I'm hoping that "the press" rolls this up, right to the doorsteps of Comcast et al.
No doubt they are several intermediaries away from the people that submitted the bogus comments, but paying PR companies to submit fake comments should be treated just like hiring a hit man -- a conspiracy charge on top of the crime itself.
I wonder if Michael Francois Bujaldon has managed to eliminate the name Michael Francois Bujaldon from being mentioned in relation to a lawsuit with Michael Francois Bujaldon as a party.
I doubt that Michael Francois Bujaldon has accomplished his goal. Certainly someone searching for Michael Francois Bujaldon will find articles mentioning Michael Francois Bujaldon or at least comments talking about the Michael Francois Bujaldon lawsuit.
Most of them were small scale recordings from local bands (probably CD-Rs with ink jet printing), but I've had commercially pressed ones that have had the aluminum layer delaminate (?!) or apparently corrode.
I've heard people claim "that can't happen", but am I going to believe them or my eyes?
I have to wonder how that talking point plays to the public.
They are paying $200 to Comcast as a monopoly, and $10 to Netflix in a competitive market. Comcast claiming that Netflix isn't paying its way rings pretty hollow.
I think that it much more closely reflects the mindset of Comcast executives: "we are providing the highway, we should get the tolls plus a cut of the sales of all the businesses reachable by the highway".
Investigative reporters providing a misleading representation of themselves is a long-standing pattern. The plaintiff might try to argue fraud from the misrepresentation, but it's unlikely to go anywhere.
I do wonder if they have thought this through to the trial. Cohen will be taking the stand. Perhaps there will be a jury. Perhaps cameras in the courtroom. Clips will be shown repeatedly. Late night talk shows will be covering the highlights. Internet memes will abound.
Of course the big ISPs have created their own problem, and federal rules that preempt state regulations will now take much longer to implement, and be subject to much stronger court challenges.
They are influenced by their upbringing, but they have strong, unique personalities from early in life. You can screw them up, but you generally can't fix them.
Saying bad things about a person or corporation known to be litigious will not *force* them to file a bogus lawsuit. They are choosing to abuse the courts to punish someone, and now doing so won't work as well.
If the situation (and speech) is truly defamatory, then anti-SLAPP legislation wouldn't apply.
There is a reason that the DoD isn't checking carefully.
It's difficult and expensive getting surplus gear off of the inventory list. This program is an easy way to document the disposition of equipment. Just transfer it and you are finished.
That doesn't excuse the horrible idea of transferring military equipment to police forces, but it does explain the motivation.
Re: Re: "SOMEONE is going to pay us what we deserve!"
Accepting everything else is true, why would $5M be a reasonable amount for damages?
"They broke a contract!" seems to be your stance. But contracts are broken all of the time. Generally the 'little people' get screwed when that happens. A judge decides the actual damages, perhaps adds a bit for court fees, and both parties pay their own lawyers. If the lawyer fees are more than the amount in dispute, it's not worth going to court.
But somehow Intellectual Property is immensely more valuable, even when the demonstrated nationwide market is less than the cost of a basic bathroom remodel.
An easy distinction in that case would be that an individual proprietor would have the right to decline specific work, even from a protected class. A corporate entity would not.
Or a similar distinction with an equivalent effect would be that a business with non-family employees would be subject to non-discrimination laws. If you want the legal protection of a corporation, your corporation needs to be non-discriminator. You, as an individual, have the right to be a racist. Your corporation does not.
You shouldn't always assume that the people involved are incompetent.
I've seen many cases where it appears that the "mistake" was made in the public interest. Every time I revisit the topic, I am freshly amused by the "sexiest man alive" publicity, where a reporter at the China's _People's Daily_ treated an Onion story as a real one. Perhaps the reporter was legitimately fooled. Perhaps the people reviewing the story before publication were also fooled. Perhaps not.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Georgia's Laws (Including Annotations) Are Not Protected By Copyright And Free To Share
Re: look out NFPAyou're next
The first part of the analysis explicitly differentiates this case from the situation where externally written code is incorporated by reference.
On the post: Boeing Accused Of Covert, Coordinated Op-Ed Smear Campaign Against Space X
Re: LOL
It's why "corporations are people" is fundamentally flawed. People generally have a broad view of what they want out of government and society.
On the post: FBI's Latest Crime Stats Continue To Undermine AG Sessions' Criminal Apocalypse Fantasies
Misleading with percentages.
If you gain 10% on that, you have 88.
If you have a 50% loss then a 50% gain, you are only back to 75.
On the post: Louisiana's Attorney General Wants To Break Up Google Over 'Bias'
Re: I can see a rationale for breaking up Google... but Facebook?
If you want to place an online advertisement, you will very likely to be going to either Google or Facebook.
However there is vigorous competition between the two, which is a good argument that neither has monopoly power.
On the post: New York Times Sues FCC With Eye On Bogus Russian Net Neutrality Comments
No doubt they are several intermediaries away from the people that submitted the bogus comments, but paying PR companies to submit fake comments should be treated just like hiring a hit man -- a conspiracy charge on top of the crime itself.
On the post: GDPR Being Used To Try To Disappear Public US Court Docket
I doubt that Michael Francois Bujaldon has accomplished his goal. Certainly someone searching for Michael Francois Bujaldon will find articles mentioning Michael Francois Bujaldon or at least comments talking about the Michael Francois Bujaldon lawsuit.
On the post: Apple Didn't Delete That Guys iTunes Movies, But What Happened Still Shows The Insanity Of Copyright
Globalism: it is just for the corporations
As a worker I'm supposed to compete against low wage labor, but my $160 textbook costs $6 in India. (The only difference: lower quality paper.)
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies
Re: Re: Re: Lost
Most of them were small scale recordings from local bands (probably CD-Rs with ink jet printing), but I've had commercially pressed ones that have had the aluminum layer delaminate (?!) or apparently corrode.
I've heard people claim "that can't happen", but am I going to believe them or my eyes?
On the post: ISPs Push Employees To Urge Governor Brown Veto New California Net Neutrality Bill
They are paying $200 to Comcast as a monopoly, and $10 to Netflix in a competitive market. Comcast claiming that Netflix isn't paying its way rings pretty hollow.
I think that it much more closely reflects the mindset of Comcast executives: "we are providing the highway, we should get the tolls plus a cut of the sales of all the businesses reachable by the highway".
On the post: Judge Roy Moore Sues Sacha Baron Cohen For Ruining His Immaculate Reputation
Re: Re:
I do wonder if they have thought this through to the trial. Cohen will be taking the stand. Perhaps there will be a jury. Perhaps cameras in the courtroom. Clips will be shown repeatedly. Late night talk shows will be covering the highlights. Internet memes will abound.
On the post: California Shakes Off ISP Lobbyists, Embraces Real Net Neutrality
Federal preemption
Of course the big ISPs have created their own problem, and federal rules that preempt state regulations will now take much longer to implement, and be subject to much stronger court challenges.
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
Re: Well, if you insist...
On the post: Flordia AG Somehow Pivots To The Danger Of Video Games After The Latest Florida Shooting
Re:
They are influenced by their upbringing, but they have strong, unique personalities from early in life. You can screw them up, but you generally can't fix them.
On the post: Billionaire Steve Wynn, Who Once Tried To Kill Nevada's Anti-SLAPP Law, Loses Defamation Case Under That Law
Re: Re: A Slapp in the face
Saying bad things about a person or corporation known to be litigious will not *force* them to file a bogus lawsuit. They are choosing to abuse the courts to punish someone, and now doing so won't work as well.
If the situation (and speech) is truly defamatory, then anti-SLAPP legislation wouldn't apply.
On the post: Two-Person Police Department's Million Dollar Military Gear Grab Ends In Arrest Of Police Chief
Re: Where are the Feds?
It's difficult and expensive getting surplus gear off of the inventory list. This program is an easy way to document the disposition of equipment. Just transfer it and you are finished.
That doesn't excuse the horrible idea of transferring military equipment to police forces, but it does explain the motivation.
On the post: Movie Company Sues Post-Production Studio For $5 Million For Leaking 'Kickboxer' Film That Grossed $5k Domestically
Re: Re: "SOMEONE is going to pay us what we deserve!"
"They broke a contract!" seems to be your stance. But contracts are broken all of the time. Generally the 'little people' get screwed when that happens. A judge decides the actual damages, perhaps adds a bit for court fees, and both parties pay their own lawyers. If the lawyer fees are more than the amount in dispute, it's not worth going to court.
But somehow Intellectual Property is immensely more valuable, even when the demonstrated nationwide market is less than the cost of a basic bathroom remodel.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or a similar distinction with an equivalent effect would be that a business with non-family employees would be subject to non-discrimination laws. If you want the legal protection of a corporation, your corporation needs to be non-discriminator. You, as an individual, have the right to be a racist. Your corporation does not.
On the post: Prenda Scam Boss, Paul Hansmeier, Pleads Guilty
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge In Broward County Documents Case Decides The First Amendment Doesn't Cover These Public Records
Re: Technically stupid
I've seen many cases where it appears that the "mistake" was made in the public interest. Every time I revisit the topic, I am freshly amused by the "sexiest man alive" publicity, where a reporter at the China's _People's Daily_ treated an Onion story as a real one. Perhaps the reporter was legitimately fooled. Perhaps the people reviewing the story before publication were also fooled. Perhaps not.
On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Border Patrol Agent's Murder Of 16-Year-Old Mexican Citizen
If he is not covered by qualified immunity, on what grounds could extradition be refused?
Next >>