Reply With Quote
Yes, but not the database of numbers called.
You don't own the copper for your telephone lines, but phone conservations are usually protected from being tapped without a warrant, aren't they? I think the same should apply for the internet.
Yes, but not the database of numbers called.
Right, but the conversation is protected. Right now, you don't need a warrant to read the "conversation" of email, IIRC.
Since when is a warrant required? Probable cause is all that is needed by the cons ution. A warrant is a legal tool issued by a judicial authority requiring oath or affidavit.
Uhmm... I believe the Wiretap Act has some bearing here...
https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/wiretapping-protections
http://communications-media.lawyers....retapping.html
A user has an expected right to privacy. Now the SCOTUS may have recently overturned that...The Wiretap Act requires the police to get a wiretap order whenever they want to "intercept" an "oral communication," an "electronic communication," or a "wire communication." Interception of those communications is commonly called electronic surveillance.
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/c...ral-judge-rule
... But as far as I know, for the past few decades, especially before 9/11, warrants were required to intercept these kinds of communications. Can you show some evidence otherwise?
Oh and I'm pretty sure "probable cause" doesn't cover using a few keywords and trying to apply those to filter through terabytes of email data...
And one law can supersede another.
Don't like the laws? Stop putting the people in office we do!
It is in like with the highest law however.
Which is why I'm not a fan of Obama when it comes to civil liberties. I'd rather the laws were strong enough to prevent te govt from listening in on my conversations without strong justifications.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...x-office.shtmlFor years, we've pointed out that as Hollywood kept insisting that piracy was killing its business, and all anyone would do is watch films for free at home, box office revenues kept increasing. 2011 was a slight blip -- in that US box office revenue dropped a tiny bit, even as the global box office set new records. And the drop in US box office was mainly due to a bunch of less than stellar movie options. So it's little surprise that this year, on the backs of things like The Avengers, the latest Batman and The Hobbit, the US box office is back on the rise. It's interesting to note that this year there's even an increase in number attending rather than just in revenue collected.
So, once again, we're left wondering two things. First, why does the industry keep insisting that piracy is killing it and second why has the theater industry still done so little to improve the movie going experience, to capture the clear interest in the public to go see movies in the theaters? Yes, some people will argue (as the MPAA likes to) that it's not the box office they're concerned about, but rather the home video market. But, really, that's pretty rich, given that it was less than 30 years ago, the very same MPAA was doing its damndest to make sure there was no home video market as it sought to kill off the VCR. That they should now be complaining that they can't make as much money there -- at the same time they've often failed to make their own movies available digitally in a reasonable manner -- reeks of just bad business, rather than any sort of existential threat.
I'm left wondering why pirates continue to justify their piracy by blaming the industry for not protecting itself better and/or not putting out a better movie going experience.
pointing out the silliness of entertainment industry PR and bad business practices isn't as such a defense of pirates.
Tech dirt is a pirate? Link?
Pointing out box office revenue is on the rise before claiming ”bad business” is silly.
No, the article isn't directly defending piracy, but I see the empathy between the lines.
Was just talking anecdotally about pirates in general.
pointing out that past claims of the existential threat of VCRs were overblown and that the film industry was slow to realize the money-making possibilities isn't silly, it's true.Pointing out box office revenue is on the rise before claiming ”bad business” is silly.
Sure, but to equate the VCR to downloading or streaming brand new movies is silly.
I'd like to see Techdirt's proof that it would be good business to stream new movies while also defining ” reasonable manner”
^ Doesn't Netflix does just that? iTunes too?
then what exactly reeks of bad business?
The fact that they fought to cripple or outright end new technologies (like the VCR, like streaming) that are now making them money?
The piece says the MPAA is complaining now.
There is no link to the exact complaint.
The piece reeks of straw.
Are you saying the MPAA isn't complaining about piracy anymore?
a quick online search might clear that up -- you might reread this thread as well, for relevant language from the MPAA.
I'm betting you won't.
seems so. hilarious.
I'm asking when the most recent complaint was.
On a bigger scale, I'm asking what the point of this piece is other than just to whine that watching newer movies at home is not as easy as it could be.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions