primary infringer:secondary infringer::murderer:accessory to murder
And if you think lawyers contribute nothing, you must either (1) expect the layperson to understand the law completely, (2) allow "I don't know the law" as an excuse to any crime, or (3) think that there is no need for laws.
It's like saying engineers don't contribute anything to society because other people could build their own bridges. Or mathematicians don't contribute because everyone can add 2+2.
I don't understand what the point of your argument is. Technically, I don't even see an argument. Could you please clarify what exactly you're arguing against that I said?
Adn if you have copyrighted material on a website, it's likely that you could be sued as a primary infringer.
The inducement rule is only applicable where secondary liability is at issue. Secondary liability is when someone else is the primary infringer, not you.
For primary infringement, fair use would be one avenue of defense. But inducement is not a defense for primary infringement. Hell, inducement isn't a defense at all. It's a theory of secondary liability.
So clarify, please, what words of mine you're arguing against.
Your argument doesn't make much sense unless you think that only military men can be President of the US. Recall that the President is the leader of the military.
Keep telling yourself that; it will remain a false statement. Your realize that intent is a required factors to demonstrate in 99% of all of criminal cases in the US, right? It's called mens rea.
If they stored it (pretending they're in the US, because I don't know Swedish law), they'd have been found to be primary infringers, not secondary infringers.
They were found to be secondary infringers. What theory of 2dary liability, I'm not sure, as I can't read the decision, and the news reports in English I've seen talk about "assisting" infringement, which doesn't distinguish between inducement, vicarious, and contributory liability.
I'm not a lawyer yet. I'm not your lawyer. I'm not anyone's lawyer. This is not legal advice.
There's "Google Cache."
I'm on your side with respect to the conclusion that Google and TPB are vastly different. However, you're barking up the wrong legal analysis tree to get there. Here's a very dirty, quick, and sloppy (but analytically pointing in the correct direction for legal argument) differentiation between Google and TPB:
The difference is the transformative nature of what Google provides (the first factor of the US's fair use analysis) and effect on the market of the original work (the fourth factor of the US's fair use analysis). This defends Google against a primary infringement suit premised upon their Google Cache or image searches (see Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.).
As for secondary liability (which is what the TPB guys were found guilty of), Google doesn't induce, while TPB does. Google likely has immunity from secondary liability via the DMCA. If not, they do rightfully control what they've indexed, and they respond to takedown requests, e.g. Google doesn't knowingly aid infringers. Thus, they're likely immunized from a successful suit premised upon any form of 2dary liability (inducement, contributory, or vicarious).
TPB would be found liable under the inducement theory for sure, just like Grokster was. You don't get to actively encourage piracy via your software/service and get away with it. Nor should you.
No idea about Swedish law, but under US law, that's not true.
By calling themselves "The Pirate Bay" and doing all their public bragging of the ability to get torrent files on their computers, they'd be found liable under the "inducement" theory of secondary liability.
Google, however, would not, as they don't induce copyright infringement.
Seriously, it's like Slashdotters don't understand that the law takes factual circumstances into account.
In Austin, TWC is pretty much the only game in town. It would be economic suicide for such a boycott.
For example, I live in an affluent area of Austin. What's available here? TWC? Check.
Verizon? No, that's only way in NW Austin. ATT? No. Grande? One townhome complex in my entire ZIP code.
My apartment contract ends about the time TWC was going to introduce the tiers (Aug-Sept). I actually called up the other providers and asked for coverage maps so I could move to an area they serve.
Guess how many ISPs have coverage maps of Austin? ZERO. The CR at Grande could only even name one block that had service in my ZIP code.
Why can't these ISPs get their act together and provide coverage maps? Don't they realize that people make apartment decisions based on ISP coverage?
Hell, my friend is going to move into a new house, but while she's shopping, she's investigating coverage in Austin. She refuses to move to a house that is only covered by TWC, and she's having a hell of a time trying that.
The Federal Circuit upheld the Artistic License in Jacobsen v. Katzer, establishing at long last that open source licenses are enforceable. Although that outcome received most of the headlines, the caseâ(TM)s greater significance lies elsewhere. Jacobsen v. Katzer teaches valuable lessons about conditions and covenants in license contracts, lessons that apply to licenses of all persuasions. Moreover, the case raises an important question about the interplay between contract and intellectual property law: Can licensors manipulate the distinction between covenants and conditions in such a way that upsets the delicate balance in copyright law? This article explores the lessons taught by Jacobsen v. Katzer and the open issue that it leaves, concluding with a proposal that supports the business model innovation characterized by open source licensing.
Either you don't understand that s/x/a searches for "x" and replaces it with "a," or you aren't aware that "disincentivize" is a word, while "disincent" isn't.
Legal firms take home a percentage when working on a contingency fee basis. However, firms rarely work on a contingency fee basis with high-roller customers like the RIAA. Instead, they get paid by the hour.
Cheapest plan is slower than residential speeds (residential for me tests to approx. 6-7Mbps/512Kbps, while their business class is listed as 10Mbps/512Kbps--however, residential is listed as 15 down, not the 6-7 I get).
We TWC subscribers don't have such a tool yet, but the company announced that it will be provided within the month in time for rolling out the caps in (purportedly) September.
For the record, I'm strongly considering moving to an area of Austin where I can get FIOS just to get out from under TWC's absurdly terrible customer service.
I'll have an outage and go for a couple days before a tech can actually get out to my place to fix it. It costs $35 to have my service changed to a different coax connection within the same apartment, even when the tech is already there fixing something else for that same apartment.
Time Warner sucks. Sucks hard. But I don't know of alternatives. Grande, the only cable competitor in Austin, only seems to offer connectivity to one group of townhomes in my entire ZIP code, and it's, unfortunately, not where I live.
I'm <-> this close to moving just to get out from under TWC's thumb.
On the interesting side, Grande's website has a big banner: At Grande, we DO NOT charge for caps on bandwidth!
They know how to capitalize on the situation. And they're a local business, too. Download is just a bit slower than TWC's advertised "top plan" of 15Mbps (Grande is 12, and I usually clock in with TWC at a max of 6.4Mbps), but their up is 1Mbps up, while TWC's usually is 400Kbps.
Grande seems to offer something new called "Cheetah Bolt" that is 24Mbps down, but you seem to have to subscribe to their phone and TV packages to get that, and I don't watch TV, and I use a cell phone for everything.
The point here is: Fuck TWC. If you live in Austin and are fortunate to live in an area in which they serve, look into Grande. Unfortunately, I don't think I do:(.
Here's mine. It was admittedly written quickly, but I tried to target it toward how my reps (Texan Republicans) think: in terms of nationalistic pride and global economic competitiveness. I also tried to use terms in the way the laity does:
Over a decade ago, AOL dominated the Internet and everyone had to pay per-minute rates for slow internet. Until recently, there was no such thing as an "unlimited" cell-phone plan that was within reach of the average consumer's wallet.
The Internet has, since then, moved to a flat-rate system. Cell phones have moved to a flat-rate system (at the very least, for text messaging).
Now, I have no empirical data at my fingertips to prove this, but I'm sure that these structural changes have improved the lives of consumers and increased the US's ability to be competitive.
However, many countries have increased broadband penetration at a faster rate than the US, and their bandwidth is fasterâ"South Korea, Japan, the Scandanavian countries, etc.
A faster, less restricted Internet makes for a more globally competitive workforce. We cannot, in the era of the flattening world, risk falling behind economically because some executives want to line their pockets with more money.
Time Warner has made this move to discourage people from watching legitimate, legal television over the internet (e.g., via Hulu or NBC's websites) because this poses a threat to their cable television services.
This is anticompetitive and harmful to the consumer. Many consumers have no legitimate alternative to Time Warner. Here in Austin, there is virtually no competition for cable internet; thus, Time Warner knows they can take advantage of their subscribers and we do not have much recourse.
Additionally, quick reference to their 10-Q quarterlies reveals that their revenue has not been harmed because of people "downloading too much."
I urge you to work to stop Time Warner's business plan, which is harmful to their subscribers and to the nation's economic competitiveness.
Slashdot Mirror
So is the new college slogan "FREE (LIBRE) TIBET!"?
I'm not a fool.
I'm not sure how you're getting into a flame war. Perhaps you don't know what a "flame" is. Google reveals this definition (among others):
What inflammatory message did I post anywhere? I didn't realize that defending the profession of law was inflammatory. Apologies if I was wrong.
Although I suppose that your insinuation that I'm a fool might make this a flame war, no?
Think of it like this:
primary infringer:secondary infringer::murderer:accessory to murder
And if you think lawyers contribute nothing, you must either (1) expect the layperson to understand the law completely, (2) allow "I don't know the law" as an excuse to any crime, or (3) think that there is no need for laws.
It's like saying engineers don't contribute anything to society because other people could build their own bridges. Or mathematicians don't contribute because everyone can add 2+2.
I don't understand what the point of your argument is. Technically, I don't even see an argument. Could you please clarify what exactly you're arguing against that I said?
Adn if you have copyrighted material on a website, it's likely that you could be sued as a primary infringer.
The inducement rule is only applicable where secondary liability is at issue. Secondary liability is when someone else is the primary infringer, not you.
For primary infringement, fair use would be one avenue of defense. But inducement is not a defense for primary infringement. Hell, inducement isn't a defense at all. It's a theory of secondary liability.
So clarify, please, what words of mine you're arguing against.
Your argument doesn't make much sense unless you think that only military men can be President of the US. Recall that the President is the leader of the military.
Keep telling yourself that; it will remain a false statement. Your realize that intent is a required factors to demonstrate in 99% of all of criminal cases in the US, right? It's called mens rea.
If they stored it (pretending they're in the US, because I don't know Swedish law), they'd have been found to be primary infringers, not secondary infringers.
They were found to be secondary infringers. What theory of 2dary liability, I'm not sure, as I can't read the decision, and the news reports in English I've seen talk about "assisting" infringement, which doesn't distinguish between inducement, vicarious, and contributory liability.
I'm not a lawyer yet. I'm not your lawyer. I'm not anyone's lawyer. This is not legal advice.
There's "Google Cache."
I'm on your side with respect to the conclusion that Google and TPB are vastly different. However, you're barking up the wrong legal analysis tree to get there. Here's a very dirty, quick, and sloppy (but analytically pointing in the correct direction for legal argument) differentiation between Google and TPB:
The difference is the transformative nature of what Google provides (the first factor of the US's fair use analysis) and effect on the market of the original work (the fourth factor of the US's fair use analysis). This defends Google against a primary infringement suit premised upon their Google Cache or image searches (see Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.).
As for secondary liability (which is what the TPB guys were found guilty of), Google doesn't induce, while TPB does. Google likely has immunity from secondary liability via the DMCA. If not, they do rightfully control what they've indexed, and they respond to takedown requests, e.g. Google doesn't knowingly aid infringers. Thus, they're likely immunized from a successful suit premised upon any form of 2dary liability (inducement, contributory, or vicarious).
TPB would be found liable under the inducement theory for sure, just like Grokster was. You don't get to actively encourage piracy via your software/service and get away with it. Nor should you.
No idea about Swedish law, but under US law, that's not true.
By calling themselves "The Pirate Bay" and doing all their public bragging of the ability to get torrent files on their computers, they'd be found liable under the "inducement" theory of secondary liability.
Google, however, would not, as they don't induce copyright infringement.
Seriously, it's like Slashdotters don't understand that the law takes factual circumstances into account.
Your definition of "justice" seems to be "everyone is treated the same regardless of their previous actions."
That does not comport with my sense of justice.
If by "twenty states [without income tax]" you mean seven. ;)
In Austin, TWC is pretty much the only game in town. It would be economic suicide for such a boycott.
For example, I live in an affluent area of Austin. What's available here? TWC? Check.
Verizon? No, that's only way in NW Austin.
ATT? No.
Grande? One townhome complex in my entire ZIP code.
My apartment contract ends about the time TWC was going to introduce the tiers (Aug-Sept). I actually called up the other providers and asked for coverage maps so I could move to an area they serve.
Guess how many ISPs have coverage maps of Austin? ZERO. The CR at Grande could only even name one block that had service in my ZIP code.
Why can't these ISPs get their act together and provide coverage maps? Don't they realize that people make apartment decisions based on ISP coverage?
Hell, my friend is going to move into a new house, but while she's shopping, she's investigating coverage in Austin. She refuses to move to a house that is only covered by TWC, and she's having a hell of a time trying that.
For those who care, TIPLJ has a scholarly article in their latest issue about Jacobsen v. Katzer. Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Conditions and Covenants in License Contracts: Tales from a Test of the Artistic License, 17 Tex. Intell. Prop. L. J. (Forthcoming 2009). The abstract:
Either you don't understand that s/x/a searches for "x" and replaces it with "a," or you aren't aware that "disincentivize" is a word, while "disincent" isn't.
Hey Red Flayer, you're taking the bar exam this summer, too? High five for the impending increase in /.er lawyers!
Legal firms take home a percentage when working on a contingency fee basis. However, firms rarely work on a contingency fee basis with high-roller customers like the RIAA. Instead, they get paid by the hour.
CITATION FUCKING NEEDED
Did you sign the contract? Then it's not illegal for you to do anything: You're not subject to its clauses.
It may be illegal for the artists to do something, but if you didn't sign the artist's contract, you're not beholden to the contract.
By pirating RIAA music, all you do is (1) become more addicted to RIAA music, and (2) feed their anti-piracy arguments.
The only truly rational thing to do is to stop listening to RIAA music. Period.
There is plenty of good non-RIAA audio nowadays. There is plenty of free, good non-RIAA audio nowadays, too!
Yes.
Cheapest plan is slower than residential speeds (residential for me tests to approx. 6-7Mbps/512Kbps, while their business class is listed as 10Mbps/512Kbps--however, residential is listed as 15 down, not the 6-7 I get).
More expensive than residential ($120/mo).
Won't give access to residential areas of town, though, I've been told.
Yes, there are caps, from what I've read (although this is not advertised--naturally).
That has been my research results when this was first announced a few weeks ago for Austin.
We TWC subscribers don't have such a tool yet, but the company announced that it will be provided within the month in time for rolling out the caps in (purportedly) September.
For the record, I'm strongly considering moving to an area of Austin where I can get FIOS just to get out from under TWC's absurdly terrible customer service.
I'll have an outage and go for a couple days before a tech can actually get out to my place to fix it. It costs $35 to have my service changed to a different coax connection within the same apartment, even when the tech is already there fixing something else for that same apartment.
Time Warner sucks. Sucks hard. But I don't know of alternatives. Grande, the only cable competitor in Austin, only seems to offer connectivity to one group of townhomes in my entire ZIP code, and it's, unfortunately, not where I live.
I'm <-> this close to moving just to get out from under TWC's thumb.
On the interesting side, Grande's website has a big banner: At Grande, we DO NOT charge for caps on bandwidth!
They know how to capitalize on the situation. And they're a local business, too. Download is just a bit slower than TWC's advertised "top plan" of 15Mbps (Grande is 12, and I usually clock in with TWC at a max of 6.4Mbps), but their up is 1Mbps up, while TWC's usually is 400Kbps.
Grande seems to offer something new called "Cheetah Bolt" that is 24Mbps down, but you seem to have to subscribe to their phone and TV packages to get that, and I don't watch TV, and I use a cell phone for everything.
The point here is: Fuck TWC. If you live in Austin and are fortunate to live in an area in which they serve, look into Grande. Unfortunately, I don't think I do :(.
Good luck, and God speed, ye internauts!
Just because you're getting screwed in Australia doesn't mean it's OK to screw us in the US.
Note that in North Korea, getting a little bread to eat is a "good deal." That doesn't justify the US government restricting us to oatmeal rations.
And uploads will count toward the limit.
Because your contract permits them to change the terms at any time?
Here's mine. It was admittedly written quickly, but I tried to target it toward how my reps (Texan Republicans) think: in terms of nationalistic pride and global economic competitiveness. I also tried to use terms in the way the laity does:
My local newspaper (Austin) reported that there will be no rollover.