Re: Re: Why read badly written blogs like Leslie Burns'?
Talking to people willing to talk, sure. But people who don't have ideas, but rather throw out polemical grenades, don't deserve being part of the conversation.
In short, she's a nobody, with no original ideas, no persuasive arguments, and nothing to recommend her.
There are plenty of folks who are so-called "pro-ip" with ideas, with original thoughts, and persuasive arguments that should be recommended.
And why post about their nonsense? It only gives them exposure for poorly articulated, reactionary, and idiotic ideas.
Look, maybe I missed the IP-argument boat; I don't even know who this lass is. Her bio makes her out to be a creative professional with a law degree.
News flash, most lawyers don't know much about copyright or IP generally. (It's not a required course at any law school I know.)
Perhaps she does, but she doesn't have any good arguments about it. I'd doubt she'd have much luck in real copyright litigation. And I don't see her publishing anything except poorly written blog posts.
So stop doing her a favor and stop responding to nonsense. This doesn't seem to be a lady who's copyright ideas should be taken seriously.
The alleged copyright holder may have different rights in acquiring copyright depending on their jurisdiction. So the U.S.-based analysis of authorship by Mr. Masnick might not apply in all jurisdictions.
However, the fair-use exceptions and the DMCA takedown process (if ever properly used) will fall under U.S. law.
Perhaps, but I've seen early copies of the book. The images on the shirts are similar to some of those images (which are now in the public domain).
I haven't read the opinion, so I don't know if it states where the t-shirt folks got their images, or if an analysis of the images occurred, but it's a valid point.
And of course I know the folks at Techdirt know this.
Still, it's important to fight back against false labels. Copyright infringement isn't theft and isn't piracy—it's violation of a copy right. Still illegal, just not theft or piracy.
This is an insane ruling. It greatly conflicts with Feist v. Rural Telecommunications. You can't take non-copyrighted data or works (public domain works are not copyrighted, and cannot be) and capture them in a copyright for a creative, derivative work.
It's called thin copyright. It's the reason copying the data in a phone book is allowed, but photocopying the phonebook and calling it your own is not.
What the heck was the 8th Circuit smoking? I hope they appeal, this is a terrible, terrible ruling that ignores Supreme Court precedent.
Mr. Pascazi does not really understand trademark law, it appears. While he is correct that many civil law countries have a first-to-file process, that does not mean they have no ability to challenge the issuance of the mark.
A trademark must be a source identifier. In other words, Mr. Pascazi's 'client' must be recognized as the source of a product by consumers if the mark Bitcoin is used.
As for enforcing international marks in the U.S., this is not as easily done as Mr. Pascazi would hope. Especially if he is able to obtain a registration abroad on such shaky grounds. It could still be subject to the same cancellation process as a U.S. mark.
The question is whether Mr. Pascazi will truly try and enforce a foreign mark on foreign soil. Paying international lawyers is not cheap.
And will he continue to maintain the mark and defend it against attacks?
Mr. Pascazi's client is over-reaching. I recommend Mr. Pascazi or his lawyer consult real trademark attorneys about this. They might receive more thorough advice.
Defamation is arbitrary in one sense: it's a fact-based determination often left for a jury.
As to what is defamation; opinion is not. One way to look at defamation is that it's an intentional untruthful statement about another that harms that persons reputation.
Opinions, however, are not defamation because they are not fact — they cannot be said to be truthful or untruthful.
Think of this fact scenario:
Someone posts on a doctor review site that a doctor's bedside manner was not great.
"This doctor is cold and I felt I never connected with him. He also left me sitting in the room waiting for hours each time I went. He never talked to me when he examined me. When he did talk, he was annoying."
Which parts of the statement are facts and which opinion? Two facts stand out: leaving the person sitting in the room for hours and never talking. You could prove or disprove those facts. They could be said to be truthful or non-turthful.
Compare with "the doctor is cold" and "I never connected with him." Those are opinions. You can't really prove those in court; they're based on the patient's feelings. Similarly, the belief the doctor was annoying is an opinion.
Opinions and facts can be wrapped together, however. Take, for example, "he never talked to me." You might argue that it's clearly an exaggeration and indicates the patient's belief (and therefore opinion) that the doctor didn't make and effort to communicate well. You might also argue that it says what it says: he literally never talked to the patient.
When facts and opinions get intertwined, it creates a fact-based question the court must consider. Sometimes, though, opinions are just opinions and facts are just facts.
Hope that sheds some light.
This doctor (and his lawyer) are likely going to lose. U.S. defamation cases can be quite difficult to win, and courts defer intuitively to the First Amendment quite a bit.
Apple's service can't necessarily identify who has holds the right to possess the music and who is the infringer. On top of that, it can't provide evidence of distribution and copying.
In short, it might be able to provide an idea of the scope of copyright violations, but it can't prove anything for a specific user. More information would be necessary to sustain a claim in court.
A passenger is given a devil's choice — have their 4th Amendment rights violated through a technological strip search, or have them violated as a result of an enhanced patdown that is like a strip search but with your clothes on.
My hope is that the crazy Tea Party folks finally get something back and take out the TSA. Most Americans aren't cowards, and most Americans don't want useless security.
After all, those who would chose safety over liberty deserve neither.
You forgot walking. At least within a reasonable distance of the border. Which might be, in the eyes of a court, 100 miles or more. Or near a border entry, like an international airport.
I also have a paper arguing for reasonable suspicion being required in laptop border searches, and it also goes over the border search exception here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1469292
As for other transportation related searches, there is good reason to think the TSA may be overstepping its bounds, but there is also pessimistic reasons for believing the courts will look the other way in the name of safety.
I've also written on the TSA searches and the Fourth Amendment, and my post links to some excellent law review articles on TSA screening at airports (the legality of which will be shared by the likes of AmTrak).
I'm optimistic the tea party folks, as much as I disagree with them on so many issues, will help bring this chapter of 4th Amendment violations to a close.
This Righthaven isn't a law firm; it's a company. I don't know if lawyers thought it up, but this is less about lawyers and more about greedy companies. (Sometimes the two intersect, but they do not equal the same thing.)
Given the tenor of the comments I discussed why I personally felt the photo should not be released.
Hardly "worse than melodramatic."
I then proceeded to outline why FOIA was not being violate, contrary to the original post's assertions otherwise.
Also hardly melodramatic.
And yes, I do say the law only says an agency must publish rules. The original post does not outline what those rules are or how they are violated.
The assertion that the DoD must absolutely go through a non-partisan FOIA office is unsupported in the original post. They might be correct, but bear in mind that FOIA allows EACH agency to create its own rules -- so one agency's rules won't necessarily be the same as another's. (Although I'd hope they'd be somewhat similar.)
As agencies having no obligation to follow their own regulations, this is NOT a matter of FOIA but, as I stated above, a matter concerning the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies can be compelled to follow their own regulations, and failure to do so can subject an agency to liability or over-ruling, but there is a lot of case law in this area.
It is by far uncertain whether the DoD's actions violate the FOIA. More importantly, why does the original poster think releasing death shots of Osama bin Laden warrants the outrage he shows to begin with?
There are worse abuses of the FOIA. For example, relevant and pertinent records necessary to further civil lawsuits (or defend criminal lawsuits) have been rejected in FOIA requests. These rejections have real consequences.
Not releasing Osama's death shots just keeps our country from going back to the day when you could collect death cards for criminals shot down by the law. I happen to think that's a good thing; some of the commenters here don't.
You, however, feel engaging in the discussion as I did was "worse than melodramatic." Me, I just feel it's melodramatic.
How DOES it work? Perhaps you can provide a link to the Act or something else that outlines it? I know the ACLU has a good resource but I haven't been able to find it in electronic format yet.
The actually law, however, doesn't specify how an agency must go about this process. Rather, it sets minimum requirements (which appear to be met in this case) and leaves it up to the agency to create specific regulations.
This is NOT law, but regulation. Failure of an agency to follow its own regulations might violate law, but not the FOIA. Rather, it's a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (or APA).
But, perhaps I'm missing something. I don't file FOIA requests, and I know you have more experience and expertise than I do.
So what am I missing? And where can someone learn more about this?
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re: Re: Why read badly written blogs like Leslie Burns'?
In short, she's a nobody, with no original ideas, no persuasive arguments, and nothing to recommend her.
There are plenty of folks who are so-called "pro-ip" with ideas, with original thoughts, and persuasive arguments that should be recommended.
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Why read badly written blogs like Leslie Burns'?
Look, maybe I missed the IP-argument boat; I don't even know who this lass is. Her bio makes her out to be a creative professional with a law degree.
News flash, most lawyers don't know much about copyright or IP generally. (It's not a required course at any law school I know.)
Perhaps she does, but she doesn't have any good arguments about it. I'd doubt she'd have much luck in real copyright litigation. And I don't see her publishing anything except poorly written blog posts.
So stop doing her a favor and stop responding to nonsense. This doesn't seem to be a lady who's copyright ideas should be taken seriously.
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: Re:
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: Re: Sad
The alleged copyright holder may have different rights in acquiring copyright depending on their jurisdiction. So the U.S.-based analysis of authorship by Mr. Masnick might not apply in all jurisdictions.
However, the fair-use exceptions and the DMCA takedown process (if ever properly used) will fall under U.S. law.
On the post: Wizard Of Oz Court Ruling Suggests Moviemakers Can Reclaim Parts Of The Public Domain And Put It Under Copyright
Re: Re: With Feist v. Rural?
I haven't read the opinion, so I don't know if it states where the t-shirt folks got their images, or if an analysis of the images occurred, but it's a valid point.
On the post: American-Statesman: Suspect Position, Bad Example, Another Bad Example, Debunked Statistics, Contradiction
Re:
On the post: American-Statesman: Suspect Position, Bad Example, Another Bad Example, Debunked Statistics, Contradiction
Copyright infringement isn't piracy . . .
Still, it's important to fight back against false labels. Copyright infringement isn't theft and isn't piracy—it's violation of a copy right. Still illegal, just not theft or piracy.
On the post: Wizard Of Oz Court Ruling Suggests Moviemakers Can Reclaim Parts Of The Public Domain And Put It Under Copyright
Re:
But the Wizard of Oz isn't terribly creative. It's based off a book in the public domain.
Sure, there are elements that are original and creative, and its portrayed a bit differently than the book, but it's a derivative work of something.
In short, the Wizard of Oz movie is short on originality and long on derivation.
On the post: Wizard Of Oz Court Ruling Suggests Moviemakers Can Reclaim Parts Of The Public Domain And Put It Under Copyright
With Feist v. Rural?
It's called thin copyright. It's the reason copying the data in a phone book is allowed, but photocopying the phonebook and calling it your own is not.
What the heck was the 8th Circuit smoking? I hope they appeal, this is a terrible, terrible ruling that ignores Supreme Court precedent.
On the post: Couple Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Via Dubious Claims
Re: Bitcoin Trademark in Civil Law Countries
A trademark must be a source identifier. In other words, Mr. Pascazi's 'client' must be recognized as the source of a product by consumers if the mark Bitcoin is used.
As for enforcing international marks in the U.S., this is not as easily done as Mr. Pascazi would hope. Especially if he is able to obtain a registration abroad on such shaky grounds. It could still be subject to the same cancellation process as a U.S. mark.
The question is whether Mr. Pascazi will truly try and enforce a foreign mark on foreign soil. Paying international lawyers is not cheap.
And will he continue to maintain the mark and defend it against attacks?
Mr. Pascazi's client is over-reaching. I recommend Mr. Pascazi or his lawyer consult real trademark attorneys about this. They might receive more thorough advice.
On the post: Doctor Plans To Appeal Ruling That Said Complaining About His Bedside Manner Was Not Defamation
Re: Re: what exactly is defamation?
A bad review might be defamation, but it might not. See the above for a more complete description of defamation.
On the post: Doctor Plans To Appeal Ruling That Said Complaining About His Bedside Manner Was Not Defamation
Re: what exactly is defamation?
http://www.lextechnologiae.com/category/defamation-2/
Defamation is arbitrary in one sense: it's a fact-based determination often left for a jury.
As to what is defamation; opinion is not. One way to look at defamation is that it's an intentional untruthful statement about another that harms that persons reputation.
Opinions, however, are not defamation because they are not fact — they cannot be said to be truthful or untruthful.
Think of this fact scenario:
Someone posts on a doctor review site that a doctor's bedside manner was not great.
"This doctor is cold and I felt I never connected with him. He also left me sitting in the room waiting for hours each time I went. He never talked to me when he examined me. When he did talk, he was annoying."
Which parts of the statement are facts and which opinion? Two facts stand out: leaving the person sitting in the room for hours and never talking. You could prove or disprove those facts. They could be said to be truthful or non-turthful.
Compare with "the doctor is cold" and "I never connected with him." Those are opinions. You can't really prove those in court; they're based on the patient's feelings. Similarly, the belief the doctor was annoying is an opinion.
Opinions and facts can be wrapped together, however. Take, for example, "he never talked to me." You might argue that it's clearly an exaggeration and indicates the patient's belief (and therefore opinion) that the doctor didn't make and effort to communicate well. You might also argue that it says what it says: he literally never talked to the patient.
When facts and opinions get intertwined, it creates a fact-based question the court must consider. Sometimes, though, opinions are just opinions and facts are just facts.
Hope that sheds some light.
This doctor (and his lawyer) are likely going to lose. U.S. defamation cases can be quite difficult to win, and courts defer intuitively to the First Amendment quite a bit.
On the post: Could Apple's MusicMatch Be A Tool To Identify Infringers?
You can't prove the act with Apple's data
In short, it might be able to provide an idea of the scope of copyright violations, but it can't prove anything for a specific user. More information would be necessary to sustain a claim in court.
On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure
Enhanced patdowns and new scanners should be viewed as a violation of the 4th Amendment
http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2010/11/18/tsa-scans-patdowns-do-these-violate-the-4th-amend ment-maybe/
A passenger is given a devil's choice — have their 4th Amendment rights violated through a technological strip search, or have them violated as a result of an enhanced patdown that is like a strip search but with your clothes on.
My hope is that the crazy Tea Party folks finally get something back and take out the TSA. Most Americans aren't cowards, and most Americans don't want useless security.
After all, those who would chose safety over liberty deserve neither.
On the post: TSA Takes Security Theater On The Road: Mobile Groping Teams Can Pop Up Anywhere
Re: 4th Amendment and Travel
On the post: TSA Takes Security Theater On The Road: Mobile Groping Teams Can Pop Up Anywhere
Those who choose safety over liberty . . .
If you're interested in the Border Search Exception, I've written a brief overview here: http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2011/06/03/strip-searches-of-the-mind-why-the-government-can-search-y our-laptop-at-the-border/
I also have a paper arguing for reasonable suspicion being required in laptop border searches, and it also goes over the border search exception here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1469292
As for other transportation related searches, there is good reason to think the TSA may be overstepping its bounds, but there is also pessimistic reasons for believing the courts will look the other way in the name of safety.
I've also written on the TSA searches and the Fourth Amendment, and my post links to some excellent law review articles on TSA screening at airports (the legality of which will be shared by the likes of AmTrak).
You can read that post here: http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2010/11/18/tsa-scans-patdowns-do-these-violate-the-4th-amendment-mayb e/
I'm optimistic the tea party folks, as much as I disagree with them on so many issues, will help bring this chapter of 4th Amendment violations to a close.
On the post: Denver Post Sued Over Righthaven Connection
Re: Hate Lawyers?
On the post: Once Again, The Freedom Of Information Act Is Proving To Be Just That: An Act
Re:
On the post: Once Again, The Freedom Of Information Act Is Proving To Be Just That: An Act
Re: Re: Seriously?
Hardly "worse than melodramatic."
I then proceeded to outline why FOIA was not being violate, contrary to the original post's assertions otherwise.
Also hardly melodramatic.
And yes, I do say the law only says an agency must publish rules. The original post does not outline what those rules are or how they are violated.
The assertion that the DoD must absolutely go through a non-partisan FOIA office is unsupported in the original post. They might be correct, but bear in mind that FOIA allows EACH agency to create its own rules -- so one agency's rules won't necessarily be the same as another's. (Although I'd hope they'd be somewhat similar.)
As agencies having no obligation to follow their own regulations, this is NOT a matter of FOIA but, as I stated above, a matter concerning the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies can be compelled to follow their own regulations, and failure to do so can subject an agency to liability or over-ruling, but there is a lot of case law in this area.
It is by far uncertain whether the DoD's actions violate the FOIA. More importantly, why does the original poster think releasing death shots of Osama bin Laden warrants the outrage he shows to begin with?
There are worse abuses of the FOIA. For example, relevant and pertinent records necessary to further civil lawsuits (or defend criminal lawsuits) have been rejected in FOIA requests. These rejections have real consequences.
Not releasing Osama's death shots just keeps our country from going back to the day when you could collect death cards for criminals shot down by the law. I happen to think that's a good thing; some of the commenters here don't.
You, however, feel engaging in the discussion as I did was "worse than melodramatic." Me, I just feel it's melodramatic.
On the post: Once Again, The Freedom Of Information Act Is Proving To Be Just That: An Act
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How DOES it work? Perhaps you can provide a link to the Act or something else that outlines it? I know the ACLU has a good resource but I haven't been able to find it in electronic format yet.
The actually law, however, doesn't specify how an agency must go about this process. Rather, it sets minimum requirements (which appear to be met in this case) and leaves it up to the agency to create specific regulations.
This is NOT law, but regulation. Failure of an agency to follow its own regulations might violate law, but not the FOIA. Rather, it's a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (or APA).
But, perhaps I'm missing something. I don't file FOIA requests, and I know you have more experience and expertise than I do.
So what am I missing? And where can someone learn more about this?
Next >>