The letter also serves to let the guests know "If you're going to bitch about our broadband online, please be advised it ain't this hotel's fault, and it ain't the town's. It's CenturyLink's fault. That's C-e-n-t-u-r-y-L-i-n-k with a capital L in the middle."
I'm not clear on how some of these cases are getting dismissed without even being served. Most courts don't even look at a Complaint until the defendant brings a motion to dismiss, etc.
If they're being dismissed sua sponte (on the Court's own motion), it further indiates that they really have his number.
This clause in the definition of "interactive computer service" should apply to Tor: "including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet."
Meanwhile, as Mike notes, §230 is interpreted very broadly, and judicial trends are going the route that pretty much any argument that frustrates the purpose of §230 (i.e., not hold the tool responsible for its users) is not going to fly.
That'll teach a California-based company to incorporate in Delaware (when you still have to register in CA and pay the CA annual "franchise fee" and follow the CA statutes anyway).
Gurtler may well have breached a confidentiality clause of the same settlement agreement by sending the language to Techdirt.
The quoted language is pretty standard for online defamation cases; as are confidentiality clauses both about the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the specific terms of the settlement.
If the rest of the agreement is SOP, Gurtler may be in breach by revealing it (presumably without consent of Silverstein).*
I just thought the word "classic" should be used in connection with Sherlock Holmes.
Also, it's pretty classic that the Doyle family would be the ones who pulled this stunt. My understanding (from a special by the "Sherlock" creators) is that the Sherlock Holmes character has been reimagined and used more than any other (provably) fictional character in history, and that Arthur Conan Doyle gave his blessing to all sorts of plays and derivative works during his lifetime.
Great character to try as a test case a century later.
Strictly Speaking, it's an Immunity, not Safe Harbor
Putting too fine a point on it, but Safe Harbor usually requires some conditions or act to obtain, to wit:
"1.The provision in a law or agreement that will protect from any liability or penalty as long as set conditions have been met."
Whereas Section 230 is outright immunity from liability for defamatory third-party posts. No action required of the website (as opposed to DMCA Safe Harbors).
I only mention this because §230 immunity is so important to the functioning of the web as we know it, that referring to it as a safe harbor may downplay its true power and role in allowing such things like my making this post. Immunity is a nice, strong word that says it all in this context.
I was surprised last week to get an email from my broadband provider Cox telling me that for an extra $5/month I can get even faster broadband! Yay.
I'm already paying an extra $10/month for "Premium" access but I checked it out anyway. The new offer is really about $10-12 more per month (liars), and offers download speeds of 'up to' 50Mbps (I had routers in 1999 that could handle more than that).
I was too put out to determine whether they are slowing down my Premium speeds, or just offering a third tier of even higher not-very-fast speeds for a higher, misrepresented sum.
Other broadband options available?: None to speak of.
In light of current issues - tackiness threshhold has been surpassed.
Good thoughts, but I don't think they will take root in a crowdfunding context.
The predominant point of crowdfunding sites is to help people raise money to try something. They could fail. If the project had money to offer refunds when they fail, they wouldn't need to raise money to fund the project in the first place.
I have funded a dozen+ projects, and each time I know I am giving some artists my cash to see if they can pull it off. Sometimes they just can't. That's the risk I willingly take. Thus far most have come through, others are still working on it, wayyy past deadline. (Still waiting on the Dr. Demento and Devo documentaries, but got my zombie playing cards and my Ouya.)
But the ones who are working on these overdue projects are communicating with us; and late or nothing is the risk I took. It's not about quality control or guarantees or meeting deadlines. It's about supporting folks with groovy ideas. And apparently vastly more succeed than fail.
The folks in the article apparently stopped communicating with anyone months ago, and haven't been found. That's not the spirit of the thing, and hopefully that type of scenario is the extent of where these lawsuits go if there are more.
19%? That's crazy good. I am consistently surprised at how many people I know who do not use Twitter at all. They don't get it.
Live Tweeting during TV events is great interactive fun. Like baseball games and Archer when it's first airing. But the Olympics was showing stuff that had already happened. What's the point of live tweeting about that? That's like live tweeting to a rerun of an Astros game, or Bewitched. Who freaking cares?
Twitter ain't Facebook. It's a more specific group of users and largely about immediacy. So sure it's important to TV viewing, to the right group, in the right circumstances -- like something happening right now for the first time. (I dunno, that NBC guy just set me off.)
AT&T has jammed useless bloatware onto my last 5 smartphones, and before as well (Asphalt Racing? YP? AT&T FamilyMap? -- I know where my family is). I like my S4, but it greatly expanded on AT&T's bloatware "offerings." Take a gander at "running apps" and it's mostly stuff I don't even recognize. Urgh.
Just last night I was "turning off" bloat apps under dire warnings of functionality problems, which did not come to fruition. But I should not have to muck with it at all.
The Court punted on the CFAA issue, but it's still a good result. It doesn't matter how you get on base, just that you got on base.
Also, the footnoted dicta hopefully will function nicely to convey its true meaning to prosecution: "We get what happened here; and we don't want to see you back here on the same allegations." To wit:
The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped information that AT&T unintentionally published.
Yeah, they are. But legitimate gripes. I bought 24" TVs for the back room computer monitors, so they can double as crappy standard definition TVs for Padres games when I'm not in the front room with the big HD screen. I can go to any of my computers -- or to a local coffee house and support my local business, or anywhere -- and watch the Dodgers, Cubs, Nats, Tigers in lovely HD on my phone, notebook, or tablet. But my own Padres? Gotta park myself on the couch or be relegated to radio or crappy picture in the back studio.
Granted, I could pay $200+ for a Slingbox, but I already paid $130 for MLB.tv, on top of my outrageous cable bill.
(Not to mention, when you're at a game, biological imperatives always seem to kick in right before that big play happens. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to immediately view what you missed while you're there?)
On the post: Chubby Checker Checks His Lawsuit Against App That Checks Your Chubby
On the post: Mayor Of Arizona Town Publicly Shames Lousy Broadband Service Provider With Apology Letter To Hotel Guests
A Yelp Preemptive
On the post: FBI Thinks Driverless Cars Could Be Criminals' New Best Friends
On the post: Techdirt Sued For $10 Million In A Frivolous Lawsuit For Posting An Earlier Frivolous Lawsuit
Sua Sponte?
If they're being dismissed sua sponte (on the Court's own motion), it further indiates that they really have his number.
(... the overt racism ... ouch, cringe)
On the post: Ridiculous Lawsuit Filed (And Now Dropped) Against Tor Project Gets Even More Ridiculous: Now Involving Hate Group Leader
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ridiculous Lawsuit Filed (And Now Dropped) Against Tor Project Gets Even More Ridiculous: Now Involving Hate Group Leader
I'm almost wishing Van Dyke knew about Reddit ... that would ratchet this show up even further.
On the post: Clueless Lawyer Sues Tor Project Because Revenge Porn Site Made Use Of Tor
Re: He forgot to sue Intel and AMD...
On the post: Clueless Lawyer Sues Tor Project Because Revenge Porn Site Made Use Of Tor
Re: Communications Decency Act
Meanwhile, as Mike notes, §230 is interpreted very broadly, and judicial trends are going the route that pretty much any argument that frustrates the purpose of §230 (i.e., not hold the tool responsible for its users) is not going to fly.
On the post: Delaware Attorney General Throws Subpoeana At Reddit Over Comment On Photo Of Two People Having Sex Behind A Dumpster
On the post: Techdirt Receives Its First 'Right To Be Forgotten' Request
Funny thing is ...
The quoted language is pretty standard for online defamation cases; as are confidentiality clauses both about the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the specific terms of the settlement.
If the rest of the agreement is SOP, Gurtler may be in breach by revealing it (presumably without consent of Silverstein).*
*Purely speculation, but based on experience.
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Sherlock Holmes Is In The Public Domain
Classic
Also, it's pretty classic that the Doyle family would be the ones who pulled this stunt. My understanding (from a special by the "Sherlock" creators) is that the Sherlock Holmes character has been reimagined and used more than any other (provably) fictional character in history, and that Arthur Conan Doyle gave his blessing to all sorts of plays and derivative works during his lifetime.
Great character to try as a test case a century later.
On the post: Phew: Appeals Court Says Having 'Dirt' In Your Domain Name Doesn't Remove Safe Harbor Protections
Strictly Speaking, it's an Immunity, not Safe Harbor
"1.The provision in a law or agreement that will protect from any liability or penalty as long as set conditions have been met."
Whereas Section 230 is outright immunity from liability for defamatory third-party posts. No action required of the website (as opposed to DMCA Safe Harbors).
I only mention this because §230 immunity is so important to the functioning of the web as we know it, that referring to it as a safe harbor may downplay its true power and role in allowing such things like my making this post. Immunity is a nice, strong word that says it all in this context.
On the post: John Oliver: Stop Calling It Net Neutrality; It's 'Preventing Cable Company F**kery'
Cox Cable Apparently Clueless
*/
I was surprised last week to get an email from my broadband provider Cox telling me that for an extra $5/month I can get even faster broadband! Yay.
I'm already paying an extra $10/month for "Premium" access but I checked it out anyway. The new offer is really about $10-12 more per month (liars), and offers download speeds of 'up to' 50Mbps (I had routers in 1999 that could handle more than that).
I was too put out to determine whether they are slowing down my Premium speeds, or just offering a third tier of even higher not-very-fast speeds for a higher, misrepresented sum.
Other broadband options available?: None to speak of.
In light of current issues - tackiness threshhold has been surpassed.
/* end bitch
*/
On the post: Washington State Files First Consumer Protection Lawsuit Against Kickstarter Project That Failed To Deliver
Re:
The predominant point of crowdfunding sites is to help people raise money to try something. They could fail. If the project had money to offer refunds when they fail, they wouldn't need to raise money to fund the project in the first place.
I have funded a dozen+ projects, and each time I know I am giving some artists my cash to see if they can pull it off. Sometimes they just can't. That's the risk I willingly take. Thus far most have come through, others are still working on it, wayyy past deadline. (Still waiting on the Dr. Demento and Devo documentaries, but got my zombie playing cards and my Ouya.)
But the ones who are working on these overdue projects are communicating with us; and late or nothing is the risk I took. It's not about quality control or guarantees or meeting deadlines. It's about supporting folks with groovy ideas. And apparently vastly more succeed than fail.
The folks in the article apparently stopped communicating with anyone months ago, and haven't been found. That's not the spirit of the thing, and hopefully that type of scenario is the extent of where these lawsuits go if there are more.
On the post: NBC Insists Twitter Is Useless Because Not Enough People Tweeted During The Olympics... Which NBC Made Difficult To Watch Online
Indeed ...
Live Tweeting during TV events is great interactive fun. Like baseball games and Archer when it's first airing. But the Olympics was showing stuff that had already happened. What's the point of live tweeting about that? That's like live tweeting to a rerun of an Astros game, or Bewitched. Who freaking cares?
Twitter ain't Facebook. It's a more specific group of users and largely about immediacy. So sure it's important to TV viewing, to the right group, in the right circumstances -- like something happening right now for the first time. (I dunno, that NBC guy just set me off.)
On the post: The Stupidity Of Installing Bloatware That No One Uses... And Everyone Hates
Lest we forget the carriers ...
Just last night I was "turning off" bloat apps under dire warnings of functionality problems, which did not come to fruition. But I should not have to muck with it at all.
On the post: Court Rightly Finds That GoDaddy Isn't Liable For Revenge Porn Site
On the post: Appeals Court Reverses Weev Conviction For Incorrect Venue, Avoids Bigger CFAA Questions
Not to mix metaphors ...
Also, the footnoted dicta hopefully will function nicely to convey its true meaning to prosecution: "We get what happened here; and we don't want to see you back here on the same allegations." To wit:
The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped information that AT&T unintentionally published.
On the post: Tone Of Comments Affects Perception Of Online Article's Content
Re:
(I did enjoy the tone of comments in the [tellingly old] source article though.)
On the post: Baseball Is Back! Too Bad I Still Can't Watch My Local Team On My MLB.TV Subscription...
1st World Gripes ...
Granted, I could pay $200+ for a Slingbox, but I already paid $130 for MLB.tv, on top of my outrageous cable bill.
(Not to mention, when you're at a game, biological imperatives always seem to kick in right before that big play happens. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to immediately view what you missed while you're there?)
Next >>