I dunno, keep an eye on Prenda, I have a feeling the judges dealing with them will show how close to the line a judge can really get.

One pirate caught is one too many. And besides that’s not my point. My point was that if they cannot get their way in parliament, the copyright trolls will get what they want some other way, like PayPal blocking payments, court orders blocking sites, n-strikes schemes, etc. The means are different but the result is the same, if not worse.

“every time copyright enforcement gets news time, the pirate movement swells.”

If you live in a delusional world maybe, but in the real world more people sharing files online still hasn’t translated into more Pirate Party members nor votes (certainly not where I live).

A number of ISP’s have decided to “voluntarily” go along with the “six-strikes scheme”.

Since that scheme is set to catch very few to no pirates, and on the contrary leaves the participating ISP’s in an extremely vulnerable position, my prediction is that it will turn out to be even less successful than the french HADOPI (which has far more draconian measures and actual judicial power directly involved from the get-go).

The six-strike scheme is the blank shot left over when the rest of the cupboard has turned out to be bare. It does nothing. Worse as far as the copyright cartels are concerned, it serves only to seat copyright enforcement, like a fat, ugly and intrusive toad, right in the breakfast cereal bowl of millions of people.

Now “Anon”, bobmail, and the other copyright maximalists think this is great news. Whereas every pirate knows every time copyright enforcement gets news time, the pirate movement swells.

That, in this case, would be recipience of services and nothing else. The US beef can and must exclusively be with the end customer.

There is ample precedence for how this works. And once again you imply there is any alternative other than insisting US law is Global law.

“…Taken to the extreme, that would include “ad supported” business models that make money when US surfers click…”

France did try to imply that Google ought to be taxed for generating ad revenues from french citizen a few years ago. Every lawyer on the planet laughed at them. As they would laugh at you if they heard you repeat the gallic blunder.

Ad revenue is generated in whatever country where the ads are actually paid for. And nowhere else. Until then, you see, no fiscal transaction has taken place.

“…but is much more easily understood when a US citizen pays for a service, which while provided by a company outside of the US is actually consumed in the US.”

And this is where your argument spirals into screaming lunacy. By that argument, buying a banana in Mexico and eating it in Texas would mean you legally speaking bought the banana in Texas and now owe the state sales tax.

“The reality here is that the laws on the books don’t spell this out well enough, and scammers and thieves use that to their advantage.”

The reality, as spelled out above, is that you don’t have a fucking clue because the laws on the books do spell out – in painstaking clarity – all the relevant aspects of the situation.
Judge Bennett apparently shares this assessment and does not refer to any ambiguity when handing down his ruling. Indeed, he comes as close to calling the plaintiff an idiot as it is possible for a judge to do without violating court protocol.

As can clearly be seen.

No, bobmail. whereas you only used to stroll in the periphery of “Anon”‘s la-la-land this time you apparently decided to detour straight across it.

Double fail.

Secondly you and your nejtillbobmail mates always state that the law is above all. Now all of a sudden you state that the law is flawed while at every ruling which you actually like you say it is perfect ?

You and your fellow MAFIAA drones keep contradicting yourself and lying.

*Cackle* *Cackle* *Cough* *Disappear until next episode*

For 100 episodes, which one will win: the poor or the rich?