Ken 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (61)

• On the post: People Across Political Spectrum Come Out Against COICA Censorship Bill

  

  Ken ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2011 @ 06:21pm

  Counterfeiting costs is grossly overstated.

  Even though counterfeit products are bad and it shouldn't be done and those doing the counterfeiting should be prosecuted the actual costs associated with counterfeiting products is grossly overstated.
  
  Producers assume that whenever a counterfeit product is made and sole that it accounts for money out of their pockets. In a very small percentage this might be true however very few people who buy counterfeited products did so in lue of buying the genuine article. Most people who buy genuine products will not buy counterfeit items and the inverse most people who buy counterfeit do not by the real product even if there was no counterfeit so the actual cost of counterfeiting is actually very low.
  
  The real costs of counterfeiting is actually the crime that generally goes along with it which is born by society, not the copyright holder.

• On the post: People Across Political Spectrum Come Out Against COICA Censorship Bill

  

  Ken ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2011 @ 05:47pm

  Censorship and IP Maximilism is un-American and a threat to our freedom

  Copyright holders are by far the most protected class in the nation. Cross them and you will receive penalties so onerous and is reminiscent of indentured servitude.
  
  Copyright laws are unconstitutional in so many levels and neither party nor judges are willing to face that. $140,000 for posting an image on a blog is a crime against humanity. Copyrights are being allowed to trump our most cherished rights such as freedom of speech. Our Constitution gives very little weight to copyrights and mainly because of the social benefit but laws have made copyrights king and it is destroying those rights we hold dear.
  
  IP Maximalism is a threat to our liberty, a threat to our freedom, and a threat to all Constitutional principle. Those who espouse it do not believe in freedom and are un-American authoritarians.

• On the post: UK Advertising Board Says CD Jukebox With Hard Drive Can't Advertise That It Copies Music, Since That's Infringement

  

  Ken ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2011 @ 08:50am

  Copyright does not mean you get to dictate technology

  The recording and movie industries have a long history of trying to quash every technological advancement that comes along. Ever since radio started playing music the music industry has resented it even though radio is their best promotional tool out there. When the VCR came out the movie industry tried to sue it out of existence, same for DVRs, MP3 players. Seems like the only thing they really like are cds and have clinged on to this outdated technology 20 years too long.
  
  Copyright does not mean you get to dictate the techology that is available to be copied and there are well established court precedences that have ruled that simply having a devise that CAN facilitate illegal activities is not a reason to ban them.

• On the post: Appeals Court Still Says 'Down Under' Infringes On Decades Old Folk Song

  

  Ken ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2011 @ 05:54pm

  Re: This is Theft.

  One of the most egregious examples of cultural theft is Disney and their banning of the Movie "Song of the South" The Uncle Remus stories was a compilation of black folk lore during the slave days. This part of black history has nearly been completely wiped out due to political correctness.
  
  The first African American to ever win an oscar was the portrayal of Uncle Remus in Song of the South. That has now been expunged from history so now only older people who remember watching the movie have any idea what these stories are all about.

• On the post: Focusing On The Copy Part Of Copyright Doesn't Make Much Sense In Today's World

  

  Ken ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2011 @ 08:29pm

  What's money when you can have control?

  What is interesting is that many copyright holders either look at this the wrong way. Are listening to their zero sum accountants, or are just plain control freaks and feel it is more important to have tight controls than to make money.
  
  Accountants tend to add theoretical numbers when they estimate the amount of money "lost" due to "pirates" There is a huge assumption that if said movie was not available for download that each and every one of them would have paid instead when in reality the vast majority simply would have not bothered to see let along PAY for the movie thus the movie studio cannot claim these theoretical lost revenues.
  
  This is a problem for the studios and other copyright holders because they claim they are losing money when in reality they are counting phantom revenues that they NEVER would have earned in the first place with or without the "piracy".
  
  Also without the "piracy" a movie may never become popular in the first place without the word of mouth generated by people downloading the movie and talking about it and thus driving up legitimate sales.
  
  If copyrighters were successful in their efforts to quash all "pirating" of their material, which they cannot, but for the sake of argument lets say they did. They would not find the corresponding revenue increase that the zero sum accountants had promised and to make things worse their movies or other works would have a far smaller audience and thus not make as much money as it would with the "pirating". But hey what's money when you have control?

• On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Filmmaker Gets Fair Use Clip Removed From Documentary Over Copyright Claim

  

  Ken ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2011 @ 04:44pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Disney has used their copyright for outright racist reasons. They have stolen and vaulted black culture and heritage. They own the copyright to the movie Song of the South that is a celebration of African-American folklore but for racist reasons they are using their copyright to erase it from American culture.
  
  The Constitution is being violated. The constitution mandates a copyright only for a limited time. Our current laws have made it virtually perpetual. Our current copyright laws our blatantly unConstitutional and its time for them to be challenged on this basis.
  
  The irony is that the over reaching of IP Maximilits are going to be the catalyst for copyright reform. Whenever a pendulum swings too far one way it eventually swings back even farther in the other direction. Copyright authoritarianism will result in less copyright protect and they will only have themselves to blame.

• On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Filmmaker Gets Fair Use Clip Removed From Documentary Over Copyright Claim

  

  Ken ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2011 @ 04:34pm

  IP Maximilists the new authoritarians

  No they should not infact documentaries along with criticism MUST be protected and cannot be expected to get permission from the copyright holder because the copyright holder CANNOT have a veto in their own criticism or a documentary that may either put them in a bad light or if the nature of the documentary is against their own personal views.
  
  Copyright holders have no special right to restrict freedom of speech in any matter. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESTRICTING FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Copyright holders are not some special class of people that are above Congress and the Constitution.
  
  There is no bill of rights for copyright holders. There is no special provision in the Constitution for them except to specifically mandate a time limit and its stated purpose is to promote free expression, not stifle it. Copyrights are very low on the rights food chain and are really in the category of revocable privilege than an inalienable rights.
  
  Newspapers are particularly low on even the copyright food chain. For one thing a news article is a perishable item. It looses its value the instant it is published. Many aspects of a news story cannot even be copyrighted since they are factual in nature. A fact that has weighed heavily in Right haven cases lately.
  
  It is absolutely apparent that IP Maximilists are freedom and Constitutional rights minimalists. They have a very authoritarian and absolutist world view. They are possibly the most dangerous threat to our freedoms that exist today. Either their view is defeated or we are all be subject to the copyright masters.

• On the post: Marcus Carab's Favorite 'Favorite BestNetTech Posts Of The Week' Posts So Far

  

  Ken ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2011 @ 01:55pm

  Re: Re:

  The safest speed is whatever other cars are going. If everyone is driving 85mph then that is the safest speed to travel. When everyone else is drive 70 and some bozo is driving 55 it is that person that is putting everyone in danger including themselves not the ones driving 70. Police should focus on those that are driving against the prevailing speed and those driving reckless not just fixate on the posted limit.
  
  Speed limits should be set based on the road itself, statistical analysis of driving patterns, whether, and traffic density. There should be no blanket speed limits and they should actually be changed based on the conditions of the time. It is time to do away with posted speed limits and have general speed guidelines. Technology is at a point now where people can get real time data of the speed limit based on their GPS position.

• On the post: Judge Who Said Lumping Together Unrelated Copyright Cases Is Fine… Is A Former RIAA Lobbyist

  

  Ken ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2011 @ 06:18pm

  Facebook Group Calls To Impeach Judge Howell for Conflict of Interest

  I have created a Facebook group to bring public attention to Judge Byryl Howell. This is the very definition of a conflict of interest. She should have recused herself from hearing any copyright cases.

• On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit Against Reporter; Still Seems Confused About The Whole Thing

  

  Ken ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2011 @ 05:07pm

  Counter-suers should sue for copyright!

  Since Righthaven is demanding the domain name of the victims then those that are counter-suing should demand the copyright "owned" by Righthaven.
  This could put a quick end to this nonsense.

• On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit Against Reporter; Still Seems Confused About The Whole Thing

  

  Ken ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2011 @ 03:44pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Calls for a Federal Investigation.

  Ok I thought I was dealing with a split personality. The Anonymous Coward who is the Righthaven apologist is absolutely an IP maximalists. I have read into this movement and it is truly scary and anti-Constitution. They claim that intellectual property trumps all other rights and is working to abolish any concept of fair use and impose strict control over all information including the Internet.
  
  We as Americans believe in intellectual property but it has never been as absolute as real property. It does not trump other rights. Infact it is one of the few rights that the Constitution itself mandates a time limit even though that has been circumvented. For now.
  
  An abuse of the system by Righthaven and other IP Max groups will actually end up causing an outcry for overreaching and the pendulum will swing the other way again towards freer access to information. Which is the antithesis of IP maximalists.
  
  http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/development.research/SusanSellfinalversion.pdf
  
  This is a peer reviewed scholarly writing on this subject. It is no conspiracy theory.

• On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit Against Reporter; Still Seems Confused About The Whole Thing

  

  Ken ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2011 @ 05:25am

  Re:

  Any reasonable law firm would suspend all new legal activity and investigate how something like this could have happened, but not Righthaven. They won't miss a beat because most likely they don't have to investigate what happened because they already know.
  
  All Righthaven cases now need to be investigated. There are probably scores of cases that are just as bad as the one they were forced to close (only because they got caught)
  
  Righthaven said they closed the case because they found out he was a journalist? however they knew enough about him and the website to know the site had a DMCA registration. They would only had to look at their exhibit to know he was a reporter but then again had they looked at their own exhibit they would have discovered it was from their own court document from the Drudge suit.
  
  This may have been an attempt on Rightahven's part to silence a journalist that has been critical of Righthaven. If that is the case this would constitute criminal activity in the highest order. This case screams for a federal investigation.

• On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit Against Reporter; Still Seems Confused About The Whole Thing

  

  Ken ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2011 @ 08:28pm

  Calls for a Federal Investigation.

  Some are beginning to question the validity of Righthaven's explanation. Righthaven is giving contradictory information. This demands a Federal Investigation.

• On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit Against Reporter; Still Seems Confused About The Whole Thing

  

  Ken ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2011 @ 08:24pm

  Calls for a Federal Investigation.

  This whole thing now demands a federal investigation.

• On the post: Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit Against Reporter; Still Seems Confused About The Whole Thing

  

  Ken ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2011 @ 08:09pm

  This isn't credible. Infact it has been done before. They are suing the Toronto Star for having the TSA image. Problem is Toronto Star is an AP affiliate and the AP distributed this photo to several newspapers so more than likely the Toronto Star had permission
  
  They are also suing MIXX.com for a thumbnail as well as DailyKix.com also for a thumbnail even though Thumbnails have already been ruled fair use by the 9th circuit court of appeals. What is noteworthy too is that MIXX.com is one of the 322 social bookmarking sites that the Denver Post offeres in sharing their content including the TSA image.
  
  It is also interesting that both MIXX.com and DailyKix do not hold the images on their servers but merely have code that queries the sources server to send the image to the users browser. The image never exists on their servers an the same 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling states that simply having code that directs information is not a copyright violation. If it was the entire Internet would be illegal.
  
  What is interesting is that both Mixx.com and DailyKix are being sued for linking and having a thumbnail for a site called deadseriousnews.com who still has the image on their site and has not been sued by Righthaven. Infact many of the people who are being sued got the image from that site. Righthaven knows about deadseriousnews because the site is mentioned in several different Righthaven exhibits. This suggests that deadseriousnews.com is being used by Righthavan as a honeypot to attract people that would not normally visit the Denver Post.
  
  There have simply been too many dubious claims by Righthaven to give them any credibility. News Media Group the parent company of The Denver Post is risking even more embarrassment and worse by their association with Righthaven. It would be in their best interest to dump them for good.

• On the post: Righthaven Sues Reporter Who Wrote About Righthaven For Including Image From Its Lawsuit

  

  Ken ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2011 @ 07:20pm

  Re: Re: Contact Colorado Federal Court

  http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm
  
  "With Rule 11 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
  
  (b3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
  
  (3) On the Court's Initiative.
  
  On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b)."
  
  
  The court can impose sanctions against a party on their own initiative if Rule 11(b) has been violated.
  
  
  This lawsuit was frivolous because it was based entirely on faulty and unverified evidence. Rigthhaven filed a lawsuit based on an court document that was so obvious we were discussing it yesterday on the Las Vegas Sun comments. It is absurd to think Righthaven didn't recognize this as a court filing particularly since it was their own.
  
  The court needs to slap them with sanctions and review every case they have filed including the ones they received settlements to verify if a lawsuits were even warranted.

• On the post: Righthaven Sues Reporter Who Wrote About Righthaven For Including Image From Its Lawsuit

  

  Ken ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2011 @ 06:15pm

  Righthaven's List of Other Screwups

  Righthaven says they have only made one mistake? Oh here are just a few:
  
  Righthaven has sued the very source of a story that was published on the Las Vegas Review Journal.
  
  They have twice sued the wrong people.
  
  They have sued the Toronto Star that is an AP affiliate that more than likely had permission from the Denver Post.
  
  They have managed to actually dilute the copyright protections they claim to ?enforce?. It has been ruled fair use that an entire article can be copied in some situations thanks to Righthaven.
  
  They have yet to win a single case in court apart from some default judgments where the defendant simply never showed up. They have yet to earn a single penny based on the merits of a case but only from strong-arming and intimidating their victims into settling.
  
  They can?t find two of their defendants and since they could not be served with a court summons the cases were thrown out.
  
  They had the unmitigated gall to complain to a federal judge that the defendant?s attorneys in the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) were engaged in ?litigation overkill? and that their actions were running up legal fees.
  
  They asked a South Carolina Lawyer to send them advance notice if and when the lawyer files a counter-suit. The SC Lawyer smacked them down by telling them he would give them the same courtesy that Righthaven gave his client when they refused to send a take-down letter before proceeding with a lawsuit.
  
  Their lawsuits claim they have suffered ?irreparable damages? but have yet to identify exactly what these ?damages? are.
  
  They have yet to be awarded a single web-site domain name even though they use this to coerce people into settling and has no basis in copyright law.
  
  They have sued Brian Hill who they cannot collect from even if they win. (which they won?t)
  
  They have by far the worst website on the planet that consists only of a single large jpeg image that takes up the entire screen. Apparently this ?technology company? has no one who knows how to set up a website.

• On the post: Righthaven Sues Reporter Who Wrote About Righthaven For Including Image From Its Lawsuit

  

  Ken ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2011 @ 01:02pm

  Re:

  fogbuqzd
  
  I know you are being facetious but not allowing the use of a public document because it may contain copyrighted material would render every public document concerning copyrights unusable because everyone of them contain the work in question as evidence. This would be unworkable and violate the public's right to access public records.
  
  Righthaven cannot win this case and if this lawsuit is over the use of a public document they may face sanctions from the judge and have opened themselves up to all sorts of counter suits not just from this writer but civil rights and other organizations.
  
  This strikes me as an act of desperation on Righthaven's part.

• On the post: Righthaven Sues Reporter Who Wrote About Righthaven For Including Image From Its Lawsuit

  

  Ken ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2011 @ 11:47am

  Writer May Have Used a Public Document

  What is so noteworthy about this case is that the writer may very well have used the Righthaven vs. DrudgeReport court filing for the image. So in other words Righthaven may be trying to sue someone for using public documents.
  
  If this is the case this has civil rights issues because it cuts to the heart of the publics access to public records.

• On the post: Amicus Brief Calls Into Question The Legality Of Righthaven's Entire Business Model

  

  Ken ( profile ), 25 Feb, 2011 @ 06:49am

  Anonymous Coward
  
  Again Righthaven is not "Representing" the papers in question. They are not acting on behalf of anyone but themselves so any damage considerations can only be assessed on the damages "suffered" by Righthaven. Since Righthaven publishes nothing and does not have any other financial interest in the works besides a vehicle for lawsuits then the damage to them is zero. Therefore any award should also be zero or close to it.

Next >>