RightsCorp To Bring Its Controversial Copyright Protection Tactics To Europe 196
judgecorp (778838) writes "RightsCorp, the controversial copyright enforcer, is planning to begin operations in Europe. In the U.S., the company scans torrents for IP addresses on behalf of media companies, shares them with ISPs, forcing them to send lawyers' letters (using the DMCA) demanding money from the supposed copyright infringers. RightsCorp says Europe needs its help in fighting piracy."
They recently expanded operations into Canada as well.
RightsCorp (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank you, i'll be here all week.
Re:RightsCorp (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't we had multiple court cases and appeals end in the decision that "IP address != real person"?
I guess the people being sent the letters just don't want to deal with the legal hassle. There's a business model for you... "paying us money is cheaper than legally proving you don't owe us money". You'd think that'd be classified as extortion.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the party! Where ya been?
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds to me like RightsCorp is looking into Franchising their busiess model.
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't we had multiple court cases and appeals end in the decision that "IP address != real person"?
Oh, but don't worry. They are already lobbying for "IP address == real person".
The "internet passport" is coming sooner than you might think.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Good. Then we only have to show that RightsCorp's IP accessed child porn to put their CEO in jail.
Re:RightsCorp (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, but don't worry. They are already lobbying for "IP address == real person". The "internet passport" is coming sooner than you might think.
Nonsense.
They've tried to pull the "ip address = person" BS for years. And they've been losing, right and left.
Not just frequency but increasingly courts are recognizing that not only does IP address not equal a person, but that it's not even CLOSE.
Take my case, for instance. I run an open guest internet account as a public service. Not just somebody next door but anybody in my neighborhood can connect to the internet from my router, and often do. In fact, I just looked and I see that there are 3 people outside my household who have connected just in the last 24 hours.
Sometimes it's someone living nearby. Sometimes it's someone walking or driving by with their cellphone. It could be someone in a car with a laptop. I don't know and I don't care.
Re:RightsCorp (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand how you guys think you can get away with this.
How "us guys think we can get away" with WHAT? What is it you think I am doing wrong? Please be specific.
The law doesn't like losing, so it is phrased for the win.
"The law" isn't losing, it's winning. THE LAW says an IP address is not probable cause. Many courts, including Federal courts, have clearly said so. One court ruled not long ago that not only does an IP address not equal a person, often it doesn't even equal a house. As I illustrated in my example.
The people who are losing are those who are trying to extort money from others who are "innocent"... or at least who have not committed any crimes. That's a victory for THE LAW, not a loss. The law does not like extortion and intimidation of common citizens.
The account holder paying the bill is responsible for the usage so if you let other people use your connection you are responsible for what they do with it, especially even more so since you purposely failed to secure your connection by providing this "public service" you are even more on the hook for it
Is this what you think I have been doing wrong? I think you misunderstand. *I* am the account holder, and I pay for a premium account. *I* am letting my neighbors use my internet, which *I* pay too much to the cable company for.
But even if it was a misunderstanding of what you meant, you are still wrong. Legally, I am very much NOT responsible for what other people do with it.
If you loaned your rifle to a neighbor who was going hunting, and he killed somebody with it instead, does that mean you are guilty of murder? Of course not.
If somebody "borrowed" or stole the rake I left sitting in the front yard, and used it to kill somebody, would I be guilty of murder? Of course not.
THE LAW says that you are not responsible for what somebody else does with something of yours, unless you were complicit in the act. If you loaned your rifle to him SO THAT he could murder somebody, then yes you are a criminal. Otherwise, no.
In the same way: if somebody uses my internet to do something that isn't kosher, it's their problem, and it very definitely is NOT my problem, under the law. I am not required by law to police my neighbor. That is something that happens in police states.
Why should my home be any different from an "internet cafe"? If you went into one, and did something wrong with the internet, would they be responsible by law? Of course not. If they were, internet cafes would have ceased to exist.
(By the way: the courts have ruled that my home is NOT different from an internet cafe, in that respect.)
I pay very close attention to the law in this regard. I should also mention that (A) some major ISPs are now renting out equipment so their customers can set up the same kind of public networks, and (B) the EFF highly recommends it for everybody.
I understand if that offends your concept of how the law works, but that is the way the law does work, and also how it should work in a free country.
Re:RightsCorp (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd think that'd be classified as extortion.
YES. There have been some RICO lawsuits started. I don't think they've been decided (or even heard) yet.
Not only is this pretty blatantly "racketeering", but when other companies tried to do this before, courts found that in order to tell who was infringing copyrights, the "detection" company had to be breaking the same laws as the people they were trying to out.
It is not permissible to break the law in order to enforce the law.
And yes, the basic business model is extortion. Every case I have read about lately having to do with this has run into courts that acknowledged that the methods being used were fundamentally extortionate. EFF has been winning left and right, as well. Where they haven't been directly involved in defense they have often provided amicus briefs to the court in the cases, and in a very high proportion of those cases, the courts have ruled just as EFF suggested was legally proper.
Re: (Score:2)
In the recent copyright troll lawsuits involving the group calling itself Prenda Law, if I am not mistaken the court found that the company claiming to have "detected" copyright infringement had uploaded the file(s) themselves in the first place.
That's not exactly what I meant in the comment above, but it's good evidence that trolls aren't out to enforce the law, or protect anybody's rights, but rather just to extort money out of people.
Ip != real person (Score:2)
But it does = an account holder, who can be held liable for improper use.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you propose going about changing the rules when an incredibly well-funded lobby essentially has the bulk of Congress in its back pocket, and no way to ever dislodge them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RightsCorp (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I happen to live in Canada and these guys are having some real problems pulling off their "jane and john doe" lawsuits here (and rightflully so).
The position many have taken is these lawsuits are a form of "Speculative invoicing" and the Canadian courts don't allow this (it is considered "fraud on the courts").
They have also attempted to "bundle" the lawsuits to keep their court costs low, and again this is being questioned.
You can read more here: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6805/125/
I guess given enough pressure from the US canada will take a similar view and start all the lawsuit stuff where single moms are forced into bankruptcy when they would face no such charge had they actually just stolen the CD.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So, it's not like they will sue you for thousands if you happen to download the latest GoT episode.
Although I don't concur with their process (sneak their way into getting personal info by avoiding courts), at least they are asking for a 'reasonable settlement'.
Re:RightsCorp (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage.
And why is that? Someone working full-time should be able to at least support themselves. Or is that too much to ask? Actually, it feeds right into the oligarchs' plans. Keep the great unwashed too poor and busy working two or three jobs to get involved and make a positive difference for themselves and their fellow citizens.
It's disgusting. Even $10.10/hour is only $21,008/year, assuming a 40 hour work week and no time off at all. That breaks down to gross pay of $1751/month. That's net pay (assuming 15% withholding for federal taxes and 6.25% SS/Medicare withholding) of $1378.65/month (note, this does not include state or local taxes, so it's less in places where those taxes apply). Yes, I know that folks making that wage will likely get most of that back as a tax refund, but that doesn't help them on a day to day basis.
So. A single person making ~$1400/month. Please tell me how many of you could live on that. Just you, not your kids or your spouse. And if you have a couple of young kids and need day care, clothes, car, food, electricity (should that be optional?), etc., etc., etc?
But the minimum wage isn't $10.10/hour. It's $7.25/hour. After taxes, that works out to be $989.63/month. Try living on that. Sigh.
I just did some simple calculations. Apparently, that's too difficult for some people. Or they're selfish, mean-spirited jerks who have no empathy. What do we call those with no empathy? Sociopaths.
In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow this? It just makes me want to hurl.
Re: (Score:3)
It's impossible for me to understand your logic.
I've certainly lived off a lot less than that (either of your numbers), quite comfortably. I once worked three jobs to be able to afford 1/2 a bedroom in a two bedroom apartment with three other guys. It created an incentive for me to find a more efficient way to earn what I needed in order to live in the style I wanted to live.
At what point did it become necessary that the government mandate a wage level so that people can live the way they want without incen
Re:RightsCorp (Score:5, Informative)
What is this supposed to be, a badge of honor? Or is this stockholm syndrome? "Well I subjected myself to systemic abuse and overwork to just barely keep myself from becoming homless! There's nothing wrong with that!"
At the moment it was obvious that corporations were more powerful than most people, and would would abuse them to the extent they could get away with.
You're a mean spirited jerk because you assume that people who live in poverty have the time and resources to improve their skills.
Which works well for a small subset of people.
Indeed, in the richest country that ever existed why are people paid such poor wages and so often do without basic necessities (that they can't afford due to said same low wages)? Don't worry, the corporations you exalt are doing a great job at removing incentives for people to work hard by ensuring that hard work doesn't necessarily pay off.
No, it's about pointing out how the system is rigged and they are being taken advantage of for the sake of quarterly profits.
Re:RightsCorp (Score:4, Informative)
It's impossible for me to understand your logic.
I've certainly lived off a lot less than that (either of your numbers), quite comfortably. I once worked three jobs to be able to afford 1/2 a bedroom in a two bedroom apartment with three other guys. It created an incentive for me to find a more efficient way to earn what I needed in order to live in the style I wanted to live.
At what point did it become necessary that the government mandate a wage level so that people can live the way they want without incentive to live better?
Really, you think I'm a mean-spirited jerk with no empathy because I want people to have an incentive to get a better life and improve their skills?
What is your hierarchy of needs list that makes it so difficult to "live on" $1,000/month? Do we need to mandate a wage so that people can live alone in their own apartment or house? How large? Should they be able to have cell phone service, internet service? How about a computer? What kind?
Get a roommate or two and pool your resources.
In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow the removal of incentives for people to work hard and get ahead and make something of themselves.
Just because some fail doesn't mean we should dumb down the entire system so you don't hurt. Fear of failure is a great incentive.
I'd prefer to keep telling people that with hard work they can become something. It might not be easy but they will be all the more satisfied when they succeed.
Your argument strikes me as wanting to tell people the "man" is keeping you down and you'll never succeed so don't work hard and we'll make sure you can live a life of relative luxury.
Forget all that and explain the economics that would allow raising everyone's pay to live the standard you've set without causing a rise in the cost of living at that level.
Just to make sure I understand what you're saying. You believe that there is equal opportunity for all in this country? You should get out more, friend. I'm not going to try to disabuse you of your illusions. I just feel sorry for you.
Yes. Because that works so well for us. With 30% of the children in this country living in poverty? That we incentivize greed and graft? That it takes the *average* (not the lowest paid) worker in a large corporation more than a week to earn what the CEO earns in an hour? You can't tell me that the CEO works hundreds of times harder, can you?
In the incredibly rich society that we live in, we should be able to provide equal opportunity for all and create an environment where social mobility is increasing, not decreasing. Which it has been for the last 30 years or so.
Re: (Score:3)
Extremely few children in this country lives in true poverty. With public assistance, most "poor" live a life of luxury many in the truly poor parts of the world can only dream of having.
The idea that to allow everyone to get ahead, we need to bring down the top to meet the bottom is pure lunacy.
Any individual in our country with the desire to improve their station can do so. The idea that somehow the man is holding everyone down is a creation of government, left and right, to subjugate the populace. Sadly many have fallen for this hook, line, and sinker.
Cell phones, internet, and cable TV are luxury wants, not needs. Eating meals at a restaurant (even McDonalds) is a luxury.
The reality is that you'll never be able to fix stupid. You simply can't protect people from themselves.
The reality is much more nuanced and complex. I suggest you educate yourself. I doubt you will, and so I pity you the illusions you've bought into. Feel free to disagree and even say mean things about me. I don't mind.
The Utilitarian concept that all ideas should be expressed, examined and debated is an excellent one. It allows us to weigh all the ideas against each other as well as against the realities of our existence. In the end, the best ideas (sadly, often in retrospect) will be seen for what th
Re: (Score:2)
Extremely few children in this country lives in true poverty.
How many of them are truly Scottish, that's what I need to know.
Re: (Score:2)
When did you live off of that? because even just 5 years ago it was a lot cheaper for the poor.
Right now in a fricking trailer park Lot rent is on average $450 a month. and that is of you OWN the trailer, if you are renting the trailer that is another $400-$600 on top of the lot rent. Plus Heat, electric, and water are bills on top of those, God help you if you are in a 1970's shithold trailer that will cost $450 a month to heat in the winter.
So JUST for a place to legally live. $450+$400 for the trai
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget the self medication with alcohol. :( that gets expensive after a while.
what's always awesome and fun about these conversations is that people (typically right leaning types) hyper-focus on the entitlements that go towards individuals, while *completely* ignoring the corporate welfare that is our DOD and government procurement system in general, and is at least an order of magnitude greater in terms of cost. (not to mention entitlement programs for individuals put money directly back into the e
Re: (Score:3)
From your super articulate post I am sure you don't have any trouble making your way in life. Have you ever considered what happens to people who are not as smart as you? (And why we spend a fortune to keep them in prison?)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, get off your soap-box.
monthly expense
500 apartment
300 groceries
300 transportation expense
100 utilities
total necessary expenses = 1200
Granted, I live in a smaller city, but Minneapolis is about the same cost, unless you need to go a great distance for work. Just outside of DC is also about the same. A nicer home, car, and children are not necessities. As an adult, I spent 10 years working for less than $10\hr. A large number of people I know make less than $10\hr. In fact, I made less than $8\hr
Re: (Score:3)
Please, get off your soap-box.
monthly expense 500 apartment 300 groceries 300 transportation expense 100 utilities total necessary expenses = 1200
Granted, I live in a smaller city, but Minneapolis is about the same cost, unless you need to go a great distance for work. Just outside of DC is also about the same. A nicer home, car, and children are not necessities. As an adult, I spent 10 years working for less than $10\hr. A large number of people I know make less than $10\hr. In fact, I made less than $8\hr until I was 26, and I was still able to live rather comfortably because I didn't waste money on things that I didn't need.
Does this mean that I think things are fine? No, I agree that income disparity is a horrible problem in a country where the "average" income is $75k\year, but very few of us know anyone who makes that much money.
No. I won't "get off my soapbox." Don't want to listen to me? Fine. But I suggest you educate yourself as to the facts. You're thinking, "well, I did it so everyone else's circumstances must be the same. If they can't hack it, they must be stupid or lazy." Think about what you're saying.
So I guess you never had to go to the doctor or dentist? Buy clothes, linens or towels? Replace furniture or appliances? Save a little money for retirement? Pay off your six figure student loans?
Lucky you never go
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the statistics handy, but last year I crunched some numbers to figure out estimates of the total working population. If the average income per person in 2012 was just shy of $43k (http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm), that's about $13.4 trillion (using the population numbers from http://quickfacts.census.gov/q... [census.gov]). Assuming everyone who works is working full-time or better (60% of the population? That's about 188.3 million people), we have an average income of $71155 per person. Of course,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the statistics handy, but last year I crunched some numbers to figure out estimates of the total working population. If the average income per person in 2012 was just shy of $43k (http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm), that's about $13.4 trillion (using the population numbers from http://quickfacts.census.gov/q... [census.gov]). Assuming everyone who works is working full-time or better (60% of the population? That's about 188.3 million people), we have an average income of $71155 per person. Of course, these are fuzzy numbers that I put together in just a couple minutes.
I included a link to the data in my post. No "back of the napkin" calculations necessary. Here's the link [wikipedia.org] again.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I saw that link, but I was trying to illustrate the average income and how it isn't representative of the average person. I know plenty of married households where husband and wife (combined) earn less than $40k\year. When I worked as a software tester at Deere, about half of the engineers I knew didn't even make $70k.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I saw that link, but I was trying to illustrate the average income and how it isn't representative of the average person. I know plenty of married households where husband and wife (combined) earn less than $40k\year. When I worked as a software tester at Deere, about half of the engineers I knew didn't even make $70k.
I'm sorry. I'm confused. The term "average" [wikipedia.org] can mean any of three different "measures of central tendency." The mean (add up all the data points and divide by the number of points), the mode (the data point occurring most frequently) and the median (a number where half of the data points lie above and half the data points lie below it).
The "average" person? When you say "average," which "measure of central tendency" are you referring to?
I'm glad you have a diverse circle, but the people you know don't r
statistics (Score:2)
There are three types of lies:
1. Lies
2. Damn lies
3. Statistics
In a poverty-stricken community of 1000 people where 999 people earn $10000 per year, one person earns $100000000. That results in an average (mean) income of $109900 per person, which is not at all representative of the poverty. The problem with economic statistics is that they are painfully skewed by the top incomes.
Re: (Score:2)
There are three types of lies: 1. Lies 2. Damn lies 3. Statistics
In a poverty-stricken community of 1000 people where 999 people earn $10000 per year, one person earns $100000000. That results in an average (mean) income of $109900 per person, which is not at all representative of the poverty. The problem with economic statistics is that they are painfully skewed by the top incomes.
Which is why the *median* is used and not the mean. Your folksy homilies are quaint, but unpersuasive. I suggest you actually try to understand this stuff. I'll counter your folksy homily with one of my own. "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." Tag. You're it.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I forgot to respond to the other things.
I take care of myself by eating reasonably well, exercising, and visited the dental wing of a local college when I needed work. I was in a car accident when I was 20. My car insurance payed for the hospital expenses and work I missed. Clothes, housewares, appliances? Thrift stores and rummage sales. By the time I was 28, I had over $20k in savings. I guess I'm fortunate with regard to my student loans. My first degree was an AAS from a state school that
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I forgot to respond to the other things.
I take care of myself by eating reasonably well, exercising, and visited the dental wing of a local college when I needed work. I was in a car accident when I was 20. My car insurance payed for the hospital expenses and work I missed. Clothes, housewares, appliances? Thrift stores and rummage sales. By the time I was 28, I had over $20k in savings. I guess I'm fortunate with regard to my student loans. My first degree was an AAS from a state school that I paid for as I attended, and my BA was at a private college (I know now, THAT was stupid), but I graduated with only about $55k in loans.
For about the last year, I've been making around $20\hr, and I still shop at thrift stores for almost all of my goods.
I'm not insisting that everyone can live like I do, but I'm telling you it's possible.
Good for you. I guess it's a good thing you never had anything catastrophic happen to you. I know what's possible. I've done very well for myself too, by working hard and trying not to be wasteful of resources.
I'm not pointing a finger at you. I'm pointing out that things are getting worse. Certainly, times have changed, but we used to encourage (through economic policy) a less stratified society with more social mobility. As the oligarchs have gained power, our society is becoming less free, less tol
Re: (Score:2)
Craigslist? Classifieds? An apartment fit for a single person can be found for $400-600.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of places in PG, Fairfax, Montgomery, and Arlington for under 500 a month. My wife was making 19k a year as a UMD grad student just a few years ago and was renting rooms in Silver Spring and Gaithersburg for $300 a month. Somehow she saved 10k a year. After she got a real job, she paid about the same for a room in Philly near the italian market.
You can get signifigant savings if you are frugal and put the effort into it. Most people don't put the effort or feel entitled. They then go into
Re: (Score:2)
Chili's pays £2/hour. The staff are paid with your tips.
Not with my tips. I don't eat at Chili's, nor do I live in the UK. But yes, restaurant wait staff often don't even get the minimum wage. Disgusting, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Chili's pays £2/hour. The staff are paid with your tips.
Not with my tips. I don't eat at Chili's, nor do I live in the UK. But yes, restaurant wait staff often don't even get the minimum wage. Disgusting, isn't it?
I dunno why he put a £ sign there but I don't think anyone gets paid £2 an hour legally in the UK, nor is Chili's around. There was one in Canary Wharf I think but it closed.
Re: (Score:2)
But yes, restaurant wait staff often don't even get the minimum wage. Disgusting, isn't it?
They do in the US. If their wages plus tips ends up being less than the minimum wage, federal law requires that their employer pay the difference, so that they end up getting the minimum wage.
Re: (Score:2)
But yes, restaurant wait staff often don't even get the minimum wage. Disgusting, isn't it?
They do in the US. If their wages plus tips ends up being less than the minimum wage, federal law requires that their employer pay the difference, so that they end up getting the minimum wage.
I was unaware that was required. Thanks! However, $7.25/hour is still not a living wage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RightsCorp (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and higher prices on things you buy? Because that's what has to happen. If businesses pay higher wages, they will pass the cost on to you. I agree that people should be paid a living wage, but that money has to come from somewhere.
Yes. And the tax code should be modified to incentivize reinvestment so that the 100,000 or so folks those who control 40% of the wealth in this country will put it into circulation, perhaps then 30% of our children won't have to live in poverty. Oh? Your kids don't have that problem, so fuck everyone else? I pity you.
Misdirection. (Score:3)
Does this smell anything like the platform that our current president ran on, twice?
We don't need to pay more in taxes, we need to stop spending so much on things like war, unnecessary civil developments (Silent railroad crossings?), corporate welfare, politician pensions, etc. You're addressing a symptom of the problem, not the root: government spending and thieving to support private interests that are funneled through government spending.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misdirection. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this smell anything like the platform that our current president ran on, twice?
We don't need to pay more in taxes, we need to stop spending so much on things like war, unnecessary civil developments (Silent railroad crossings?), corporate welfare, politician pensions, etc. You're addressing a symptom of the problem, not the root: government spending and thieving to support private interests that are funneled through government spending.
Yes, there is a lot of waste in government. Especially on the military side. And corporate welfare and all kinds of other things. Government spending is absolutely an issue. Creating a fairer tax code would help too. Also, having economic and tax policies that encourage reinvestment in our society, its infrastructure and instruments of personal advancement (education, fairer employer/employee interactions, health care, child care, etc., etc., etc.) would be extremely helpful, IMHO.
The Democratic party and the Republican party are completely under the control of our oligarchs. Wealth and income inequality, the limiting of social mobility (through poor education, the growth of the prison population, destruction of full-time jobs, etc., etc., etc.), the rise of the surveillance (both government, and more troubling, corporate) society and the huge lies being told and believed about who benefits are all consequences of this.
The Obama administration is doing the same things the Bush administration did. The House and Senate (regardless of party) are just as corrupt and broken. Just because the Democrats sometimes *talk* about social justice and equality of opportunity, doesn't mean they're actually doing anything about it. The political theater of the "left" and "right" (if you really look at the actual, not the stated, policies of both "sides" we're not really very far apart) sets us against each other while the oligarchs bleed us. It's really sad.
Massive government spending is just another symptom. The root of the problem is that our government is beholden to the monied interests. They aren't going to loosen their grip unless we force them to do so. I wish I knew how to do that.
Re:Misdirection. (Score:5, Insightful)
United States military spending is the highest in the world [wikipedia.org] (higher than the countries in positions 2 through 9 COMBINED, and some of those countries are our staunch allies.) If you cut out our allies France, United Kingdom, and Germany we outspend the other 11 on the list on that Wikipedia page combined. Who are we afraid is going to invade us? Who are we planning to invade?
If we wanted to cut our spending to the point where we're outspending China and Russia combined by 50% (at which point our spending would exceed the combined military budgets of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and France) we could drop a little over 226 billion dollars. That's not a small chunk of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see, killing people vs. helping the poor. One of those aligns well with Christian values the Right supposedly champions.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, if your lifestyle is only achievable if society uses slave labor then maybe you don't earn enough money yourself.
There is enough wealth around to pay a minimum wage and yes it does come from somewhere, its achieved by wealth re-distribution and works in most civilized countries, including the USA. But we could improve the minimum wage into a living wage without our economy crashing. After all the profits that would probably pay the living wage now just go towards the one percents increasing raft of wea
Re: (Score:2)
We pay higher taxes now because we end up supplementing the cheap bastard employer's payroll. At least if the employer is forced to pay the whole load themselves, it will be possible to choose which business you support with your money.
Implement minimum wage and we can pay lower taxes and make our own decisions on what company to support.
Do you LIKE it when McDonalds picks your pocket every payday? What if you prefer Wendy's or just don't like fast food at all?
Re: (Score:2)
A business can't just increase its prices to get more money; after all, if it could, it would have earlier. Businesses typically try to make all the money they can. Some businesses would have to cope with lower profits, some would find a higher price equilibrium, it's complicated.
Also, if somebody doesn't need food stamps because they now make enough money to not officially need them, isn't that likely to lower my taxes?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone working full-time should be able to at least support themselves.
Sez who?
I mean, it'd be nice if that were true. Heck, it's be nicer if I could work for only 1 hour a week and support myself.
But there's no guarantee of any of that.
Says me. And, IMHO, anyone who wants a society that is prosperous, functional and provides equal *opportunity* for it's citizens. Just throwing up your hands and saying "oh well, things don't work like that. I guess it sucks to be you." is intellectually lazy and smacks of narcissism.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say we all collectively decide we no longer care to subsidize crappy pay. No more safety net at all.
The minimum wage workers will start smelling and looking like homeless people (because they are homeless), or they will die from malnutrition. At that point, the cheapskate employers will have to either pay more or shut down.
Minimum wage is our way of having that same outcome with less corpses in the gutters.
Re: (Score:2)
The minimum wage most certainly is supposed to be a living wage. It was implemented as part of the war on poverty (which, due to a horrible tyupo, the Tea Party now wages as the war on the poor).
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, I'm a copyright enforcement company. (Score:3, Insightful)
And I shall sell you lists of IP addresses for $10 each.
They correspond to people torrenting files without the copyright owner's permission.
I swear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hi, I'm a copyright enforcement company. (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you RTFA? Apparently RightsCorp gives the ISP the list of IPs for free. They make their money off of the folks who do the downloading ("for $20 per track or movie we'll remove your name from this list we're sending to your ISP"). Anyone still on the list goes to the ISP who is legally required to send letters to the subscriber. This increases their chances of losing the customer. Without the list of IPs provided by RightsCorp, the ISP legally doesn't have to do anything.
So "I'll sell you this list of IP addresses for $10 each" would be met with "sorry, no idea who you are or what you're talking about, kthxby"
Sounds more like Blackmail.
[John]
Copyright owners are RightsCorp's clients (Score:2)
if RightsCorp doesn't own the intellectual property, again the ISPs can safely ignore it.
As I understand this arrangement, RightsCorp represents the copyright owner. If EUCD is anything like DMCA, then so long as RightsCorp can prove that the copyright owner is its client, RightsCorp can submit a notice of claimed infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give them a freebie.
Anyone that has the address 127.0.0.1 on their computer is a thief and you can bill them right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
using ipV6 also protects you from NSA snooping as none of their software is capable of ipV6
How? (Score:2)
"... we are optimistic that there will be a way to do this in Europe"
We are optimistic that with the DCMA or Canadian equivalent this is not as simple as you think
Porn (Score:3)
I have a friend who makes great money in similar way but with porn. He searches file sharing sites on behalf of a bunch of porn producers and looks for their content and then tries to figure out who shared it (some sites sneakily attach the member id to each downloaded clip and there are other ways too). Then he has his lawyer send them a letter threatening a lawsuit but offering to settle for $500 or something. He makes sure that the letter contains in big bold font the clip title as well as a detailed description of the contents. Decent enough percentage of them just mail the check.
Re:Porn (Score:5, Insightful)
So your friend is a blackmailer. The more you know ~~~*
Re:Porn (Score:5, Interesting)
Take that advise with a grain of salt. It all depends where the guy you are extorting lives. In Sweden, extortion by threatening to file a police report or lawsuit is a felony, punishable with 2 years in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how Americans think the American law system applies to the rest of the world.
It's also not so much of an issue in the UK where it would go to small claims court which costs next to nothing to defend, and is comparably expensive to bring.
One piece of paper denying responsibility and citing lack of evidence (IP != responsibility) is enough to get it thrown out and they loose their filing fees.
afaik.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indie (Score:5, Interesting)
My brother is in an indie band and they payed to go to a small but professional studio and record an EP. The content is all original and they have copyright but he saw a blog about indie bands publishing through tunecore on multiple services {iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, etc...} getting take down notices from companies claiming to represent the copyright holder.
He's a little freaked out because although they payed all that money for copyright and self publishing they really couldn't afford a lawyer if something like that happened to the band.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't need a lawyer; just tell Google "that's BS - it's my copyright" and they'll put the content back up again.
Re:Indie (Score:4, Insightful)
...unless the spurious claimant continues to assert that it's the real owner, in which case Google washes its hands and says you've got to find a lawyer, take them to court, and prove that your own work actually does belong to you.
This was not a false claim (Score:3)
This was an issue of Indmusic having a deal with Tunecore to monetize music published through its service. If you didnt publish your music
through tunecore then its not an issue. Your brother needs to read the TOS and decide if Tunecores uses of your brothers rights is what he wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I looked it up. http://www.billboard.com/biz/a... [billboard.com]
Now that I know what he was talking about, I think he is in the clear until they actually produce a video.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the onus on the party asking for the take-down? When I countered a DMCA request the response from Google was that the content would remain up unless the other party got a court order.
Since then I moved my data out of the US anyway, so am immune to DMCA notices. When I get them I usually pretend to be clueless just to string them along a bit, and waste some expensive lawyer time.
Re: Indie (Score:5, Interesting)
i get those infringement notices by youtube all the time - except that i have all the right to use the material in question (i make music videos) - it's a hassle, that's usually sorted out by an e-mail - still, it's fucking annoying to constantly "clear" the rights of material, you already have the rights to - often multiple times - because some stupid program identifies the material as belonging to someone you've licensed it to.
it also cost's money (time).
i think, copyright holders should pay a small fine for every wrong infingement notice that could have been avoided.
Re: Indie (Score:4, Interesting)
i think, copyright holders should pay a small fine for every wrong infingement notice that could have been avoided.
Why small? May be it should start small and escalate based on each false claim they have filed, may be exponentially. Also small should be in relation to the size and strength of the spurious claimer. What is small for RIAA is not huge for the lone indie trying to get his/her work back from the false claimers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
i think, copyright holders should pay a small fine for every wrong infingement notice that could have been avoided.
You mean, copyright pretenders. I disagree. They should pay a large fine. We are talking about tortious business interference here.
And preferably with a three-strikes scheme. Three wrongful accusations, and you get put on a national copyright offender registry and are barred from making DMCA claims. Instead you have to go to court, and when you don't prevail, pay the court fees of the defendant as a rule.
The cost of handing those industries a free pass for abuse is just too high and interferes with civ
Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music (Score:2)
The content is all original
But how can your brother's band prove that its music is original? There are only 105 million distinct musical hooks under one plausible metric,* and with all the millions of songs already published, your song's hook might have collided with that of an existing song. See for example Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, where a copyright owner successfully sued over an accidental infringement.
* Music is about intervals. Each note has a duration and a difference in pitch to the next note. There are seven
Re: (Score:2)
Well his copyright application went through so it should at least protect him from vague DMCA take down notices.
* Music is about intervals. Each note has a duration and a difference in pitch to the next note. There are seven distinct pitches in the scale, and durations can (roughly) be short or long. This gives 7*2 = 14 possibilities for each interval. A hook with eight notes has seven intervals, and 14^7 = 105,413,504
If you start applying more music theory using chords, cadences, and standard chord progressions the number of possibilities gets even smaller, because it limits which chords can be played in succession.
Please do this in Italy (Score:3, Interesting)
make money fast :) (Score:2)
So let me see if I have this right
connect to a torrent and collect $10 from each person torrenting the file by notifying the ISP of the infringement, aint that great I can leach off this copyrighted stuff and make a bundle.
Using the DMCA, I thought A was for America anyway.
So which is the biggest paracite? The torrenters or RightsCorp?
WIPO Copyright Treaty (Score:2)
Using the DMCA, I thought A was for America anyway.
Nope. WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization. Both the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive) are implementations of the same WIPO Copyright Treaty.
You're not in Kansas anymore Toto (Score:3)
From TFA:
I can’t give any specific dates, but we are getting a great reception from everyone we have spoken to [in the UK],” RightsCorp co-founder and CEO Robert Steele told TechWeekEurope.
It's significant, I think, that he singles out the UK which is becoming increasingly like the 51st state in legal/civil rights terms.
In the rest of Europe I'd suggest they won't find the legal and regulatory environment anything like as forgiving of their methods as the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
The won't find it that forgiving in the United Kingdom either. There has already been a copyright troll like this who tried to operate in the U.K. They are barred from practice at the moment and bankrupt. I suggest you search for "acs:law" to see how well it panned out for the last person who tried this.
Re: (Score:2)
The won't find it that forgiving in the United Kingdom either. There has already been a copyright troll like this who tried to operate in the U.K. They are barred from practice at the moment and bankrupt. I suggest you search for "acs:law" to see how well it panned out for the last person who tried this.
Fair point. I'd forgotten about ACS:Law. That said, there are still fans of draconian measures against file-sharers in the current UK government. For example Government "must consider" jail time for illegal file-sharers [pcpro.co.uk].
Said it best ? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's an old cut from Fila Brazillia and they said it well ..
" Suck a tailpipe , fucking hang yourself , borrow a gun from a yank friend .. i dont care how you do it ,just rid the world of your fu****** evil machinations "
" kill yourself "
Dosen't it just sum up what everyone thinks about the copyrights lobby ?
Comment removed (Score:3)
I anticipate trouble. (Score:2)
The copyright term for parts of Europe is often less than in the US. I've a nice site I made that contains a lot of music which is public domain here in the UK, but still under copyright in the US. Unless they are very careful about dates, they are likely to end up threatening people for sharing music that is public domain because their bots are configured for the wrong jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, they don't care. They sue/extort first and hope that they don't pick on someone with deep pockets who will sue the bejeezus out of them.
Just don't have any of that public domain music on any device you might take to the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
https://birds-are-nice.me/musi... [birds-are-nice.me]
If they try to sue me for that, I'll... back down without a fight, because I can't afford to spend my life's savings to stand up for my principles. But I will then tell everyone I can about the incident, including every internet rights organisation, and hope the backlash does some damage. Maybe one will even agree to pay the costs and handle the hassle for me.
Musical work copyright; IP geolocation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In which case I can at least get some publicity and further reveal to the world what a one-sided sham copyright law is, when even the public domain is so convoluted as to be unuseable and national law is meaningless.
I've been trying to figure out how the underlying musical work copyright actually works in this situation. I honestly can't tell if it's an issue or not, I keep finding contradictory information on the subject. I'm not actually doing anything with the musical work, it just happens to be incident
The next Jammie Thomas (Score:2)
In which case I can at least get some publicity
Are you willing to pay the maximum statutory damages [ehow.co.uk] for this publicity if you're successfully sued?
Re: (Score:2)
I have done everything I can to ensure legality. That includes not just making sure all the music was published before 1963, but also that it is all original release version - not later digital remastering. That's why it's largely mono. I'd like to run this by a real copyright attorney,is i one who is actually qualified, but I can't afford that. This is, to the best of my knowledge, all legal. I admit there is a possibility of my being mistaken, which is why I also state on the page that I will remove any i
Do artists benefit? (Score:3)
They would have a point if the money would go to the artists. But it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
One could argue that blackmailing and scamming is a form of art, so...
Re: (Score:3)
Who told you there was such a thing as a " honorable " businessmen in the first place.. ?
Everyone that wears a tie and suit is a scumbag in disguise. Never, ever, trust someone because he wears a suit.
Politicians are the best example of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one half are honorable businessmen, the other half are "honorable businessmen"....
Re: (Score:3)
Better still it has already been tried in the U.K. It failed spectacularly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]