You're missing something very fundamental here, and you've repeated your error several times in this thread. If you sue me for defamation, the burden is not on me to prove that my statement is true--it's on you to prove that it's false. The burden is also on you to prove that I was at least negligent in making the false statement. If you're a public figure, as Shiva is, the burden is on you to prove that I lied--that I made my false statement knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard of its truth. Only once you meet that burden (as well as the burden of showing other points that aren't in dispute in the Shiva case) do I need to prove anything.
I hadn't been aware of this podcast, so checked it out and have listened to the first episode (so far). Reminds me a lot, in concept, of James Burke's 1978 series Connections, which I found quite interesting.
The journalists don't report the names of sexual assault victims, for example.
...nor even of those who claim to be such victims, even if their claims are subsequently (and conclusively) shown to be false. But that a matter of their own view of journalistic ethics, not any remotely legal requirement.
Yes, there are ads on Youtube TV, and no, you can't skip them (at least when watching live). I believe, but am not certain, they're the same ads shown OTA.
I don't know. Do any of those things have anything to do with the subject of this article? Or even with other subjects typically discussed here? No? Then take your crap somewhere else.
And the Boston Globe published it. Should the Boston Globe now be liable for Taplin's deranged understanding of the law?
Of course not--but only because being a complete blithering idiot isn't tortious. But if, say, he'd defamed someone in his idiocy, the Globe would be potentially liable as well. It wouldn't be an easy win for the plaintiff--he'd have to show that the Globe was at least negligent in publishing the defamatory statement--but the potential would be there. As it would be for Google/Facebook/Youtube/whoever if they affirmatively published tortious content.
As an aside, I'm pretty sure he's actually talking about CDA sec 230 for most of his rant, not DMCA sec 512. It's easy to understand the confusion, though--both are pieces of idiotic, hysteria-fueled, Clinton-era legislation that tried (and failed) to police the Internet.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. A much better ground to have decided this case would have been that the court's earlier decision in Cetacean was idiotic, and that animals simply aren't proper parties. Period. It would have reached the same result here, but the rationale would be better.
...and sadly, things not too far from this are actually happening. And it's not even close to clear what the GDPR requires the site operator to do in such cases.
Re: tons of companies having no idea what they actually need to do
Sure, it affects the Facebooks and the Googles and the Microsofts. And it affects the small US-based nonprofit that runs a forum that has members in .eu. And there's no clear guidance as yet as to what the latter is supposed to do when a user comes and says, "give me a copy of all my personal information and everything I've ever posted in a portable format, then delete it."
Re: Advocating that alcoholics be let behind wheel to endanger all.
Apparently "on-topic reasonable argument" means "grossly misrepresenting the point of the article in order to set up a straw man." If the laws on DUI are going to be tied to a specific blood alcohol content (as they are), then the devices used to ascertain that blood alcohol content (and therefore send people to jail) need to be verifiably accurate. That, and only that, is the point of the article.
"A Modest Proposal" is a pretty well-known work. "Famous" might be a more accurate word. If OP's use of the phrase "modest proposal", combined with a ridiculously extreme position, were not enough to make the connection for you, perhaps the fault didn't lie with OP.
Karl, you keep mentioning shampoo in the hotel rooms, but none of what you quote says anything about that--and the one time I've stayed in a Motel 6, they didn't provide any. But the other examples she gives (mattress, sheets, plates, etc.) are not "bundles", but essential to the use of the product being purchased. What's the general purpose of a hotel room? A place to sleep for the night (and even if sleeping, as such, isn't in the plans, use of the bed is). But IP data service isn't a necessary component of TV or phone service, and TV and phone services certainly aren't necessary to providing IP data service.
However, the writer makes a good point that the marginal cost to the broadband companies is minimal, especially for phone service. That still doesn't explain why my Internet service is $100/mo cheaper when bundled with phone service than it is without it. That is, my monthly bill for Internet + phone is $100 less than it would be for Internet only. So, I'm signed up for their phone service, I have their box hooked up burning a few watts, and I have three phone numbers that I don't know what they are. And somehow that costs them less?
Well, raw honey is a real thing--it's honey that hasn't been extensively filtered after being extracted from the hive. Filtration involves heat and pressure, both of which harm the honey (in terms of taste, if nothing else). If he couldn't even explain that, that's even more lame than I'd have expected from this sort.
Are they? I'm not privy to the fee agreements (and I doubt you are either), but a case of this nature would be much more likely to be taken on a contingency fee. And in that case, I-can't-believe-it's-a-law-firm doesn't get anything when they (predictably) lose.
It's probably worth pointing out that in New York, the Court of Appeals is the highest court--what most states call the Supreme Court. This isn't simply an intermediate appellate court, it's the highest court in New York State.
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny
Re: Why the Animus?
You're missing something very fundamental here, and you've repeated your error several times in this thread. If you sue me for defamation, the burden is not on me to prove that my statement is true--it's on you to prove that it's false. The burden is also on you to prove that I was at least negligent in making the false statement. If you're a public figure, as Shiva is, the burden is on you to prove that I lied--that I made my false statement knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard of its truth. Only once you meet that burden (as well as the burden of showing other points that aren't in dispute in the Shiva case) do I need to prove anything.
On the post: Listen To Stephen Fry Perfectly Analogize The Moral Panics Around Facebook To The Ones Over The Printing Press
Interesting Podcast
On the post: UK Judge Says Accurate Journalism Is An Invasion Of Privacy In Cliff Richard Case
Re: The Judge is right...
...nor even of those who claim to be such victims, even if their claims are subsequently (and conclusively) shown to be false. But that a matter of their own view of journalistic ethics, not any remotely legal requirement.
On the post: Progress Isn't Linear: YouTube TV's World Cup Flub Threatens Public's Trust For Sports Streaming
Re: Re:
On the post: State Appeals Court Tosses Defamation Suit Against Lawyer Who Wrote About Teen Driver Who Injured His Client
Re: Re:
On the post: NY Times, Winner Of A Key 1st Amendment Case, Suddenly Seems Upset That 1st Amendment Protects Conservatives Too
Re: And is not a one-time slip or relevant, it's ongoing assertions:
On the post: Boston Globe Posts Hilarious Fact-Challenged Interview About Regulating Google, Without Any Acknowledgement Of Errors
Globe's liability
Of course not--but only because being a complete blithering idiot isn't tortious. But if, say, he'd defamed someone in his idiocy, the Globe would be potentially liable as well. It wouldn't be an easy win for the plaintiff--he'd have to show that the Globe was at least negligent in publishing the defamatory statement--but the potential would be there. As it would be for Google/Facebook/Youtube/whoever if they affirmatively published tortious content.
As an aside, I'm pretty sure he's actually talking about CDA sec 230 for most of his rant, not DMCA sec 512. It's easy to understand the confusion, though--both are pieces of idiotic, hysteria-fueled, Clinton-era legislation that tried (and failed) to police the Internet.
On the post: Legislators Reintroduce Pro-Encryption Bills After FBI Destroys Its Own 'Going Dark' Narrative
Re: Re: #ApplevFBI
On the post: The Monkey Selfie Lawsuit Will Never, Ever Die: Appeals Court Judge Wants A Do Over
Not necessarily bad
On the post: ICE Trying To Deport Journalist For Reporting On Abusive ICE Behavior
More honest headline
On the post: Many Of Those Desperate GDPR Emails You've Been Getting Are Violating A Different EU Regulation
Re: GDPR Nighmare Scenario #634
On the post: Many Of Those Desperate GDPR Emails You've Been Getting Are Violating A Different EU Regulation
Re: tons of companies having no idea what they actually need to do
On the post: Stormy Daniels' Lawyer Sends Totally Bogus, Censorial Defamation Threat To Reporter He Doesn't Like
...but...
On the post: Researchers Find Breathalyzers To Be Just More Faulty Cop Tech Capable Of Putting Innocent People In Jail
Re: Advocating that alcoholics be let behind wheel to endanger all.
On the post: Court: FBI Agents Can Be Held Accountable For Tossing Immigrants On The No-Fly List Because They Refused To Be Informants
"No fly, no buy"
On the post: War Of Words Between Anti-Vaxxers Results In An Unconstitutional Gag Order
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Washington Post Thinks Overpaying For Broadband Bundles Is A Hoot
"Bundling"
Karl, you keep mentioning shampoo in the hotel rooms, but none of what you quote says anything about that--and the one time I've stayed in a Motel 6, they didn't provide any. But the other examples she gives (mattress, sheets, plates, etc.) are not "bundles", but essential to the use of the product being purchased. What's the general purpose of a hotel room? A place to sleep for the night (and even if sleeping, as such, isn't in the plans, use of the bed is). But IP data service isn't a necessary component of TV or phone service, and TV and phone services certainly aren't necessary to providing IP data service.
However, the writer makes a good point that the marginal cost to the broadband companies is minimal, especially for phone service. That still doesn't explain why my Internet service is $100/mo cheaper when bundled with phone service than it is without it. That is, my monthly bill for Internet + phone is $100 less than it would be for Internet only. So, I'm signed up for their phone service, I have their box hooked up burning a few watts, and I have three phone numbers that I don't know what they are. And somehow that costs them less?
On the post: Judge Agrees: Perfectly Fine For Google To Deny Ad Placement For 'Honey Cures Cancer' Claims
Re: Pain in the Hive
On the post: Court Shuts Down Yet Another Lawsuit Against Social Media Companies Over Terrorist Attacks
Are they? I'm not privy to the fee agreements (and I doubt you are either), but a case of this nature would be much more likely to be taken on a contingency fee. And in that case, I-can't-believe-it's-a-law-firm doesn't get anything when they (predictably) lose.
On the post: Appeals Court Rules That GTA5 Didn't Infringe On Lindsay Lohan's Likeness Rights
Court of Appeals
Next >>