More than a year and a half later, I just checked; the article is still accessible at the HTTP link, but the HTTPS link still returns a "could not connect to server" error.
Looks like this was more a "non-binding opinion piece" than anything else...
The "our" in the second quote you gave refers not to society or the government as a whole, but only to this specific appeals court, and its superiors in the judicial system - i.e., the Supreme Court.
A lower/subordinate court (referred to in the first quote you gave as a "district court") decided that the regulation was unconstitutional. That decision may establish that unconstitutionality for the jurisdiction of that lower court, but it is not enough to establish such for the broader jurisdiction of the circuit court.
Provided that the case at hand does not arise from actions which occurred within the jurisdiction of the disctrict court in question, the circuit court's logic seems solid, if unfortunate and arguably unnecessary.
This type of thing is cropping up increasingly often recently, as far as I can see, and I honestly don't think it's based on the motivations you're arguing against here.
I think these type of trademark-related oppositions, whether to the granting of a new trademark or to the use of a term that's trademarked in a different field, are based not on concern that people will think that the two 'products' are the same but on concern that people will think that the name similarity means that (the owner of) one 'product' has endorsed the other 'product'.
Especially given "moron in a hurry" considerations, this does not seem like an entirely unreasonable concern in many cases.
This may not be what trademark law is currently for, but some (many?) people seem to think that it should cover this, and if you want to convince them otherwise you will need to present arguments which address the concern which they actually have.
For someone who is concerned about consumers being confused by the appearance of endorsement, an argument which objects to their use of trademark by ridiculing the idea of consumers being confused by the product similarity - which is not an idea which they hold - is nothing more than a straw man, so it doesn't serve to convince them of anything.
Extremely belatedly: I'm told that the reason helium is so relatively inexpensive in the US is that the US government has for years, per directive of Congress, been selling off its strategic helium reserve, thus depressing prices.
Of course, this just ends up meaning that the helium gets used for frivolous purposes like party balloons instead of for critical purposes like the one cited here, but that's political football for you...
I don't think the "you" in the part you quoted was a reference to Google; I think he was talking to the people who are wanting to be paid for being indexed.
That is, if they charge Google for being indexed, then maybe Google will decide that they're unworthy of being indexed, and the poster won't have to see their (IHO unworthy) content when he searches Google for something.
That's why he mentions a "domain-based RBL feature" - he wants to be able to blacklist particular domains from the Google search results which he sees, not because he doesn't like Google, but because he doesn't like those sites (and will never follow links to them, so they're useless results to him).
Their counter to this would be James Comey's post-Orlando-shootings comment that "in addition to finding a needle in a haystack, we're called upon to figure out which pieces of hay may later become needles" - that is, to figure out which people who haven't gone the terrorist route yet are going to do it, so that the attack can be prevented before it happens.
I'm not sure I agree that they should be called upon to do this, but I can't really argue that they aren't being so called upon.
Actually, I think the background is that he had been removed from the watchlist(s) for lack of sufficient justification to keep him there, and then he went and did the things which they would have been watching for.
So the rationale would be that he shouldn't have been dropped from the watchlist, and achieving that would require broadening the range of what justifies being on the watchlist.
The argument is that since the second judge granted the warrant, there was probable cause after all, they just didn't have the basis to demonstrate it at the time of applying to the first judge.
The obvious counterargument to that (although not necessarily the one which the court is using) would seem to be that if they didn't have the basis to demonstrate it at the time of the seizure, they did not have probable cause for that seizure itself.
Re: Re: Except in their imaginations, or paychecks, or blackmail
Actually, I can't see where it does say that.
It says that "the right to be secure against unreasonable searches shall not be violated" and that "no warrants shall issue except as described here", but it does not say that "no search for which no warrant has been issued shall be considered reasonable", or indeed draw any other apparent connection between these two statements.
The usual interpretation of what it does say is that a warrant (supported as described) is what substantiates reasonability, but as far as I can see, the text itself does not seem to explicitly indicate any such thing.
It's not even that; Comcast only went up eight points, Time-Warner Cable went up sixteen. It's just that TWC started from so far behind that even that big a jump still leaves it three points behind Comcast.
Re: We commonly complain around here about there being no good presidential candidates.
As you implicitly note in passing, the only way out of this bind is to eliminate first-past-the-post single-choice voting.
And I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the only way the better option (ranked-choice/ranked-preference voting) will ever get implemented, at least in the U. S. of A., is if it's done from the bottom up - in towns and municipalities, then in counties, then in states, then for federal elections one state at a time, and finally on a nationwide level (if only for the electoral college, if that even still exists by the time we get that far).
I'm moving towards activism in that direction myself, for my own area; if you get a chance to push for it in your own local government, you never know what bit of advocacy might make the difference.
Actually, if you look at it in a historical context, the entire US political establishment - including the Democrats - is significantly to the right of what was historically called the center. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a genuine leftist the US national political scene has seen in decades, at least.
(Source: the graphs from The Political Compass, https://politicalcompass.org/. On their charts, both the Democrats and the Republicans are in the right/authoritarian quadrant, although the Republicans are considerably farther in that direction - and, for comparison, every single person I've yet persuaded to take the see-where-you-fall quiz has been in the left/libertarian quadrant. Along with such historical figures as Gandhi.)
Re: Re: Re: Denton should play publisher whack-a-mole
On any grounds which anyone who wants to file a suit against not-Gawker may raise, just the same as he currently does with Gawker.
That's the insidious part of this strategy: your actual reason for going after the target never gets brought into the courts (and in fact you never do either). All that gets brought into court is one proxy after another, until the target no longer has the resources to fight back.
If the target changes its name or other identity, as long as you can still find them, you can still go after them the same way; you know they're the same people, and you're still hostile to those people for the same reasons, and the strategy you're using lets you avoid having those reasons even brought into the picture - much less having them effectively challenged, and still less having you enjoined from continuing to pursue that strategy.
I think I can see the rationale, actually. It would be something like:
* Thanks to modern technology, once these things have been created, the cost to create a new copy is essentially zero.
* Therefore, once the thing has been created, the natural price of a copy of the thing is free.
* Therefore, any attempt to charge a non-zero price for such a copy constitutes overcharging.
* Therefore, someone who sets out to create such a thing should go into it with the expectation of never being able to charge for copies of it.
* Therefore, it is wrong for a creator to attempt or intend to charge for such a copy.
* Therefore, it is wrong to provide monetary support for any effort which is such an attempt or has such an intention.
* Therefore, the AC at hand refuses to contribute to a Kickstarter whose end product will be something infinitely reproducible but for copies of which money will be charged.
I'm not sure I'd agree with the whole thing myself, but at a glance, it seems to hold together internally well enough.
I think his point is that it is Republicans who are doing it: a Republican Congress, the same one which has reflexively opposed anything the Democratic President's administration tries to do. (With the odd exception of the USTR.)
While a Republican Congress might indeed weaken the PCLOB under a Republican President as well, they would be doing it for different reasons from the reason they're doing it under a Democratic President.
This being why I'm increasingly convinced the only way we'll get political reform in this country is if we start by implementing ranked-preference voting (Condorcet-satisfying, if at all possible), from the bottom up - i.e., first in cities and counties, then at the state level, on up until it's being used in federal elections.
Otherwise, the spoiler effect will serve to prevent enough people not beholden to the existing powers from getting into office, and the people in power will have no incentive to try to get things changed - because the changes which are needed, though good in the larger picture, would have the side effect of making it easier for other people to win their seats.
Oh, I agree, at least in general; there may be cases where people have heard of the Pirate Bay but don't know where to find it (especially since, IIRC, it's lived at several different addresses over the course of its history), and won't be able to track it down without a suitable search result, but they're unlikely to make a significant difference in the big picture.
I'm just trying to parse his position, and aid in understanding (for whatever good that may do), as best I can.
Google is 100% aware and knowledgeable of the specific bad activity of the Pirate Bay, etc. Right, and go do a Google search that links to infringing content on the Pirate Bay. It doesn't show up. I just ran a few google searches myself trying to find any infringing content on the Pirate Bay and couldn't find any (at least not on the front page, which is all that matters). So... yeah. Basically they did what you asked. And you're too clueless to realize it.
But if you search for "The Pirate Bay" (quotes not required), Google still gives you a link to the site.
I think that's what he's objecting to; I think he's proposing that "The Pirate Bay is used overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) for infringement, and Google knows that, so Google should not return any results from The Pirate Bay at all, no matter what search term is used".
On the post: NY Times Urges News Sites To Embrace HTTPS/SSL... In An Article That Can't Be Read Via HTTPS
Re: Re: Implementation fails
Looks like this was more a "non-binding opinion piece" than anything else...
On the post: Court Says Free Speech Rights For Prisoners Not 'Clearly Established,' Gives Pass To Retaliatory Actions By Officials
Re: I don't understand
A lower/subordinate court (referred to in the first quote you gave as a "district court") decided that the regulation was unconstitutional. That decision may establish that unconstitutionality for the jurisdiction of that lower court, but it is not enough to establish such for the broader jurisdiction of the circuit court.
Provided that the case at hand does not arise from actions which occurred within the jurisdiction of the disctrict court in question, the circuit court's logic seems solid, if unfortunate and arguably unnecessary.
On the post: Concussion Protocol: Can You Tell The Difference Between Soda And One Half Of A Football Team?
I think these type of trademark-related oppositions, whether to the granting of a new trademark or to the use of a term that's trademarked in a different field, are based not on concern that people will think that the two 'products' are the same but on concern that people will think that the name similarity means that (the owner of) one 'product' has endorsed the other 'product'.
Especially given "moron in a hurry" considerations, this does not seem like an entirely unreasonable concern in many cases.
This may not be what trademark law is currently for, but some (many?) people seem to think that it should cover this, and if you want to convince them otherwise you will need to present arguments which address the concern which they actually have.
For someone who is concerned about consumers being confused by the appearance of endorsement, an argument which objects to their use of trademark by ridiculing the idea of consumers being confused by the product similarity - which is not an idea which they hold - is nothing more than a straw man, so it doesn't serve to convince them of anything.
On the post: DailyDirt: Healthcare Nightmares
Re: Re: Re: "Moore's law" and medicine
Of course, this just ends up meaning that the helium gets used for frivolous purposes like party balloons instead of for critical purposes like the one cited here, but that's political football for you...
On the post: Europe Is About To Create A Link Tax: Time To Speak Out Against It
Re: Re: Actually I think it's a great idea.
That is, if they charge Google for being indexed, then maybe Google will decide that they're unworthy of being indexed, and the poster won't have to see their (IHO unworthy) content when he searches Google for something.
That's why he mentions a "domain-based RBL feature" - he wants to be able to blacklist particular domains from the Google search results which he sees, not because he doesn't like Google, but because he doesn't like those sites (and will never follow links to them, so they're useless results to him).
On the post: Both Trump And Clinton Suggest Expanding Mass Surveillance, Bogus Watch Lists After Attack In Orlando
Re: Re: Call the authorities
I'm not sure I agree that they should be called upon to do this, but I can't really argue that they aren't being so called upon.
On the post: Both Trump And Clinton Suggest Expanding Mass Surveillance, Bogus Watch Lists After Attack In Orlando
Re:
So the rationale would be that he shouldn't have been dropped from the watchlist, and achieving that would require broadening the range of what justifies being on the watchlist.
On the post: Court Tells Cops They Can't Seize Luggage And Send It Hundreds Of Miles Away In Hopes Of Generating Probable Cause
Re:
The obvious counterargument to that (although not necessarily the one which the court is using) would seem to be that if they didn't have the basis to demonstrate it at the time of the seizure, they did not have probable cause for that seizure itself.
On the post: Appeals Court: As Long As The Government Has 'Good Faith,' It Can Root Around In Your Digital Files As Much As It Wants
Re: Re: Except in their imaginations, or paychecks, or blackmail
It says that "the right to be secure against unreasonable searches shall not be violated" and that "no warrants shall issue except as described here", but it does not say that "no search for which no warrant has been issued shall be considered reasonable", or indeed draw any other apparent connection between these two statements.
The usual interpretation of what it does say is that a warrant (supported as described) is what substantiates reasonability, but as far as I can see, the text itself does not seem to explicitly indicate any such thing.
On the post: Study Shows Comcast Sucks Just A Tiny Bit Less This Year
Re:
On the post: State Dept. Press Briefing Video Had Tough Fox News Questioning Excised, Streisand Effect Takes Over
Re: We commonly complain around here about there being no good presidential candidates.
And I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the only way the better option (ranked-choice/ranked-preference voting) will ever get implemented, at least in the U. S. of A., is if it's done from the bottom up - in towns and municipalities, then in counties, then in states, then for federal elections one state at a time, and finally on a nationwide level (if only for the electoral college, if that even still exists by the time we get that far).
I'm moving towards activism in that direction myself, for my own area; if you get a chance to push for it in your own local government, you never know what bit of advocacy might make the difference.
On the post: This Is Bad: Court Says Remastered Old Songs Get A Brand New Copyright
Re: Re: How does this affect the original?
On the post: Burr-Feinstein Anti-Encryption Bill Has No Support, Won't Be Moving Forward Anytime Soon
Re: Re:
(Source: the graphs from The Political Compass, https://politicalcompass.org/. On their charts, both the Democrats and the Republicans are in the right/authoritarian quadrant, although the Republicans are considerably farther in that direction - and, for comparison, every single person I've yet persuaded to take the see-where-you-fall quiz has been in the left/libertarian quadrant. Along with such historical figures as Gandhi.)
On the post: Yes, A Billionaire Looking To Destroy A Media Organization Through Lawsuits Is A Big Deal Even If You Don't Like The Media Organization
Re: Re: Re: Denton should play publisher whack-a-mole
That's the insidious part of this strategy: your actual reason for going after the target never gets brought into the courts (and in fact you never do either). All that gets brought into court is one proxy after another, until the target no longer has the resources to fight back.
If the target changes its name or other identity, as long as you can still find them, you can still go after them the same way; you know they're the same people, and you're still hostile to those people for the same reasons, and the strategy you're using lets you avoid having those reasons even brought into the picture - much less having them effectively challenged, and still less having you enjoined from continuing to pursue that strategy.
On the post: You're Entitled To Your Own Opinions, But Not Your Own Facts About Copyright, NY Times Edition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
* Thanks to modern technology, once these things have been created, the cost to create a new copy is essentially zero.
* Therefore, once the thing has been created, the natural price of a copy of the thing is free.
* Therefore, any attempt to charge a non-zero price for such a copy constitutes overcharging.
* Therefore, someone who sets out to create such a thing should go into it with the expectation of never being able to charge for copies of it.
* Therefore, it is wrong for a creator to attempt or intend to charge for such a copy.
* Therefore, it is wrong to provide monetary support for any effort which is such an attempt or has such an intention.
* Therefore, the AC at hand refuses to contribute to a Kickstarter whose end product will be something infinitely reproducible but for copies of which money will be charged.
I'm not sure I'd agree with the whole thing myself, but at a glance, it seems to hold together internally well enough.
On the post: DailyDirt: More Miraculous Manmade Materials
Re: CO2NCRETE
On the post: Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?
Re: Re:
While a Republican Congress might indeed weaken the PCLOB under a Republican President as well, they would be doing it for different reasons from the reason they're doing it under a Democratic President.
On the post: Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?
Re: The problem is, you're not voting FOR anyone.
Otherwise, the spoiler effect will serve to prevent enough people not beholden to the existing powers from getting into office, and the people in power will have no incentive to try to get things changed - because the changes which are needed, though good in the larger picture, would have the side effect of making it easier for other people to win their seats.
On the post: A Dozen Bad Ideas That Were Raised At The Copyright Office's DMCA Roundtables
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm just trying to parse his position, and aid in understanding (for whatever good that may do), as best I can.
On the post: A Dozen Bad Ideas That Were Raised At The Copyright Office's DMCA Roundtables
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that's what he's objecting to; I think he's proposing that "The Pirate Bay is used overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) for infringement, and Google knows that, so Google should not return any results from The Pirate Bay at all, no matter what search term is used".
Next >>