6 posts • joined 15 Oct 2007
Whenever you here judgements like this
the court finds reasonable bases to conclude that the internet gambling operators and their property, the internet domain names, are present in Kentucky.
You wonder wft is this idiot being bought?
The domains are not present in Kentucky, they can be accessed from Kentucky. Then again, Bob's candy store that is just across the state line, can also be accessed from Kentucky. The sun may be present in Kentucky, but it is also present everywhere else.
You wonder is he being bought, because he seems to want to make the facts of the case somehow fit the desired conclusion. Meaning he already has been told or paid to have a conclusion and is thus fitting the facts to bolster it. Even if the facts are he proffers are plainly stupid.
Reporting on this case has been at best, under performed. Very little facts are given up by any reporters on this case. Given that the Judge has said that the sites are present in Kentucky, as are all gambling sites on the internet, what seperates the sites gone after, from the ones which were not gone after. Also, since the as this Judge puts its, if it's present in Kentucky, and it's online, it come under my law. Although this is used via a gambling law on the books in Kentucky, his rational could be applied to any WWW site, or domain name, for both content and proliferation. This raises upstream law issuses at the very least. Federal, Country and ICANN issuses. Speaking of which I wonder if ICANN was asked or indeed, as they should interject, on such issuses that try to skirt their authority. Online reporters need to listen to the questions being asked vai feedback, and respond with details.
At best, I think this now says a lot about USA domain name registries and how they cannot be trusted. It's becoming all to possible for a quack Judge to make an illformed half baked judgement, to lose a domain name if registered under a USA registar.
How long before they, start to reliase, in the future, that this is pinching their pennies. That they need to somehow market this information out so that this program for common good can be self supporting.
How long before they ask someone with Phorm like privacy ideas to sit in the middle of all this data transfere, and send out adds on peoples telephone lines, email address and real home address. The goverment can recieve money from the ad revenue, and in return the customers ( sorry voters) get a great service that spys on them and helps keep them secure for free.
How you trust this goverment with such data, when they will not prosecute BT for what they know to be illegal trials. How can you trust such people to show common sense when they currently show and demostrate no concern for peoples privacy.
Could this be avoided by using a proxy?
Spamer/malware/spyware: Does not care who you are, where you are, what you do, just wants to own you and make a fast profit. Will try to continue it's relationship with you.
Multinational/RIAA: Cares about who you are, wants to target you and your demographic range, wants to own you for the life of it's DRM, and make a fast profit. Will ditch you as soon as it sees you as a revenue failure.
Goverment: It needs to know you, it really realy wants to know to you, as long as it knows what your doing and when and with whom, it's happy. Does not care about your wants and needs, you must obey it!!! Wil never ditch you, will never leave you, you are a constant revenue stream. Inventor of benchmarks, and sandboxed PC's.
Another few points
I had been reading the brief that the RIAA lawyers presented, and some of the points seem good. However the one about google shrinking stuff and then presenting it did not. In fact the whole think stinks, if search engines can do this, surely there is someway for P2P to try the same loophole.
Also. If I read it right, the RIAA are saying that because the copyright holder hold the copyright they have the ability to say who and who cannot distribute copies. That to deny them that right, even if a transaction takes place or not, denys them
publishers rights or copyright rights. That sounds grand. Especially if it is looked at large scale as in the court enviroment that they are engaged in.
It seems to lose appeal to me though, when I consider the argument of my teenage daughter. Can I borrow your CD dad?
No you can't, its illegal and the RIAA is suing people in court for distributing their material without a pre authorization. I would take away their copyright rights and be fined per song up to $150000. Surely this cannot be right even in the tight fisted definations of any lawyer.
There are a lot of points like this they make in their brief. Taken on a big grand scale they seem to make some sense. If you look closely at it and try not to be to legal about it most of it does not make sense in the small scale in which people live their normal lives. Surely I can lend my daughter my CD. Yes she does live with me.
So while they state that they have the right to decide who can sell or offer their copyright material, I state that If buy a CD, I am buying a CD with music on it( not a blank CD) for my personal benfit, and that they when they sell it they should be smart enough know this. If it is to my personal benift to give it as a gift to someone, so be it. It it is to lend it, so be it. If it is to trade or sell it, so be it. If I want to make a copy so I can stick it on my MP3 player so be it. I bought it for my personal benfit, then thats what Im going to do with it.
I was just thinking about how any ppl have posted on this topic, how many niggly ways according to the law that the rap could have been beat, excuse the pun.
Here the the USA, there are a lot of laws, that say this and that. However law enforcement, judges and lawyers here, live with the small town ego. They seem to adopt to the idea that they are all important and what they say goes, no matter what the law says. This is especially true when a Judge or police office is confronted by someone in power ( multinational RIAA) they see that the powers that be are now looking at their actual actions, that big brother is looking down and invading their own personal godhood. They act to protect this and make the big bad power go away so that once again they can be the one, in their own world. In court here, what the judge says is what happens, becomes legal on a local basis with law enforcement ready to back it up, even if, the judges decision is illegal. Niggley points, all the legal ones, that may prove your case can be deemed illegal, not revelant, or just overturned by a judge.
Recently, I was involved in a child custody battle here in the usa. The child in question sent an email to the mother. It had a picture of the child. The mother used this email to prove that child was in contact with her, and wanted to be with the mother. The Judge ruled after listening to no expert, or constulting anyone, that the mother lied about the email, because, the yahoo email address that the father of the child had provided to the judge, contained no capitial letters, yet the one the mother had provided had. The email address, ip, where the same, just the caps that differed. The capital letter in question was the A at the start of the email address. Thus the judge in her court rulling specified that the mother had lied about the email address from which the email had came from because of a capitial letter in an email address.
Not leggal? Sure ain't. Niggly point? sure is. Was the judge wrong? Sure was. Is there niggly points in the ThomAs case? sure are. Did she lose, sure did. Can she fight it, sure can't. Was it leggal? nope. What next? Donate to her fund to help her bring this case to the attention of millions worldwide. Donate to her case so that she has the time and money to fight the niggly points. donate to it so that an ordinary person can actually fight for justice against an ill informed judge. A judge that was bullied and intimated into making an untested legal statement to a jury. A statement that stated that having files, and running a program is distrubition. This is not legaly correct. It is is normal life that this happens. But to be legal, it has to be proved, summary judgement is not a vaild enough.
A large gap exists here. In the proponderence of edivence. It seems to become more and more evident as the once free internet, and idea, of being able to say what you want when you want is casualy erroded away by multinationals and coperate bullies exerting pressure on the top line of defense for citizen us, the goverment.
The question of a crime that took place here basically comes down to two things.
Is it illegal to make copies of your CD's for your own use. Rememember, Sony are right in stating that this is illegal. You could not do it before your cassette tape of Queen broke. However this needs to be tested now again now that moderen tech is here, once again. Two. To be considered quilty of disturbution, has one actually to distubute files, or merchandise. I think the ans to that to that has to be yes.
The copyright holder is only losing gain, by any test, when and a unauthorised exchange of their copyrighted product takes place. There can be no cognitive
pre crime in today’s society. They only lose there copyright status when an exchange actually takes place. Before that happens, thay have lost no rights. they have lost no money, no right to be the only ones to distrubite the merchandise. for a judge to say that this is the case, is illegal. No crime has taken place. I go shopping all the time, but unless I take something without paying for it, im not breaking the law. Nor is the seller. This is because no transaction has taken place. No copying of fobidden material. Just an exchange of information that enables the buyer to be aware of what they precive to be the terms of the sale of exchange. The exchange of information between ppl outweighs any legal goverment or multinational coperate id that I know. Hell with the copa act in the USA, and similar in the UK, it is an offense to even see something that the goverment does not like.
I guess that ppl got tired of paying sky high prices to Sony, and the like for CD's, that cost a buck to make. I guess that many ppl got the fcuk you attitude. That I can do what I want to do attitude. Well it cant be done. PPL do lose jobs because of copyright theft. But the ppl broke free with the internet, were able to talk, to communicate, and share their shit. local bullshit from judges and law enforcement and finding a new law, a new breed of consumer has been born.