The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
This is what you want?
Old 9th December 2011
  #2
Do you have anything on this case that isn't from a slanted, pro-piracy/pro-tech sector source like Techdirt?

It seems to me that they're probably not telling the whole story.

On thing that strikes me about any discussion of the blog busts is that often it appears that the bloggers don't understand that there is a big legal difference between receiving a promo copy for the purpose of publicizing it and being given permission to distribute it.

Specifically, that without a written statement of permission to distribute the work under terms specified in that document, they do not have permission to share it with the public. Some of the blockheads running these blogs just don't get that and then they wonder why they get shut down and/or sued.

These blogs were furnished material so they could publicize it, i.e. WRITE ABOUT IT, not give it away.

The fact is that it has always been illegal to sell or give away promo copies without permission.
Old 9th December 2011
  #3
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Do you have anything on this case that isn't from a slanted, pro-piracy/pro-tech sector source like Techdirt?

It seems to me that they're probably not telling the whole story.

On thing that strikes me about any discussion of the blog busts is that often it appears that the bloggers don't understand that there is a big legal difference between receiving a promo copy for the purpose of publicizing it and being given permission to distribute it.

Specifically, that without a written statement of permission to distribute the work under terms specified in that document, they do not have permission to share it with the public. Some of the blockheads running these blogs just don't get that and then they wonder why they get shut down and/or sued.

These blogs were furnished material so they could publicize it, i.e. WRITE ABOUT IT, not give it away.

The fact is that it has always been illegal to sell or give away promo copies without permission.
even if permission was granted, it would be legally dangerous ground-

I think I agree with John that more info and an impartial source is required for the story-

The Constitutional issues, especially the sealed extensions is troubling however- but I have a strong sense there is a lot of omission in the original report for such an aggressive action to have occurred.
Old 9th December 2011
  #4
there's a reason it's called "tech dirt" for the same reason there's another site named "torrent freak"... neither are my go to for unbiased objective reporting on issues regarding copyright!
Old 10th December 2011
  #5
Gear Maniac
 

Does the fact that you just attack the source mean you don't know about the case? Are you just assuming its bad based on techdirt?
Old 10th December 2011
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezballs View Post
Does the fact that you just attack the source mean you don't know about the case? Are you just assuming its bad based on techdirt?
No, it means that they're intentionally not telling the whole story.

Such as the fact that those poor, set upon and persecuted blogs did not have permission to distribute the promotional material they were given to review. And apparently were too stupid to bother checking of the legal aspects of what they were doing. Which actually does not surprise me one bit.
Old 10th December 2011
  #7
Gear Maniac
 

So you don't know but are guessing right?
Old 10th December 2011
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezballs View Post
Does the fact that you just attack the source mean you don't know about the case? Are you just assuming its bad based on techdirt?
Based on their history of bias.

If you think you are right though, why don't you find a link to a credible, unbiased source repeating the tale.
Old 10th December 2011
  #9
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

That case is actually covered in part of this excellent article that everyone should read if they are concerned about the PIPA/SOPA issue:

PIPA/SOPA: Responding to Critics and Finding a Path Forward | The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation

(the article is in the PDF)
Old 10th December 2011
  #10
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

that case had NOTHING TO DO with the proposed legislation.

And BECAUSE of that case, SPECIFIC language was added to SOPA/PIPA to prevent something like that from happening.

Read the above linked material.
Old 10th December 2011
  #11
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
That case is actually covered in part of this excellent article that everyone should read if they are concerned about the PIPA/SOPA issue:

PIPA/SOPA: Responding to Critics and Finding a Path Forward | The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation

(the article is in the PDF)
I totally am with that appraisal. thanks for posting.
Old 10th December 2011
  #12
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
No, I'm saying they're not telling the whole truth - and selecting what they say to support an agenda.

I said that pretty clearly the last post.
But why did they Address this in the PDF? Probably your assumption was wrong.
Old 10th December 2011
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezballs View Post
But why did they Address this in the PDF? Probably your assumption was wrong.
Did you read the PDF - it's pretty much diametrically opposed to what Techdirt is claiming.
Old 10th December 2011
  #14
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chezballs View Post
But why did they Address this in the PDF?
Did you even READ the pdf?

It's mostly about debunking crap post topics like the one here...
ie, taking on the critisizm of the bill, point-for-point, in an open/honest way.

The FEAR MONGERING was a major point that the pdf article was addressing.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump