Posts by Mark

Party?

Dunno why but it seems to me like it would be the right thing to do to have a "going-away-party" but get it now so Terry can enjoy it.

Maybe Terry could do a "going-away-party" tour. Mind you'd he'd probably be sick and tired of strange chickeny pastry things before half way through. And *we* could sign *his* book...

"downloaded otentially millions of times"

But if the RIAA goes after any of those infringers, the money gained should go to Jammie, yes? The alternative is that they do each of those millions of people who have apparently (otherwise the judgement is false) downloaded from Jammie, then the same reasoning is had there. Millions of potential downloads.

However, this can't be any of the millions who downloaded from Jammie because why would they download another copy from someone else? And we run out of people on the planet (never mind ones who aren't connected or bought one of the tracks, in which case, no loss) before we're 1% through those millions.

I put down in one segment Chris (miller?) wrote on this about how it should be worked out, based on the statutory licensing in the US for radio, where a lower-than-CD-quality (MP3 vs FM stereo) ephemeral image that can be saved to tape (in the US) costs, IIRC, 3.1c per listener per track. You then need to multiply this by a 10-to-1 leecher/feeder ratio (which is VERY high) and then quadruple that (for maximum constitutional reparation). It comes out to about $30.

That takes it into the "petty crime" level. Therefore it should be persued as such.

In the UK, we don't have the right by court precedent (ARHA equivalent) but civil cases can only produce damages and cannot be used for punitive fines (you need a criminal court for that). At least that's what I was told by the courts and lawyers when I took a PC supplier to court when they didn't hold up their part of the EULA on MS XP pre-installed. And since they can't show even one illicit download from her (and if they do her for downloading, even a 1-to-1 means that they are double dipping, which is fraud and therefore criminal), that works out to naff all.

Another thing that Jammie can use in her appeal is the comment of one of the jurors who said (paraphrased) that she was hit with such a large fine for deleting evidence and trying to lie to the court. However, this case wasn't about that, it was about copyright infringement and the fine wasn't appropriate for that. If the judge wanted to, Jammie could be held in contempt and fined for those actions. But that is a new case and must be tried according to the contempt charge. The fine is therefore, by admission of those involved in assigning it, not appropriate for copyright infringement.

I've posted to the UK MP in charge of changing UK copyrights and in short told them that we ought to go one of two ways:

1) indefinite copyright. As long as the copyright holder, once they produce a copy, CONTINUES to make a copy, they get the copyright. Failing to make a copy at reasonable cost is a crime and loses copyright.

2) MUCH shorter copyright. With the speed of distribution, 90% or more of the money of all IP is made in the first 5 years. Allow an extension to 10 maybe for selected works

and in either case, once copyright is ended, it must be made available in a transformative form (source code for software, formats for documents, unencrypted for DRM'd works and in the latest formats for multimedia). This allows the copyrighted works to become part of the continuing culture, rather than disappear (as will happen with binaries over 20 years old). Failure to provide a transformative version is criminal and the proceeds from the work would be criminal earnings and subject to sequestration as such.

Copyright then becomes reasonable to those who have the burden (the public) and long enough for the owners to profit. It also allows new works to be based off the expired works, helping new copyright owners to enrich their output, making THEIR work more profitable.

And, because it's reasonable, there would be little sympathy for those who are too impatient (for the 5/10 year limit) or too cheap (the indefinite term) to obey it.

@Chris Bradshaw

And how does the rape victim feel better? Revenge. But it's supposed to be JUSTICE. If revenge is a good reason for accepting murder, can I please kill all the invading English that took over the land and pushed the real britons (after slaughtering most of them) into the high places of England and into Wales?

After all, all I want is a little revenge.

Oh, if you consider these crimes too far in the past, this ex-rapist was 67 and the crime was decades old. Sounds like it was a long time ago to me.

@Chris G

According to the US official figures, sexual offenders are much less likely to reoffend where the recidivism rate is 5% for sexual offenders (48% vs 68% when you take ANY offense that would be committed, sexual offenders vs all offenders).

In fact the highest rate of reoffending is for burgulary and mugging. So we should have a "tea-leaf register" so we can ensure we don't risk losing anything to these people. Yes?

@Morely Dotes

So if rape is a crime that justifies murder after incarceration, what about murder? Should we kill this idiot because he's killed someone? Or is it OK as long as he didn't rape his victim (though in that case, he would be worse, since he raped AND killed)?

And, since he's already pissed in the gene pool, remove his mistake and off the kids?

What if he'd killed YOUR father because of mistaken identity?

@steve browne

How about car manufacturers? Speeding is a crime. If car manufacturers can't stop people speeding, maybe they should close up shop.

It's the people POSTING on Google/MS/Yahoo who are breaking the law by posting material they haven't the right to put there. NOT Google. NOT MS. NOT Yahoo. The person posting.

Now, the account could get suspended (and, IIRC does if it keeps producing illegal content) but asking each account to be verified would have stopped the anonymous posting of repression and other far more serious CRIMES (unlike the CIVIL TORT that is copyright infringement).

If there's a crime being committed by Google, then make a criminal case against them.

@Greg

Look at my response to AndyS. I think I got your two posts answered in one.

@AndyS

Andy,

a) How will pre-approval work? If someone has put it on there, how does Google know it isn't the copyright holder? If they are supposed to take their word for it, how is this any different than letting them put what they want up WITHOUT approval? If not, where are Google to look for the copyright holder information (given there is no registration)? Can't work.

b) Selling stolen goods is illegal. So if I were to put up at the local post office an advert selling something (that I've stolen but neglected to mention on the ad), is the post office liable for dealing in stolen goods? You see on the same billboard adverts for other people's stuff and Post Office services. How about selling a stolen car on Autotrader (which sells advertising space), should Autotrader be held liable for dealing in stolen cars? Should Autotrader make a background check into every advert paid in?

Now if Youtube are putting people to work for pay to look at ALL that stuff, who benefits? The recording industry. So why should google police on behalf of them? And if they DO have people there, how do they know that the work has fallen out of copyright, or that the person putting it there owns it? Note that according to copyright owners, even your own baby dancing along (as babies do) to a music track is copyright infringement. But does it fall under fair use (after all, the baby would be dancing to anything playing with a beat)? And how are these google employees supposed to know? They'd have to be judges specialising in copyright laws (and international ones at that!).

Not. Going. To. Work.

@Greg

Stupid analogy.

Think more about a dating website.

You don't actually (as a company) go out dating all the respondents. All you are is a conduit between people. If two people meet and despite a warning that care should be taken, something terrible happens, you are NOT held responsible.

The only way of Youtube/Google/etc to be anywhere near your analogy is if they themselves were posting known copyrighted material on their site to make money. Y'know what, that's still illegal and nobody needs watermarks or fingerprinting to tackle pirate distributors. So it isn't needed in this case either.

@AndyS

The reason that Google cannot do it is because only the copyright holder knows whether something is THEIR copyright and whether they are OK with it being there. Google don't know. This is because there's no need for registration of copyright. So when something is posted, how do you know who to contact? The only contact name you have is the person who uploaded it. And if they are going to turn round and say "oh, yeah, I uploaded that to you without permission" then why did they put it there in the first place?

What if the newspapers got a letter from me within which I'd copied someone else's text and sent it in. If they print my letter, are they guilty of copyright infringement? Should they have to check everyone's words so that they know who owns the copyright?

That's what you're asking Google to do.

Ask whether you check the provenance of any code, image, sound or other copyrightable/patentable/trademarkable content before using it in your workplace. Do you check EVERY patent to see if it covers what you want to do at work (in every country, if you're on the internet or could sell abroad)? If it's too expensive or doesn't make good business sense, tough luck, isn't it? You'd better go out of business.

What's being asked isn't feasable. All that is needed is a process whereby someone can say "that's mine and I don't want it there", google passes this on to the person who uploaded it and takes it offline. the person who put it up can countermand the accusation, google passes this on to the person who complained and puts it back. The disagreement is now between the two people claiming the right to the work being placed on google (which could be fair use rather than the submitter being copyright owner). That's all that google (or your company, or the newspapers, etc) can do.

For the finger abuser

When did we last get a law that was as monumentally in favour of us as the DMCA/EUCD/etc?

When was the last time people in any sort of group got what they wanted, unlike the RIAA? (how many people marched against the Iraq war? How about those not wanting ID cards?)

So in what way are we as bad as the RIAA?

If they'd sued for $1000 it would have HURT. Especially just for 24 files. The rate of leecher on P2P can't be more than a score or two to one, so only about 40 copies were made. Now, remember that statutory licensing in the US is, IIRC, 3.1c per song per listener. This makes, as far as I can tell:

$(40x24x3.1/100) = $29.76.

Call it $30.

Now, obviously, THAT isn't much of a deterrent, but it is what they sell an ephemeral copy (i.e. one that they themselves do no make, transport, market or sell, so fairly close to what a home-brew P2P share would be for them). Remember, now, you can RECORD of the radio, so you get to keep the copy yourself.

And 128kbps MP3 is about as good as GOOD FM reception.

Seems fair.

Now, constitutionally, I think the limit is a four-fold for punishment. $120.

NOTE that in the UK you don't get to keep the recording, so it's closer to a real sale, but then again, it could be a USian downloading). However, you can't claim damges AND a punishment fine. Any punishment fine has to be done in a different court and this is, I believe, a criminal court matter.

But if they said they wanted to stamp this sort of thing out, they could go for 10x up to $1000 and then stay at that until the "real" loss as I calculated above got to $250, then go up at a 4x damages rate.

Mind you, I think that the damages part should go to a charity, not to the originator. If they kept it, they could not sue any others, since this may have already been compensated in the fine.

So for millions of people, those 24 tracks are alrady paid for, if the DOJ is correct...

@nickj

I still have a license to drive. There's no expiry date on it, except when I'm 70.

tinfoil not wanted

I *like* to see how people are trying to control me!

Regarding Copiepresse

They also sued Google when they stopped indexing their site.

Missed that bit out. Maybe Orlowski has to agree your copy before it can be printed...

Atheists not citizens of the USA

George W tried to get the oath of allegiance ("we are one nation under God") to mean that if you don't believe in God you cannot take the oath and cannot be a US citizen.

That the section was added (IIRC) in the 60's and wasn't in the original oath wasn't for him a problem.

Re: Racist and Hateful Postings to this article

Well "I am not a turk, I am a human being" was a parody of The Prisoner's "I am not a number, I am a human being" and can either be construed as

a) turks are not human beings

b) human beings are a superset of turks

you took a.

Because if you want to take offense, you will.

Now, please show me the genetic code for Turk and how it differs from Human. No?

I am not a Turk

I am a human being!!!

(I wonder if that defense could work...!)

Re: merely a publicity stunt

Why do you reckon that, AC? It may be a publicity stunt (because they're not serving any actual writ) but it is to show publicly that there is a "cloud" over the OLPC.

Just take a look at S Ballmer's statements about the nebulous cloud of IP violations in the Linux kernel.

Someone on slashdot also did a little digging and found that the company owning LANCOR was a Microsoft subsidiary.

OLPC use Linux.

Join the dots.

@Nexox Enigma

That would be 120 years worth of use as long as we don't have to have coal powered transport, yes?

Re: blood in a finger

Some require blood in the "finger" but don't use proper scanning techniques, so you can take a photocopy of someone's fingerprint (paper) and hold it there with... your LIVE finger.

Works.

Alternatively, jusr replay the data of a valid biometric validation and it doesn't matter what the *sensor* says. This is known as code injection.

So as long as this sort of identification can be done in private (or with a few people who you can buy off or include in the deal) you can bypass ANY security. As long as the payoff is enough.