Since Irryie is presently a Microsoft attorney (prior to that he was fired from Google), I think it's very likely he'll flag this as spam to have it taken down. Even though he's all about "free speech" he's also a hypocrite and will silence you for this.
Posting a link to it is distribution activity. It is illegal in the U.S. to distribute "copyrighted, trademark, or patented content which you do not own or lack written consent or a license from the copyright owner;"
Very crafty and attorneyish of you to change "distribution" to the ambiguous "distribution activity."
I realize that as a copyright troll attorney you would seek to hold yourself out
as an expert in intellectual property law. After all you're an expert in any area of law that you claim to be. Irryie says it and therefore it is so.
But I and many others here recognize that you are an incompetent lawyer. So rather than relying on the professional legal opinion of an incompetent please provide the case law that substantiates your position that posting a link here off an independent third party web site of a copyrighted work is "distribution." I'm not stating with certainty that I know you're wrong; but given your track record I'd be a fool to assume you're right.
PIA has, even according to you, stated that they will not police their forums or take anything down, other than spam. Catcher hasn't posted spam and, thus, they have no legitimate cause for taking his posts down.
As I predicted you cry "freedom of speech" when it suits you and call for ignoring PIA's TOS when it suits you. But when that doesn't go your way you'll call for the abrogation of free speech and demand the enforcement of the TOS, all under the guise of "the law," or rather in this case color of law. As I predicted you would show yourself for the supreme hypocrite you are.
PIA might very well be required by law to take down the links should Microsoft, or their legal agent, issue a DMCA takedown notice. But that hasn't happened, and until it does PIA isn't legally responsible for what its forum members post here. As long as they don't ignore the takedown demand (should that ever happen) they have safe harbor protection.
Oh, and we already had the discussion about your being fired by Google. Call it a forced resignation or a firing. The only difference is the golden parachute.
posting links to it is facilitating distribution, thus its "distribution activity"
The DMCA takedown notice is not necessary when the offense of law is obvious. It is unlawful in the U.S. to facilitate commission of an offense of law. PIA has a legal responsibility to not facilitate illegal activity, no matter if its user posted or not, by allowing such to stay posted.
Yes, yes, I understand that's your personal opinion, but I wouldn't give you 2 cents for your personal opinion. Show me the case law that substantiates your personal opinion. Your use of impressive sounding legal phrases is as unimpressive as all your other bloviating.
"Facilitating illegal activity" is the scaremongering language of copyright troll attorneys. PIA isn't "facilitating illegal activity" by not policing their own forums. "The DMCA takedown notice is not necessary" is a sham argument. In a policed forum where free speech isn't of paramount value I would agree with you. But this isn't such a forum. In a forum that holds up "free speech" above all other standards, including its own TOS (which PIA ignores), then a DMCA takedown notice most certainly becomes necessary.
What you're demanding now, after all your previous demands that PIA not police their forums, all under the guise of "freedom of speech", is that they do sudden about-face and police their forums. It doesn't surprise me that you can't see our own extreme hypocrisy.
So why is Google, Yahoo and others linking to the exact same link? I guess it doesn't apply to them.
Exactly. Copyright troll attorneys of the same ilk as Irryie argue that Google, Yahoo, etc. "have a legal responsibility to remove illegal content or acts of
facilitation of such violation of law and its a matter of self
preservation for a U.S. company to do so." No they do not. Their "self preservation" come from complying with the requirements of the DMCA. That and that alone is what gives them safe harbor.
They have a legal responsibility to remove links to unauthorized copyrighted works in response to a legal takedown demand, in conformance with the provisions of the DMCA. They have no responsibility to proactively police their sites for such links. Their only legal responsibility is to comply with the law after they've been notified by the copyright holder or their legal agent.
Irryie, you are not Microsoft or Microsoft's legal agent. You have no
legal standing to demand that PIA comply with your takedown demands. What you're now demanding of PIA is that they proactively police their site, and only in response to you, someone who has no legal authorization to make any such demands. That's the same exact strategy that copyright troll attorneys continually make against Google, etc., and it's a legal argument that has always failed and will always fail.
Last time I checked, US copyright law has to allow you to own a "backup copy" of any software you own.
So that link has a legal use, even if an idiot claims it is criminal just because it is possible to steal a copy you do not own.
Furthermore it is not a "Criminal" act. It is a civil act. And the police simply do not give a shit about it. Civil court would be required to deal with this.
So in short, you are an idiot Irryie. You do not know the law, and you lie to tell us that you do.
I did not say it was directly infringing, its facilitating distribution and such is illegal under law - and a violation of the terms of service as under those terms you agreed not to distribute and facilitating distribution is still distribution just indirectly but distribution non the less. Both of these are generally referred to as "indirect" infringement.
Bunk! The language you're using here isn't found in any US statutory or case law, which is exactly why you keep ignoring my demands that you produce the law that supports your legal hypothesis. And that, by the way, is all you have -- a hypothesis.
The language you use, however, is found in SOPA, and in case you don't remember, SOPA went down in a ball of flames.
Enough with your copyright trolling! Enough with your hypocrisy! Stand consistently for freedom of speech or admit you only support freedom of speech when it's convenient for you.
For the record, I'm not calling on the PIA forum to be turned into a "link farm" for copyright violations, and I'm sure that won't happen. I'm also confident that Catcher isn't planning on using these forums as a link farm either. This is merely an exercise to test the limits of Irryie's alleged commitment to free speech. So far he's failing the test miserably and proving, yet again, what an extreme hypocrite that he is. Irryie is the one who pushed the hardest for PIA to leave their forums totally unmoderated, all under the guise of "free speech." Now that PIA has adopted what Irryie wants he cries, "Foul! I meant free speech only as I define it."
Irryie, why not just be honest for once in your life and admit what we all can plainly see -- that you're an extreme hypocrite and a copyright troll? This isn't about your helping PIA to not be in violation of the laws of the land, or their mere "facilitating" the violation of the laws of the land. If you were genuine about that you would have said something about this. I'd call that Photoshopped image of Jamie Hyneman and Kari Byron an act of defamation -- something also illegal. So to apply your legal hypothesis consistently PIA is "facilitating" defamation and liable under the law for any damages.
But you won't see see it that way, will you? Just like in so many other cases you'll be very selective about what's "illegal" vs. what trumps the law with your contorted "free speech" theories. In your book it's only defamation if it affects you and the things you value personally. In your book it's only "illegal" if it affects you and the things you value personally.
Is this thread closed? It shows as such on my browser despite having cleared the cache and restarted the browser. Did Irryie the rejected lawyer manage to coerce PIA into doing something he himself was against last year?
lrryie, why do you continue reposting that same link all over the forums? Is it because you believe it to be a shining example of your wit? Your sagacity? Your adroitness at argumentation? How very sad. All that post demonstrates is that you're a dim bulb, and that you've deluded yourself into believing that you're actually intelligent and clever.
The fact that you keep quoting yourself over and over again, at every opportunity, only reinforces that you're a narcissist -- that you actually do believe your opinions are so highly respected and esteemed that they're worthy of repetition ad nauseum.
Even more tragically you exhibit a very child-like narcissism, a narcissism that screams at the world for attention, "Ha, ha! See, I'm right and I proved you're all wrong! I won! I won! I won! You lost! You lost! You lost!" Like a small child on a grade school playground you believe that if you keep shouting it over and over again it will make it so.
Your constant grandstanding and attention-seeking is an obvious cry for
help: "Please somebody like me. Please somebody accept me." Yet the
manner in which you go about making a spectacle of yourself is so odious that people can't help but think of you as vile. Tragically in your case it's even worse: "You will worship me."
It's difficult for me to comprehend how you could be a "licensed professional," an attorney, and be at all functional within a professional setting. Your career and your personal life must be in tatters. I hope some day you'll mature psychologically and emotionally past that grade school stage of your life. Please seek professional care for your psychological disorders.
Comments
Google), I think it's very likely he'll flag this as spam to have it taken down. Even though he's all about "free speech" he's also a hypocrite and will silence you for this.
No post will be deleted unless it is spam.
No post will be deleted unless it is spam.
I realize that as a copyright troll attorney you would seek to hold yourself out as an expert in intellectual property law. After all you're an expert in any area of law that you claim to be. Irryie says it and therefore it is so.
But I and many others here recognize that you are an incompetent lawyer. So rather than relying on the professional legal opinion of an incompetent please provide the case law that substantiates your position that posting a link here off an independent third party web site of a copyrighted work is "distribution." I'm not stating with certainty that I know you're wrong; but given your track record I'd be a fool to assume you're right.
PIA has, even according to you, stated that they will not police their forums or take anything down, other than spam. Catcher hasn't posted spam and, thus, they have no legitimate cause for taking his posts down.
As I predicted you cry "freedom of speech" when it suits you and call for ignoring PIA's TOS when it suits you. But when that doesn't go your way you'll call for the abrogation of free speech and demand the enforcement of the TOS, all under the guise of "the law," or rather in this case color of law. As I predicted you would show yourself for the supreme hypocrite you are.
PIA might very well be required by law to take down the links should Microsoft, or their legal agent, issue a DMCA takedown notice. But that hasn't happened, and until it does PIA isn't legally responsible for what its forum members post here. As long as they don't ignore the takedown demand (should that ever happen) they have safe harbor protection.
Oh, and we already had the discussion about your being fired by Google. Call it a forced resignation or a firing. The only difference is the golden parachute.
MatthewK said:
No post will be deleted unless it is spam.
MatthewK said:
No post will be deleted unless it is spam.
No post will be deleted unless it is spam.
"Facilitating illegal activity" is the scaremongering language of copyright troll attorneys. PIA isn't "facilitating illegal activity" by not policing their own forums. "The DMCA takedown notice is not necessary" is a sham argument. In a policed forum where free speech isn't of paramount value I would agree with you. But this isn't such a forum. In a forum that holds up "free speech" above all other standards, including its own TOS (which PIA ignores), then a DMCA takedown notice most certainly becomes necessary.
What you're demanding now, after all your previous demands that PIA not police their forums, all under the guise of "freedom of speech", is that they do sudden about-face and police their forums. It doesn't surprise me that you can't see our own extreme hypocrisy.
MatthewK said:
No post will be deleted unless it is spam.
They have a legal responsibility to remove links to unauthorized copyrighted works in response to a legal takedown demand, in conformance with the provisions of the DMCA. They have no responsibility to proactively police their sites for such links. Their only legal responsibility is to comply with the law after they've been notified by the copyright holder or their legal agent.
Irryie, you are not Microsoft or Microsoft's legal agent. You have no legal standing to demand that PIA comply with your takedown demands. What you're now demanding of PIA is that they proactively police their site, and only in response to you, someone who has no legal authorization to make any such demands. That's the same exact strategy that copyright troll attorneys continually make against Google, etc., and it's a legal argument that has always failed and will always fail.
So that link has a legal use, even if an idiot claims it is criminal just because it is possible to steal a copy you do not own.
Furthermore it is not a "Criminal" act. It is a civil act. And the police simply do not give a shit about it. Civil court would be required to deal with this.
So in short, you are an idiot Irryie. You do not know the law, and you lie to tell us that you do.
The language you use, however, is found in SOPA, and in case you don't remember, SOPA went down in a ball of flames.
Enough with your copyright trolling! Enough with your hypocrisy! Stand consistently for freedom of speech or admit you only support freedom of speech when it's convenient for you.
Irryie, why not just be honest for once in your life and admit what we all can plainly see -- that you're an extreme hypocrite and a copyright troll? This isn't about your helping PIA to not be in violation of the laws of the land, or their mere "facilitating" the violation of the laws of the land. If you were genuine about that you would have said something about this. I'd call that Photoshopped image of Jamie Hyneman and Kari Byron an act of defamation -- something also illegal. So to apply your legal hypothesis consistently PIA is "facilitating" defamation and liable under the law for any damages.
But you won't see see it that way, will you? Just like in so many other cases you'll be very selective about what's "illegal" vs. what trumps the law with your contorted "free speech" theories. In your book it's only defamation if it affects you and the things you value personally. In your book it's only "illegal" if it affects you and the things you value personally.
The fact that you keep quoting yourself over and over again, at every opportunity, only reinforces that you're a narcissist -- that you actually do believe your opinions are so highly respected and esteemed that they're worthy of repetition ad nauseum.
Even more tragically you exhibit a very child-like narcissism, a narcissism that screams at the world for attention, "Ha, ha! See, I'm right and I proved you're all wrong! I won! I won! I won! You lost! You lost! You lost!" Like a small child on a grade school playground you believe that if you keep shouting it over and over again it will make it so.
Your constant grandstanding and attention-seeking is an obvious cry for help: "Please somebody like me. Please somebody accept me." Yet the manner in which you go about making a spectacle of yourself is so odious that people can't help but think of you as vile. Tragically in your case it's even worse: "You will worship me."
It's difficult for me to comprehend how you could be a "licensed professional," an attorney, and be at all functional within a professional setting. Your career and your personal life must be in tatters. I hope some day you'll mature psychologically and emotionally past that grade school stage of your life. Please seek professional care for your psychological disorders.