First Amendment issues aside, I'm not sure why this guy thinks a state law can somehow alter or override the provisions of Section 230, which is a federal law.
Last I checked, state legislatures can't amend federal statutes.
all I will have to do is get to the Internet as soon as possible and log on to Android Device Manager and then send a command to wipe all my devies to make them usless to them.
Most cops now carry Faraday bags in their patrol cars and put seized phones into them, which prevent any transmission of electronic signals into or out of the bag.
Guy loses his car because he SLOWS DOWN on a street the cops have deemed a pros stroll?
FFS, they used to at least need to find drugs or a 'suspicious' amount of cash to steal the car. Now all you have to do is drive into the wrong part of town or tap your brakes in the wrong place and your car goes poof?
They don't auction those things off. They're considered abandoned property. Anytime we needed a knife or a Leatherman, we would routinely stop by the TSA offices at the airport and they have barrels full of them that people have discarded at the checkpoints. Just root through them till you find something you like, and voila.
But any good lawyer would've at least said "Nah, don't bother, they're full of shit."
More like "They're full of shit, but they're Disney and they can sue you over this even though the law is on your side, and it will cost you a shit-ton of money to defend the suit and win the case."
Plus, Prop 13 doesn't just apply to big corps like Disney. It applies to everyone in California. So according to Droste, the fact that the legislature hasn't blown property taxes through the stratosphere like they have every other kind of tax means we're all not paying money she thinks we should be.
Prop 13 is the only reason millions of people can still afford to keep their own homes because if the legislature hadn't been muzzled with regard to property taxes, they'd have gone hog wild with them by now and have driven most of the middle and lower classes out of their homes.
My guess is that Disney contracts out a legal firm to watch out for copyright violations and act to intercept them, and the legal firm took initiative.
This is the question I have after reading the article-- how the hell did Disney even know about this?
If the movie was just being shown in a side room to keep kids occupied and not as part of the event itself, then it certainly wasn't mentioned in any of the promotional materials for the event.
Did one of the parents just happen to work for Disney or something? Or was one of them some compulsive narc that is compelled to tattle on everyone for everything? Or do these DVDs automatically report back to Disney if they're played on a smart TV now? Because honestly, I'm having a hard time imagining how the Disney legal team found out what was on a TV in a back room of some school fundraiser 600 miles from L.A.
Same reason he Secret Service pursues credit card fraud and bank fraud.
Same reason the SEC pursues insider traders.
Etc., etc., etc.
The cops catch criminals. The fact that the victims of the crime are businesses, not individuals, doesn't make arresting the criminals any less legitimate.
Also, I'm not sure why you think these are merely civil cases. Mass infringement and sale of the copies for profit easily falls under criminal copyright infringement.
It's not like an HOA moves into the neighborhood and forces you to sign up when you're already living there.
Don't be so sure. An HOA tried to do exactly that to a group of people in Austin, TX. The folks had been living out in the country for decades, and little by little, the city of Austin kept growing, with housing developments moving closer and closer to them until finally, there was a planned community right across the creek in their back yards. And of course this was one of those cookie-cutter neighborhoods where every house was identical and the HOA there hated that there was this other group of homes right next to them, and which appeared to be part of their development due to the proximity. They wanted to enforce all their rules from everything to Christmas lights to vehicle restrictions (the HOA didn't allow anyone to have a pickup truck) to lawn maintenance on these families who had no deed restrictions and had been living there for 50 years before this group of anal-retentive control freaks every showed up. The HOA went to court and asked the government to impose deed restrictions on those properties and to require them to be part of the HOA. The HOA ultimately lost the case, but it was not as easy a win as it should have been for the old-timer families. The court seriously considered the HOA's case.
To my knowledge, they don’t, and I don’t think they could since they aren’t employers.
NDAs aren't limited to employer/employee relationships. For example, I had to sign one to be an audience member at a taping of the TALKING DEAD television show.
Where the constitution gets involved is the threat of suit. Via threat of suit, the HOA is effectively attempting to leverage government power
HOAs "leverage government power" to enforce things that would be violations of the Constitution if done by the government all the time.
The entire system of imposing their rules and restrictions on your private property would be a violation of the 5th Amendment (takings clause) if done by the government. But as a contract between private parties, it's enforceable in court.
On the post: Arizona Legislator Wants To Strip Platforms Of Section 230 Immunity If They're 'Politically Biased'
Re: Re:
What is 'illegal content'?
Other than obscenity-- child porn and the like-- which is not what's under discussion here, what content is illegal?
On the post: Arizona Legislator Wants To Strip Platforms Of Section 230 Immunity If They're 'Politically Biased'
Re:
What's the difference between social justice and justice?
On the post: Arizona Legislator Wants To Strip Platforms Of Section 230 Immunity If They're 'Politically Biased'
Re:
First Amendment issues aside, I'm not sure why this guy thinks a state law can somehow alter or override the provisions of Section 230, which is a federal law.
Last I checked, state legislatures can't amend federal statutes.
On the post: Michigan County Sued For Stealing Cars From Innocent Car Owners Via Civil Forfeiture
Re: Re: Re:
Most cops now carry Faraday bags in their patrol cars and put seized phones into them, which prevent any transmission of electronic signals into or out of the bag.
On the post: Michigan County Sued For Stealing Cars From Innocent Car Owners Via Civil Forfeiture
Re:
Guy loses his car because he SLOWS DOWN on a street the cops have deemed a pros stroll?
FFS, they used to at least need to find drugs or a 'suspicious' amount of cash to steal the car. Now all you have to do is drive into the wrong part of town or tap your brakes in the wrong place and your car goes poof?
Jeezus wept...
On the post: Michigan County Sued For Stealing Cars From Innocent Car Owners Via Civil Forfeiture
Re: Technically...
They don't auction those things off. They're considered abandoned property. Anytime we needed a knife or a Leatherman, we would routinely stop by the TSA offices at the airport and they have barrels full of them that people have discarded at the checkpoints. Just root through them till you find something you like, and voila.
On the post: The End Of Ownership: Tesla Software Updates Giveth... And Tesla Software Updates Taketh Away...
Re: Ownership > Tenancy
Not always true. Sometime the companies reach onto your computer or device and delete things you've paid for. It's happened with eBooks several times.
The only way to ensure it doesn't happen is to backup your entire library onto media that the content company can't reach.
On the post: Disney's Licensing Dogs Charge Underserved School District A Third Of Fundraiser Money For Playing 'Lion King' DVD
Re: Re:
More like "They're full of shit, but they're Disney and they can sue you over this even though the law is on your side, and it will cost you a shit-ton of money to defend the suit and win the case."
On the post: Disney's Licensing Dogs Charge Underserved School District A Third Of Fundraiser Money For Playing 'Lion King' DVD
Re:
Even if that shrink-wrap license were valid, violating it would be a matter of contract law, not copyright law.
Playing a DVD for some kids at a school fundraiser doesn't not violate anything in the actual copyright statute.
On the post: Disney's Licensing Dogs Charge Underserved School District A Third Of Fundraiser Money For Playing 'Lion King' DVD
Re:
Plus, Prop 13 doesn't just apply to big corps like Disney. It applies to everyone in California. So according to Droste, the fact that the legislature hasn't blown property taxes through the stratosphere like they have every other kind of tax means we're all not paying money she thinks we should be.
Prop 13 is the only reason millions of people can still afford to keep their own homes because if the legislature hadn't been muzzled with regard to property taxes, they'd have gone hog wild with them by now and have driven most of the middle and lower classes out of their homes.
On the post: Disney's Licensing Dogs Charge Underserved School District A Third Of Fundraiser Money For Playing 'Lion King' DVD
Re: IP lawyers sicked on a PTA event
This is the question I have after reading the article-- how the hell did Disney even know about this?
If the movie was just being shown in a side room to keep kids occupied and not as part of the event itself, then it certainly wasn't mentioned in any of the promotional materials for the event.
Did one of the parents just happen to work for Disney or something? Or was one of them some compulsive narc that is compelled to tattle on everyone for everything? Or do these DVDs automatically report back to Disney if they're played on a smart TV now? Because honestly, I'm having a hard time imagining how the Disney legal team found out what was on a TV in a back room of some school fundraiser 600 miles from L.A.
On the post: Disney's Licensing Dogs Charge Underserved School District A Third Of Fundraiser Money For Playing 'Lion King' DVD
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disney's Side
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1847-criminal-copyright-infrin gement-17-usc-506a-and-18-usc-2319'
Showing a DVD at a school fundraiser doesn't meet the elements, but that doesn't mean infringement is always a civil matter.
On the post: Like Clockwork, ICE Stops Sports Fans From Advertising Their Favorite Teams For Less Than Full Price
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it is illegal, even for members of Congress:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
Yeah, it is.
On the post: Like Clockwork, ICE Stops Sports Fans From Advertising Their Favorite Teams For Less Than Full Price
Re: Re: Re:
That's not a decision for the government to make. If it's a bad business decision, the market will exact its punishment.
One they are free to make if they choose. It's not the proper place of the government to do it for them.
On the post: Like Clockwork, ICE Stops Sports Fans From Advertising Their Favorite Teams For Less Than Full Price
Re: Re:
Same reason he Secret Service pursues credit card fraud and bank fraud.
Same reason the SEC pursues insider traders.
Etc., etc., etc.
The cops catch criminals. The fact that the victims of the crime are businesses, not individuals, doesn't make arresting the criminals any less legitimate.
Also, I'm not sure why you think these are merely civil cases. Mass infringement and sale of the copies for profit easily falls under criminal copyright infringement.
On the post: Like Clockwork, ICE Stops Sports Fans From Advertising Their Favorite Teams For Less Than Full Price
So should LucasFilm not be allowed to stop people from selling STAR WARS t-shirts and caps?
I mean, after all it's free advertising for their movies. Why should they be allowed to stop other people from cashing in on their IP?
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Re: Re:
Don't be so sure. An HOA tried to do exactly that to a group of people in Austin, TX. The folks had been living out in the country for decades, and little by little, the city of Austin kept growing, with housing developments moving closer and closer to them until finally, there was a planned community right across the creek in their back yards. And of course this was one of those cookie-cutter neighborhoods where every house was identical and the HOA there hated that there was this other group of homes right next to them, and which appeared to be part of their development due to the proximity. They wanted to enforce all their rules from everything to Christmas lights to vehicle restrictions (the HOA didn't allow anyone to have a pickup truck) to lawn maintenance on these families who had no deed restrictions and had been living there for 50 years before this group of anal-retentive control freaks every showed up. The HOA went to court and asked the government to impose deed restrictions on those properties and to require them to be part of the HOA. The HOA ultimately lost the case, but it was not as easy a win as it should have been for the old-timer families. The court seriously considered the HOA's case.
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
NDAs aren't limited to employer/employee relationships. For example, I had to sign one to be an audience member at a taping of the TALKING DEAD television show.
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Re:
And yet they're routinely upheld by courts when legally questioned.
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Re: Re: Constitution
HOAs "leverage government power" to enforce things that would be violations of the Constitution if done by the government all the time.
The entire system of imposing their rules and restrictions on your private property would be a violation of the 5th Amendment (takings clause) if done by the government. But as a contract between private parties, it's enforceable in court.
Next >>