4 ms·

You want Google to be sued into oblivion and have its executives possibly jailed for criminal copyright infringement because you judge compliance with applicabl

by nknight 15y ago

You want Google to be sued into oblivion and have its executives possibly jailed for criminal copyright infringement because you judge compliance with applicable laws to be evil?

SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
That's not what I said. There are many other options, no need to bring your false dichotomy and straw-man scenario into it.
- nknight 15y ago
  Actually, it's exactly what you said, whether you know it or not. Google's action was dictated by US law. If you have some magical way for a US company run by US citizens residing in the US to get around US law, I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear it.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
    You're a laywer as well as the development and operations that your profile mentions? Funny thing, I thought that the DMCA was the legal path. This was not used. And this alarms some lawyers: http://waxy.org/2012/03/youtube_bypasses_the_dmca/ http://waxy.org/2012/03/youtube_bypasses_the_dmca/ And the "review", supposedly by a human being which failed to spot that this birdsong was not the same copyrighted recording was also an exact legal requirement? And the lack of any appeals process after that too? I said, after you put nasty words in my mouth, that there were other options, and there are. You're not thinking this through.
    - nknight 15y ago
      No, but I'm clearly better versed in the law than you are. The DMCA wasn't used because Google negotiated a separate agreement. Without that agreement -- in which Google also had to give things up -- the DMCA would control, dictating both immediate compliance and a ten-day waiting period before the video could be returned. You arrogantly behave as if you know better than me. Put up or shut up.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
        I think I already did put up: a review process that's meaningful. I'm done here.
        nknight 15y ago
        A review process that would not be accepted in a negotiated agreement by the copyright trolls, and one not permitted under the DMCA. What's a "Coder in London" doing trying to educate a US citizen and resident on US law, anyway?

by nknight 15y ago

You want Google to be sued into oblivion and have its executives possibly jailed for criminal copyright infringement because you judge compliance with applicable laws to be evil?

SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago

That's not what I said. There are many other options, no need to bring your false dichotomy and straw-man scenario into it.

nknight 15y ago
Actually, it's exactly what you said, whether you know it or not. Google's action was dictated by US law. If you have some magical way for a US company run by US citizens residing in the US to get around US law, I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear it.
- SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
  You're a laywer as well as the development and operations that your profile mentions? Funny thing, I thought that the DMCA was the legal path. This was not used. And this alarms some lawyers: http://waxy.org/2012/03/youtube_bypasses_the_dmca/ http://waxy.org/2012/03/youtube_bypasses_the_dmca/ And the "review", supposedly by a human being which failed to spot that this birdsong was not the same copyrighted recording was also an exact legal requirement? And the lack of any appeals process after that too? I said, after you put nasty words in my mouth, that there were other options, and there are. You're not thinking this through.
  - nknight 15y ago
    No, but I'm clearly better versed in the law than you are. The DMCA wasn't used because Google negotiated a separate agreement. Without that agreement -- in which Google also had to give things up -- the DMCA would control, dictating both immediate compliance and a ten-day waiting period before the video could be returned. You arrogantly behave as if you know better than me. Put up or shut up.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
      I think I already did put up: a review process that's meaningful. I'm done here.
      - nknight 15y ago
        A review process that would not be accepted in a negotiated agreement by the copyright trolls, and one not permitted under the DMCA. What's a "Coder in London" doing trying to educate a US citizen and resident on US law, anyway?