Re:Viacom lawsuit and P&Ts Bullshit! - 2007/03/21 11:57A little trick, Google the Showtime web address but don't click on the link, click on Cached instead and you will get the page up. Unfortunately you have to do this with every page - copy the link/address - Google it - click Cached.
That will work, but you're probably better off looking for some proxy web browsing service. There are a number of free ones on the web.
I've done this myself - and just so you know there's nothing on the website that was really worth the effort. I have no idea why they blocked it from non-Americans.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
kenryan
User Karma: 3
Re:Viacom lawsuit and P&Ts Bullshit! - 2007/03/21 22:42Aston14 wrote: ... I think first amendment attorneys might have a hard time with this one.
The law at issue in the case is neither First Amendment nor copyright. The issue is the safe-harbor provision of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
The idea of the safe-harbor provision is a provider of a generic public service cannot be held liable for illegal activity taking place on their service, so long as certain conditions are met: primary purpose is legal, offending material removed promptly upon request, and some other conditions I'm not recalling at the moment. Grokster lost the Supreme Court case based on not meeting the first condition: they advertised based on availability of content they couldn't legally offer. This case is likely to be based on an interpretation of the second condition, where Google took down the material but couldn't keep it down (other people re-uploaded it).
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
mindme
User Karma: 44
Re:Viacom lawsuit and P&Ts Bullshit! - 2007/03/22 04:12Parrot wrote: mindme wrote: It was a good idea and it was even in keeping with Penn's reasonable concept of fair use (if you subscribe to showtime or you bought the DVDS, then don't sweat watching it on youtube or downloading it). Basically, MP3.com would have you register with their site. You'd use some software to verify the CDs you actually owned. MP3.com would then let you download MP3 versions of the CDs you owned.
How is that a good idea? I don't think it should be illegal... but it sounds like a pretty unnecessary idea to me. If you have the CD you can just rip the MP3 files from it, why would you want to bother registering with a website, verifying your CD, and initiating a download?
Bear in mind I said "WAS a good idea". This was circa 2000-2001. You couldn't carry your music collection around on a firewire iPod 40 gb drive like you can now. Even your main computer's HD wasn't super huge in 2000. Not enough to hold your whole music collection.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
mindme
User Karma: 44
Re:Viacom lawsuit and P&Ts Bullshit! - 2007/03/22 11:08kenryan wrote: Aston14 wrote: ... I think first amendment attorneys might have a hard time with this one.
The law at issue in the case is neither First Amendment nor copyright. The issue is the safe-harbor provision of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
The idea of the safe-harbor provision is a provider of a generic public service cannot be held liable for illegal activity taking place on their service, so long as certain conditions are met: primary purpose is legal, offending material removed promptly upon request, and some other conditions I'm not recalling at the moment. Grokster lost the Supreme Court case based on not meeting the first condition: they advertised based on availability of content they couldn't legally offer. This case is likely to be based on an interpretation of the second condition, where Google took down the material but couldn't keep it down (other people re-uploaded it).
Wow there actually is something human in the DMC? I remember before the DMC, Internet providers fell back on "common carrier" law. The common example was Ma Bell can't be expected to know every conversation being held on its wires. If someone plans a murder over the phone, you can't sue Bell for not warning anyone.
Another oft cited case (not common carrier, however) was a bookstore owner being sued for libel because he carried a book with libelous material. A bookstore owner can't be expected to know the contents everything on his shelf. If that were the case, bookstores would only carry a handful of titles.
However, if a service exercises some kind of editorial oversight, then there was some question whether it can be held responsible. For example, AOL would have moderators who edited message boards. If a newspaper publishes a letter to the editor saying "Mayor Quimby is a child rapist", it would be party to libel. It should never have let the letter run.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
mddawson
User Karma: 5
Re:Viacom lawsuit and P&Ts Bullshit! - 2007/03/24 08:47Last year when the BBC screened Top Gears Richard Hammond's jet car crash, numerous videos were posted on YouTube that were soon removed at the request of the BBC. I did not hear of any legal action being taken by the BBC.
Perhaps this is the path that Viacom should take then everyone will be happy.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Aston14
User Karma: 3
Re:Viacom lawsuit and P&Ts Bullshit! - 2007/03/24 18:12Viacom did at one point have a youtube account. What the BBC did is sign a deal with youtube that splits ad profits between them... however the bulk of the ads go to youtube. Viacom wanted a 50/50 split, and youtube said no. That, combined with the fact that viacom has clips on their own sites, made them decide that youtube wasnt worth their while.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
kenryan
User Karma: 3
Re:Viacom lawsuit and P&Ts Bullshit! - 2007/03/25 00:49Wow there actually is something human in the DMC? I remember before the DMC, Internet providers fell back on "common carrier" law. The common example was Ma Bell can't be expected to know every conversation being held on its wires. If someone plans a murder over the phone, you can't sue Bell for not warning anyone.
Yes, common carrier status has kept many phone and ISP companies out of hot water, precisely because of the technical burden of monitoring all traffic. DMCA didn't change that except for codifying some existing case law.
Now slide over and take a listen to the "Net Neutrality" debate. ISPs and datacomm companies are arguing they should be allowed to provide "differentiated services", a fancy term for charging customers (surfers or providers alike) different amounts of money for allowing more or less traffic. Note this is different from the normal pricing by available bandwidth; the point of DS is to specify quality of service according to *both* ends of the connection. For example, Google could be charged $$ by *your* ISP in order to allow you to access Google without artifical delays, a differnet rate if you're using Firefox, a different rate if you're streaming video, and... you get the picture. You will have no control over this; your ISP would be acting as gatekeeper.
Many Internet freedom sorts such as Electronic Frontier Foundation are arguing for net neutrality laws which would prevent an ISP from doing that, leaving the current model where the ISP's customer alone determines what network performance he wants to pay for, and all websites are treated alike. They lost the last round at Congress, leaving a proposed NN law to die in committee. The heavyweight corporate lobbyist in that fight was Verizon.
So let Verizon proceed with charging assorted websites different rates for allowing Verizon customers to surf there unimpeded. Now watch one of those websites post something naughty.
Exit Common Carrier status! The lawsuit line forms to the right... Protect the Chiiilllddrreeen! (It's always "protecting the children" isn't it..)
The technology actually exists to do a per-site quality of service configuration - some 6 years ago I was on a chip design team working on a traffic management IC that could classify over a million distinct connections, and could be meshed to almost limitless capacity. The Actiontec routers Verizon is using now for their new fiber service have all the client-side hooks needed to implement it.
I suspect Verizon (and I'm sure other carriers) may be heading for a serious footshot, unless they wise up and buy some better legislation!
<plug> FYI, these and other tech-law related issues can be followed on GrokLaw and LamLaw. (GrokLaw has numerous sections delving into several active court cases and tech-legal areas, and dives into unbelievable detail with a lot of interesting, detailed, and correct commentary. LamLaw is a blog by one programmer turned lawyer talking and ranting about many of these issues, much more lightweight but still interesting.) </plug>
ken
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
