like saying my Axe body cologne drove away supermodels considering I had 0 supermodel girlfriends before I used it and 0 after I used it.
Another false dichotomy? What's the number one cause of wild fires (not the human caused ones)? Lightning strikes. So random lightning strikes avoid human areas because. . . ? I suppose that in your world, fire must also avoid populated human areas . . . because fire is smart?
Only if you promote false dichotomy arguments and don't bother to read even the summary: "Climate change makes fires there more frequent and more severe."
Sounds more like incompetent lawyers. I certainly had no problem getting class-action status over EA's Spore almost a decade ago.
So you're were a lawyer on the case then? So there were no dismissals in that case? Before you answer, you do know we have Google and can look these things up, right?
Of course not. They also do not to read the article either: "Jim Finberg, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said his clients plan to file an amended complaint seeking class action certification." This is somewhat normal for lawsuits. The judge finds that they didn't quite meet the requirements and dismisses. The plaintiffs refile.
Your entire post is a false dichotomy. It asserts that there are only without NN, more networks would exist. Simple facts show that is false. The FCC only put in place NN rules two years ago. So before these rules, many telco networks were created? Or have telco networks been shrinking down over the last decade with or without NN?
Indeed, within minutes. However, he was first and wasn't doing so with the express intent of proving some asinine point like you are. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure I admitted it to you when I pointed out that someone else had already corrected me. If I wasn't wrong, I could not have been corrected, no?
No you've pretty much been wrong the whole time. You just refuse to acknowledge it to me because I've proved you wrong so many times before.
You seem not to understand how the legal system works. Because the courts has already ruled in a particular way does not mean all the behaviors that led to the suit has stopped. For example, it's trademark and copyright infringement to make bootleg copies of a Disney film. That doesn't mean people don't do it.
The courts, of course, will decide which of us is correct.
The courts have already decided you are wrong on a few points.
In the "one case" I keep referring to? Re-read the conversation; I've referred to a handful. None of them in this thread, of course.
Well if you ignore that when deciding a case, a court has to consider all previous cases especially when the plaintiff brings up multiple points . For example, in this case you've brought up first sale doctrine which doesn't apply. Shrinkwrap licenses which were the opposite of what you said. That doesn't include yet addressing the copyright infringement, breach of contract, or false advertising, unfair competition, or tortuous inference claims by Disney
However, the Circuit Court's decision [google.com] is still relevant here, even if for different reasons than I originally stated.
The decision upholds Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. [google.com], a Supreme Court decision wherein it was determined that facts, in and of themselves, are not protected by copyright. The code itself is a fact; the paper it is printed on is (arguably) a protected work and distributing a copy of that paper may be a violation of copyright, but the code itself is not protected.
Yes the court has to decide whether a code is fact or not; however, the ProCD decision specifically says that it doesn't matter if facts can or cannot be copyrighted, the defendant still has to adhere to the contract. Thus any argument about whether a code is a fact is moot. Shrinkwrap license terms would compel Redbox to follow it.
So, they should sue based on that argument, then. But they're not. And you could have had a free bottle of cognac if the courts agreed with you. I buy the good stuff, you missed out.
Again you're unwilinig to admit you were dead wrong about the shrinkwrap license then?
Then Disney has a case against Redbox over the rental activity, as that is explicitly forbidden by the terms of the shrink-wrap license. Assuming, of course, that the license holds up in court; it may or it may not. That sure is a beautiful strawman you've constructed, there, but it's entirely irrelevant because that's not what Disney is suing over.
No Disney has a case over Redbox on multiple fronts not just the rental activity. It's far easier to ignore for you them.
I don't believe either of those scenarios has been tried in court. That said, yes, you can surely resell, in part or in whole, anything you've bought. It's called the first-sale doctrine and you've made it abundantly clear in this thread that you're quite aware of it.,
And you seem to on ignore that for this particular case, first sale doctrine does not apply to digital copies. Second, repackaging someone else's copyrighted work could be considered a derivative and would need permission from the copyrighted owner. Also you seem not to make the clear distinction between private use and commercial re-distribution.
My point is that Redbox isn't the one doing the digital distribution, Movies Anywhere (who is authorized) is. So, while your point is absolutely correct, it's also irrelevant because Redbox isn't doing the thing you're pointing out that they're not allowed to do.
Redbox isn't distributing because you redeem the copy at Movies Anywhere but you forgot that Redbox is still selling the copy. Or did not think that part of distribution is selling.
We can keep going back and forth, restating the same facts to support the same opinions, or we can wait for the courts to sort it out. I'm buying a bottle of cognac tonight, it can go to whoever the courts determine to be right if we drop this until a decision has been made, or I can enjoy the bottle myself regardless. Your call.
My point is the courts have already said you're wrong. But you refuse to acknowledge it.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no thoughts one way or the other on your looks, but hopefully they exceed your capacity for critical thinking.
Yet you keep posting the same false dichotomy.
Two years might be long enough to make directional judgments about production rates of cat videos or mobile apps,
If that's what you believe an ISP is then that shows your lack of thinking.
but it's almost certainly not long enough to determine trends for high-inertia businesses like ISPs. Have a good weekend, friend.
So you admit that NN did nothing for or against ISPs?
7.5 Million according to the FCC. According to Kao, his number is "more than a million". So who do believe the FCC or Kao. I'm not likely to believe Pai since he won't actually disclose the methodology and the numbers.
Of course it's happening here. Neither party disagrees that it's happening here. There is not a disagreement on the question of facts. The disagreement is on whether Redbox's justification is a question of law. However in this case that is superseded by case law and contract law both of which Redbox loses. You of all people proved yourself wrong when you cited ProCD.
You mean this time and all the times you lied in the past? After all it hasn't been just me who called you a liar.
Again false logic: I'm pretty if something does not change the numbers of ISPs before or after it's implementation for 2 WHOLE years, it had no real effect. My Axe body spray is definitely keeping away supermodels. It has no bearing to the fact I don't live or work anywhere near supermodels and can never meet them.
I read his argument as being that NN rules help entrench incumbents and prevent new entrants. So no, the fact that all new entrants were in place before the 2015 NN rules seems perfectly consistent with his argument. It doesn't really support his argument, either (hard to discern signal from noise in two years), but I guess I'm not seeing why you think it's a smoking gun in the other direction.
And in the many, many years before NN, hordes and multitudes of new ISPs were created every year? That's against basic facts that the number of ISPs have dwindled down to a handful before NN and continued to do so after NN. Or did NN have really no effect on the creation of ISPs before or after. That's like saying my Axe body cologne drove away supermodels considering I had 0 supermodel girlfriends before I used it and 0 after I used it.
Another false dichotomy? What's the number one cause of wild fires (not the human caused ones)? Lightning strikes. So random lightning strikes avoid human areas because. . . ? I suppose that in your world, fire must also avoid populated human areas . . . because fire is smart?
Only if you promote false dichotomy arguments and don't bother to read even the summary: "Climate change makes fires there more frequent and more severe."
So all of them were created before NN rules were in place. That sorta destroys his argument doesn't it?
Sounds more like incompetent lawyers. I certainly had no problem getting class-action status over EA's Spore almost a decade ago.
So you're were a lawyer on the case then? So there were no dismissals in that case? Before you answer, you do know we have Google and can look these things up, right?
Of course not. They also do not to read the article either: "Jim Finberg, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said his clients plan to file an amended complaint seeking class action certification." This is somewhat normal for lawsuits. The judge finds that they didn't quite meet the requirements and dismisses. The plaintiffs refile.
Your entire post is a false dichotomy. It asserts that there are only without NN, more networks would exist. Simple facts show that is false. The FCC only put in place NN rules two years ago. So before these rules, many telco networks were created? Or have telco networks been shrinking down over the last decade with or without NN?
Obviously you make money on volume. :P
I suppose you know it when the app just shows up on your Apple TV
Indeed, within minutes. However, he was first and wasn't doing so with the express intent of proving some asinine point like you are. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure I admitted it to you when I pointed out that someone else had already corrected me. If I wasn't wrong, I could not have been corrected, no?
No you've pretty much been wrong the whole time. You just refuse to acknowledge it to me because I've proved you wrong so many times before.
You seem not to understand how the legal system works. Because the courts has already ruled in a particular way does not mean all the behaviors that led to the suit has stopped. For example, it's trademark and copyright infringement to make bootleg copies of a Disney film. That doesn't mean people don't do it.
The courts, of course, will decide which of us is correct.
The courts have already decided you are wrong on a few points.
In the "one case" I keep referring to? Re-read the conversation; I've referred to a handful. None of them in this thread, of course.
Well if you ignore that when deciding a case, a court has to consider all previous cases especially when the plaintiff brings up multiple points . For example, in this case you've brought up first sale doctrine which doesn't apply. Shrinkwrap licenses which were the opposite of what you said. That doesn't include yet addressing the copyright infringement, breach of contract, or false advertising, unfair competition, or tortuous inference claims by Disney
We both showed that you were wrong way within minutes of each other. However you ware unwilling to admit to me because of your stubbornness.
However, the Circuit Court's decision [google.com] is still relevant here, even if for different reasons than I originally stated.
The decision upholds Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. [google.com], a Supreme Court decision wherein it was determined that facts, in and of themselves, are not protected by copyright. The code itself is a fact; the paper it is printed on is (arguably) a protected work and distributing a copy of that paper may be a violation of copyright, but the code itself is not protected.
Yes the court has to decide whether a code is fact or not; however, the ProCD decision specifically says that it doesn't matter if facts can or cannot be copyrighted, the defendant still has to adhere to the contract. Thus any argument about whether a code is a fact is moot. Shrinkwrap license terms would compel Redbox to follow it.
Again unwilling to admit you were dead wrong about shrinkwrap license then?
So, they should sue based on that argument, then. But they're not. And you could have had a free bottle of cognac if the courts agreed with you. I buy the good stuff, you missed out.
Again you're unwilinig to admit you were dead wrong about the shrinkwrap license then?
So you're willing to admit you were wrong about shrinkwrap licenses because the only case you cite says you're wrong.
Then Disney has a case against Redbox over the rental activity, as that is explicitly forbidden by the terms of the shrink-wrap license. Assuming, of course, that the license holds up in court; it may or it may not. That sure is a beautiful strawman you've constructed, there, but it's entirely irrelevant because that's not what Disney is suing over.
No Disney has a case over Redbox on multiple fronts not just the rental activity. It's far easier to ignore for you them.
I don't believe either of those scenarios has been tried in court. That said, yes, you can surely resell, in part or in whole, anything you've bought. It's called the first-sale doctrine and you've made it abundantly clear in this thread that you're quite aware of it.,
And you seem to on ignore that for this particular case, first sale doctrine does not apply to digital copies. Second, repackaging someone else's copyrighted work could be considered a derivative and would need permission from the copyrighted owner. Also you seem not to make the clear distinction between private use and commercial re-distribution.
My point is that Redbox isn't the one doing the digital distribution, Movies Anywhere (who is authorized) is. So, while your point is absolutely correct, it's also irrelevant because Redbox isn't doing the thing you're pointing out that they're not allowed to do.
Redbox isn't distributing because you redeem the copy at Movies Anywhere but you forgot that Redbox is still selling the copy. Or did not think that part of distribution is selling.
We can keep going back and forth, restating the same facts to support the same opinions, or we can wait for the courts to sort it out. I'm buying a bottle of cognac tonight, it can go to whoever the courts determine to be right if we drop this until a decision has been made, or I can enjoy the bottle myself regardless. Your call.
My point is the courts have already said you're wrong. But you refuse to acknowledge it.
When did the Supreme Court agree?
When was it decided by the Supreme Court that Redbox is legally clear? Please cite the case.