Page 5 of 37 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 901
  1. #101
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Well played Grey.

  2. #102
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    I'm concerned. I don't think the punishment necessarily fits the crime here, at least in the cases where there's no profit motive.
    It seems to me that the punishment in the civil suits are the ones that are horribly unjust.

    It would also seem to me that an enforcement agency turning their complaints in to a prosecutor would not ever be that gross.

    I'm complaining (again)? How did you construe a complain from this?
    ..

    Good. Stop referring to it as theft then.

    ...

    If that office would cater to the million of copyright owners out there, you would have a point. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case (so far).
    so there is a potential base of a million copyright owners/taxpayers.

    In a vacuum with unlimited funds, I wouldn't have a problem either.
    so funding is purely the issue for you regarding the enforcement agency.

    Do you have any cost projections of this proposed agency, and a comparison of such cost to the 'war on drugs'?

    ....or is this an issue where spending $1 on it is spending $1 too much?

    Ample debate on that one.
    Interesting article about that topic here:
    http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/...he-word-theft/
    an opinion of an opinion.

    seems there is ample debate around the internets on the subject.

    I don't think I've ever said anywhere who is right or wrong. Again, jmo, for all practical purposes, it's theft.

  3. #103
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    Absolutely.

    So let me get this straight - if someone watches an NBA video on youtube not uploaded officially by the NBA, you would say they are stealing.

    Agree or disagree?
    Here's an example:

    Uploaded without authorization by lele91ASR. Are the 15,344,048 viewers all thieves to you?
    Are we agreeing that lele91ASR is a thief?

    You know for a fact that all 15+m viewers are all aware that lele91ASR did not have the authorization to upload that video?

  4. #104
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    You know for a fact that all 15+m viewers are all aware that lele91ASR did not have the authorization to upload that video?
    What does awareness of the law have to do with anything? Do all people who watch streaming broadcast have awareness of the law? And what difference would that make in the eyes of the law anyways?

  5. #105
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    What does awareness of the law have to do with anything? Do all people who watch streaming broadcast have awareness of the law? And what difference would that make in the eyes of the law anyways?
    Awareness/ignorance of the law is not what we are talking about here.

    If you are in possession of stolen property and you do not know it is stolen, it absolutely is a solid defense in any court of law to say that you did not know the property is stolen.

  6. #106
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Awareness/ignorance of the law is not what we are talking about here.
    If you are in possession of stolen property and you do not know it is stolen, it absolutely is a solid defense in any court of law to say that you did not know the property is stolen.
    And what's to stop every one of those 15M + viewers of that Youtube from using that excuse?

    So do you agree that all 15M+ viewers are thieves, unknowingly or not?

  7. #107
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    It seems to me that the punishment in the civil suits are the ones that are horribly unjust.

    It would also seem to me that an enforcement agency turning their complaints in to a prosecutor would not ever be that gross.
    Uh? This is the government filing civil suits on behalf of copyright holders...

    The PRO-IP Act permits the Department of Justice to conduct civil suits on behalf of copyright holders. This provision was initially removed from the bill, but then was approved unanimously in the Senate. Not all Senators were present for this vote.

    PRO-IP Act

    so there is a potential base of a million copyright owners/taxpayers.
    Correct. With a potential multi-million copyrights to 'keep an eye on', and having to litigate.

    so funding is purely the issue for you regarding the enforcement agency.

    Do you have any cost projections of this proposed agency, and a comparison of such cost to the 'war on drugs'?

    ....or is this an issue where spending $1 on it is spending $1 too much?
    No, I have no problem with the assigned budget for the FBI to pursue criminal cases. If you think I'm against enforcement, you got it all wrong.
    What I do not want is for the government to start picking up the tab on civil lawsuits filed on behalf of companies that are quite capable of filing themselves and footing the bill for it. In the Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster case, just attorney fees awarded were $68,685.23, and the infringement claim wasn't even litigated. Multiply that by a few hundred thousand cases and it's easy to see how quickly that can get out of control.

    an opinion of an opinion.

    seems there is ample debate around the internets on the subject.

    I don't think I've ever said anywhere who is right or wrong. Again, jmo, for all practical purposes, it's theft.
    Call it whatever you want. I'm concerned in the legal/cost aspect, not the linguistic one.

  8. #108
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    And what's to stop every one of those 15M + viewers of that Youtube from using that excuse?
    Nothing at all.

    So do you agree that all 15M+ viewers are thieves, unknowingly or not?1
    if they are unknowing, they are not thieves.

  9. #109
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    Uh? This is the government filing civil suits on behalf of copyright holders...

    The PRO-IP Act permits the Department of Justice to conduct civil suits on behalf of copyright holders. This provision was initially removed from the bill, but then was approved unanimously in the Senate. Not all Senators were present for this vote.

    PRO-IP Act
    so the [paraphrase] $1M lawsuit against the 12 year old was a civil suit filed on behalf of the copyright holders?

    I was under the impression that this new agency would be responsible for filing criminal charges.

    Correct. With a potential multi-million copyrights to 'keep an eye on', and having to litigate.
    Against potentially multi-millions of violators with mulit-millions worth of dollars on the line.

    Again, the scope of what is happening makes me ok with having an enforcement agency.

    No, I have no problem with the assigned budget for the FBI to pursue criminal cases. If you think I'm against enforcement, you got it all wrong.
    What I do not want is for the government to start picking up the tab on civil lawsuits filed on behalf of companies that are quite capable of filing themselves and footing the bill for it. In the Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster case, just attorney fees awarded were $68,685.23, and the infringement claim wasn't even litigated. Multiply that by a few hundred thousand cases and it's easy to see how quickly that can get out of control.
    K, I think I'm getting a clearer picture of what you are getting at.

    Is it that the government will be picking up the tab on civil lawsuits if this new proposal passes or is it that the WH's proposal will change what you believe should stay a civil suit and turn it into a criminal charge?

    Call it whatever you want. I'm concerned in the legal/cost aspect, not the linguistic one.
    I ask because in the war on drugs, I'm concerned with both.

  10. #110
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    if they are unknowing, they are not thieves.
    I don't quite think that theft involves knowing it is against the law. Otherwise, as you pointed out, everyone could just claim ignorance and then get off scot-free.

    Are you saying that's your personal definition of theft?

  11. #111
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    so the [paraphrase] $1M lawsuit against the 12 year old was a civil suit filed on behalf of the copyright holders?

    I was under the impression that this new agency would be responsible for filing criminal charges.
    No, the 12 year old lawsuit was filed BY the copyright holders. See, at that time this new agency didn't exist, so they had to foot the bill themselves, which makes sense, since they're the ones making the claim, and holders of the copyright.

    The new agency role coordinates authority already in place on the FBI, ICE, and DHS. It's not all bad, but the civil suits part is certainly alarming (from a cost/legalese aspect)

    Against potentially multi-millions of violators with mulit-millions worth of dollars on the line.
    Which were already protected by law enforcement and criminal law. Going into the civil realm and suing on behalf of others is novel and absurd. The copyright holder was never impeded from doing so. The only thing that shifts here is who carries the burden on the expense.

    Again, the scope of what is happening makes me ok with having an enforcement agency.
    There always was an enforcement agency. We got to this point with an enforcement agency in place.

    K, I think I'm getting a clearer picture of what you are getting at.

    Is it that the government will be picking up the tab on civil lawsuits if this new proposal passes or is it that the WH's proposal will change what you believe should stay a civil suit and turn it into a criminal charge?
    It's not a proposal...

    On October 13, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law.

    It just took this long to actually deploy and implement it.

    The criminal charge was always there, even prior to this law. The copyright holder would contact the FBI and the FBI would investigate and bring criminal charges if necessary.

    This law introduces the ability for the AG to file civil suits on behalf of the right holders, which means the government would be bearing the brunt of the cost of said litigation (including attorney fees and related costs if they lose the case), while the proceedings for winning the civil case go to the rights holder. That's pretty convenient.

    It's akin to me having the government sue you, and if the case is won, I get the proceedings, while if the case is lost, the government picks up the tab.

  12. #112
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    if they are unknowing, they are not thieves.
    FWIW, an old saying is that ignorance is no defense. Technically speaking, it can be, but it's very hard to prove you didn't know in a court of law.

  13. #113
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    It's not a proposal...

    On October 13, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law.

    It just took this long to actually deploy and implement it.

    The criminal charge was always there, even prior to this law. The copyright holder would contact the FBI and the FBI would investigate and bring criminal charges if necessary.

    This law introduces the ability for the AG to file civil suits on behalf of the right holders, which means the government would be bearing the brunt of the cost of said litigation (including attorney fees and related costs if they lose the case), while the proceedings for winning the civil case go to the rights holder. That's pretty convenient.

    It's akin to me having the government sue you, and if the case is won, I get the proceedings, while if the case is lost, the government picks up the tab.
    huh?

    Bush was strongly against the bill in September of 08 because of that reason.

    It was removed from what I undertstand which is why he signed the bill in October of 08.

    The Bush administration initially expressed its opposition to the legislation, but one of its more contentious provisions, which would have allowed the Justice Department to pursue civil litigation against copyright infringers, was removed.

    Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10...#ixzz1HM9woVnC

  14. #114
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    FWIW, an old saying is that ignorance is no defense. Technically speaking, it can be, but it's very hard to prove you didn't know in a court of law.
    In most, probably all states, the law says that saying you didn't know is an acceptable defense.

  15. #115
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    huh?

    Bush was strongly against the bill in September of 08 because of that reason.

    It was removed from what I undertstand which is why he signed the bill in October of 08.
    Hrm... I don't know why it said it passed on the Wiki page.
    But it looks like you're correct. Any other link indicates it's not been included.

    That's a relief.

    In most, probably all states, the law says that saying you didn't know is an acceptable defense.
    Like I said, technically speaking it's a valid defense. It just can be very hard to prove in court.

  16. #116
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    But it looks like you're correct.
    you.













    j/k

  17. #117
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Just cut it out with the 'theft' meme...









    j/k

  18. #118
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    I don't quite think that theft involves knowing it is against the law. Otherwise, as you pointed out, everyone could just claim ignorance and then get off scot-free.

    Are you saying that's your personal definition of theft?
    If you are in possession of stolen property and you do not know you are in possession of stolen property, then it is absolutely a solid defense, and yes, everyone could just claim they did not know they were holding stolen property and get off scot-free.

    Very easy google search, but if you need a link(s), let me know.

  19. #119
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    More IP news:

    Court rejects Google Books settlement

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20...ag=topStories1

  20. #120
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    If you are in possession of stolen property and you do not know you are in possession of stolen property, then it is absolutely a solid defense, and yes, everyone could just claim they did not know they were holding stolen property and get off scot-free.

    Very easy google search, but if you need a link(s), let me know.
    I know what I'm doing then... torrenting everything I can and claiming complete ignorance. It should work the first time, at least.

  21. #121
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    I know what I'm doing then... torrenting everything I can and claiming complete ignorance. It should work the first time, at least.
    a bit different from the youtube clip from earlier. youtube actively removes infringed material and makes it clear that uploading such material is prohibited.

    If I'm watching TV at home and the TV station is broadcasting a movie they did not have the right to broadcast, am I also liable for their misdeed?

    I would think the same logic would apply to youtube. I'm not at all uncomfortable watching that previous clip.


    Downloading a full movie for free from a torrent site and copying it to your computer would be a much different thing, imo.

    Who would believe you that you really didn't know you couldn't copy a newly released movie for free? You'd have to do a good job of lying and playing dumb.

  22. #122
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Downloading a full movie for free from a torrent site and copying it to your computer would be a much different thing, imo.

    Who would believe you that you really didn't know you couldn't copy a newly released movie for free? You'd have to do a good job of lying and playing dumb.
    I can agree that the onus to verify that one was "ignorant" of a crime would be much harder to prove if you were dloading movies. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.

  23. #123
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    I can agree that the onus to verify that one was "ignorant" of a crime would be much harder to prove if you were dloading movies. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.
    I figured, but it still made me think for minute.

  24. #124
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Just to play Devil's Advocate... what if you were dloading things that you COULDN'T purchase anywhere? Say, for instance, I wanted to watch some games from the 1986 Celtics season. AFAIK, these games aren't available to purchase for viewing anywhere.

    Would you consider that theft? Or is theft only applicable in the case of newer releases/when a means of purchasing is available?

  25. #125
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Google is protected by the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA... that said, they act upon requests from the copyright holder, they don't go on their own witch hunt to verify rights ownership prior to the upload, as obviously that would be too onerous for them.

    Obviously, it's never too onerous when it's taxpayer money.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •