Cyberpunk 2077 will have a game mode dedicated to using stream-safe music for streamers...
Copyright holders have sued over the most ridiculous thing.
Music they provided themselves for public use (though that was actually an action taken by their publishing company)
Public domain works
Works published by their authors
Public domain works published by their authors
Animal cries
Monkey selfies!
Background/white noise
Not sure about this last one, but I think I remember a DMCA notice over the audio of a silent stream (I'll need a bit of time to confirm it if you want a source for this one)
So no, there is definitely no such thing as "stream-safe" music.
"Uber alles" might be ok when taken out of this specific context.
But quoted at the end of a presentation that also quotes Hitler several times, this is definitely not innocent.
It's not a problem of "US context", though this probably does invoke the Nazi Germany for many american. The problem is that it is explicitly tied to Hitler here.
And apparently the cops who attended the training didn't mind. Which is a bigger problem that the "Uber alles" at the end. Even if you don't know the quote is from Hitler, quotes like "the very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence" should be suspicious by themselves.
I'm half-surprised that nobody reminds them, at every opportunity, that the current implementation and interpretation of section 230 is normal.
Nobody blames car manufacturers for a bank robbery when their car is used as escape vehicle.
Nobody blames alcohol producers for drunken bar brawls.
The rule is always that the tool is not the culprit.
And if anybody would go and blame gun manufacturers when someone shoots his neighbor, "second amendment" extremists would go up in arms. Possibly in the most literal sense.
But when it comes to section 230, suddenly the first amendment doesn't mean anything and the tool is as responsible - if not more - as the tool user.
Next time someone goes to court for murder, let him blame the gun and refer to those anti-230 activists in their defense. "Don't sue me, sue Smith & Wesson instead."
I still don't understand how "unprotected" has priority over "protected".
If I criticize white men, that's wrong, but if I criticize white adult men, it's fine?
There might be some logic here, but I don't see it.
Note about the "destruction of evidence" part... that's actually not a valid concern in most forfeiture cases.
The police is not holding on your property as evidence (though that is another nuisance they can use), which wouldn't change its ownership. Forfeiture is them taking ownership of a property, to use or resell as they want. They don't even need to start an actual investigation of the "crime" they accuse the property of being part of. So "evidence tampering" or "destruction of evidence" is not the problem.
As some people commented above, I think trying to "correct" trolls and loudmouths out there is an exercise in futility... in normal times.
They don't care what the law says or what it was intended to say. They care about what they want the law to say. Namely to let them engage in any outrageous behavior online and not face the consequences... or get millions in damages suing big social media companies for their hurt feelings at being "censored" (whatever the word means in their mind).
The best thing to do, in normal times, is just to ignore those trolls and let the administration do its job... of ignoring trolls.
Problem is that the current POTUS is the Troll in Chief. He believes in his and others' conspiracy theories which he broadcasts as widely as possible using his position, he wants to ramble on yelling his threat at anyone who ever hurt his fragile ego and he consistently lies about literally everything. Had he been anyone else, he would have been banned from all but the most permissive platforms. (And maybe even from these ones.) He's impossible to ignore and his example encourages others who now feel entitled to not being banned from anywhere, and expect the law to reflect this expectation.
So Cox and Wyden do have to come up and explain (again) why section 230 is the way it is, and why it would be stupid and dangerous to alter it bluntly. What should have been useless and boring is now necessary for the sake of democracy.
There is a lot to be said on the subject, but I'll object to any credentials Dershowitz has in the domain of law.
The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal.
Starting from there, he's already so very wrong. The quid and quo can both be perfectly legal, and the qui pro quo illegal. Quick example:
Giving money to someone is legal.
Voting for or against a specific law is legal.
Giving money in exchange for a vote on a given law is illegal. That's bribery, even in the US where most bribery (aka lobbying) is legal provided you don't make it specific. (You can bribe a politician as incentive to vote your way in general, but not for a specific vote. That's stupid, but you have the SCOTUS to thanks/blame for that.)
The cops argued there's no constitutional duty to disclose this information (under the US Constitution or the Commonwealth's) unless failing to do so would alter the outcome of the trial by creating reasonable doubt where none previously existed.
So how is that supposed to work?
They do a trial, and if the accused is declared guilty then the liars are to be exposed?
Or is the prosecutor supposed to guess the outcome of the trial with and without the disclosure, and only disclose if it makes a difference?
Unfortunately, this still allows FB to track you.
It just tracks some of your interests independently from the others. Two half-profiles, and they might have ways to link your profiles internally.
I'm not sure about this, but given that they already had ways to track users that never even signed in, I wouldn't be surprised if they could find you across different logins.
Of course there is a reason.
You know that criminals don't have rights. Even just being accused of a crime makes them lose their rights instantly.
Cops on the other hand are above the law. There is no reason to risk their privacy even after repeatedly killing dozens of people.
(ps: If you don't read this as sarcasm, please fix your sarcasm detector asap.)
... that if you give any loophole or "good faith exception", they will be abused.
Let's rewrite this as it should have been written first:
Because the Court considers any violation of this Order, including any express direction by a supervisor or commander to disregard or violate this Order, to be a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and thus not subject to qualified immunity in any action brought against any individual employee, officer, or agent of the Federal Defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), notice of this Order must be widely disseminated as ignorance of this Order will not be a valid defense.
There. No easy loophole anymore.
So easy, I wonder if the loopholes were intentional.
And you can't even object that you surprise agents with new rules. These were the rules from the beginning. The Court only was supposed to remind them that they are supposed to uphold the Constitution, which doesn't exempt them from it.
They would just leave the cost of enforcing to the police, as if police was not already overburdened with tons of work that have nothing to do with police.
Effective, it will certainly not be. But I doubt copyright holders would bat an eye at police shooting down suspected copyright violators. Imagine them breaking down your door and shooting at you because you have a computer mouse (aka "dangerous blunt weapon") in your hand.
Re: Techdirt Does The Same Thing, selling your records to the CI
Oh, juicy.
I'm perfectly ready to believe you, as soon as you cite your sources.
Just "I heard" doesn't quite convince me, but I promise I'll believe you when you provide some proper evidence.
You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath though.
Also of note is how TOS can change at any time, without consent from the user. Giving them the force of law through CFAA would allow for a bigger potential for abuse than one might think at first sight.
Rep. McCarthy: "Free speech isn't just what you agree with."
That's rich coming from him and his R-tagged colleagues.
Unless he meant something like "Free speech is just what I agree with."
In any case, he's right, but it sure sounds pretty hypocritical coming from his side.
Republicans are not the only ones guilty of this, but it's definitely more prevalent in their party: they want to control and often censor the speech of others, but they are the fastest to cry about "free speech" when their own expression is being moderated, downgraded or even just criticized, totally ignoring the irony of wanting to prevent others' "speech" simply on the basis that it's a critic of theirs.
I understand his post and there is a part that you ignored. I still disagree with him, but you seem to have missed the part where he said "That's why we want reforms."
He does misunderstand the current version, but he's clear that he understands it enough to know that it doesn't do what he wants. Namely, allowing censorship against speech he doesn't like.
Like many other conservatives, trolls and right-wing extremists, he likes the First Amendment as long as it covers him and his like-minded comrades. And he outright ignores it when it comes to speech that ranges from center to left-wing. Or even moderate right-wing. Thus he wants section 230 to match his view of the First Amendment. He wants a law that he can defend or ignore at his leisure depending on the content, not one that gets thrown in his face every time his pride or sensitivity is hurt.
For him, it doesn't matter what the law states (even as clearly as section 230), nor what the initial intention was (despite - for some of them - pretending to be "originalists" or something of the like). He has his idea of what the law should be and what it actually is doesn't matter.
Problem is, some politicians have the same idea, and they have the power to change the law to match this idea of an empty shell that cries of so-called "good intentions", but without any power to actually be enforced.
I am an optimist and assume that such heartless people are actually a minority.
I also try to be optimistic and believe in human nature.
The problem here is that cops are actively trained to be violent, to see themselves as predators lest they be prey, to shoot first at the first sign of movement because this movement could end your life.
Add to this the fact that good cops are actually fired when found. There was this example of a cop de-escalating a situation with a suicidal man, and he was pretty successful until his colleagues arrived and shot the man down without asking questions. The single cop was fired for endangering the colleagues who arrived late. The victim was acting crazy, waving a gun around that turned out to not even be loaded, so the "reinforcements" can be justified (they couldn't know the gun was empty), and the first cop even defended them in his report. Still got fired because he wasn't trigger-happy.
And that's only one of many examples.
Be optimistic by default, but don't forget to also look at reality. Cops are not bad by nature. They are trained to be bad and often retaliated when they are not bad, or at the very least willfully blind to the actions of "bad apples".
As long as people think "having a trademark on a word" means "I own this word", this kind of actions will happen. They are going to willfully ignore what the purpose of trademark is, and also what its limitations are. Even if it was registered for cartoons, you can't prevent people from talking about your brand in any form of communication. That is not how it works.
On the post: Ridiculous: 'Cyberpunk 2077' Will Ship With A Mode Just To Help Streamers Avoid DMCA Notices
"stream-safe"?
Copyright holders have sued over the most ridiculous thing.
So no, there is definitely no such thing as "stream-safe" music.
On the post: Kentucky State Police 'Warrior Mindset' Training Presentation Quotes Robert E. Lee, Adolph Hitler
Re:
"Uber alles" might be ok when taken out of this specific context.
But quoted at the end of a presentation that also quotes Hitler several times, this is definitely not innocent.
It's not a problem of "US context", though this probably does invoke the Nazi Germany for many american. The problem is that it is explicitly tied to Hitler here.
And apparently the cops who attended the training didn't mind. Which is a bigger problem that the "Uber alles" at the end. Even if you don't know the quote is from Hitler, quotes like "the very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence" should be suspicious by themselves.
On the post: Jeffrey Toobin's Zoom Dick Incident Is The Perfect Example Of Why We Need Section 230
Now the tool is to blame?
I'm half-surprised that nobody reminds them, at every opportunity, that the current implementation and interpretation of section 230 is normal.
Nobody blames car manufacturers for a bank robbery when their car is used as escape vehicle.
Nobody blames alcohol producers for drunken bar brawls.
The rule is always that the tool is not the culprit.
And if anybody would go and blame gun manufacturers when someone shoots his neighbor, "second amendment" extremists would go up in arms. Possibly in the most literal sense.
But when it comes to section 230, suddenly the first amendment doesn't mean anything and the tool is as responsible - if not more - as the tool user.
Next time someone goes to court for murder, let him blame the gun and refer to those anti-230 activists in their defense. "Don't sue me, sue Smith & Wesson instead."
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Facebook's Internal 'Hate Speech' Guidelines Appear To Leave Protected Groups Unprotected (June 2017)
I still don't understand how "unprotected" has priority over "protected".
If I criticize white men, that's wrong, but if I criticize white adult men, it's fine?
There might be some logic here, but I don't see it.
On the post: Pennsylvania Cops Are Still Abusing Asset Forfeiture To Help Themselves To People's Cash
Re: Re: Re: I'm confused
Note about the "destruction of evidence" part... that's actually not a valid concern in most forfeiture cases.
The police is not holding on your property as evidence (though that is another nuisance they can use), which wouldn't change its ownership. Forfeiture is them taking ownership of a property, to use or resell as they want. They don't even need to start an actual investigation of the "crime" they accuse the property of being part of. So "evidence tampering" or "destruction of evidence" is not the problem.
On the post: Authors Of CDA 230 Do Some Serious 230 Mythbusting In Response To Comments Submitted To The FCC
As some people commented above, I think trying to "correct" trolls and loudmouths out there is an exercise in futility... in normal times.
They don't care what the law says or what it was intended to say. They care about what they want the law to say. Namely to let them engage in any outrageous behavior online and not face the consequences... or get millions in damages suing big social media companies for their hurt feelings at being "censored" (whatever the word means in their mind).
The best thing to do, in normal times, is just to ignore those trolls and let the administration do its job... of ignoring trolls.
Problem is that the current POTUS is the Troll in Chief. He believes in his and others' conspiracy theories which he broadcasts as widely as possible using his position, he wants to ramble on yelling his threat at anyone who ever hurt his fragile ego and he consistently lies about literally everything. Had he been anyone else, he would have been banned from all but the most permissive platforms. (And maybe even from these ones.) He's impossible to ignore and his example encourages others who now feel entitled to not being banned from anywhere, and expect the law to reflect this expectation.
So Cox and Wyden do have to come up and explain (again) why section 230 is the way it is, and why it would be stupid and dangerous to alter it bluntly. What should have been useless and boring is now necessary for the sake of democracy.
On the post: Alan Dershowitz Files SLAPP Suit Against CNN; Says Not Airing More Of What He Said Is Defamation
There is a lot to be said on the subject, but I'll object to any credentials Dershowitz has in the domain of law.
Starting from there, he's already so very wrong. The quid and quo can both be perfectly legal, and the qui pro quo illegal. Quick example:
Where did he go to law school?
On the post: Top Court In Massachusetts Says Prosecutors Must Provide Info On Bad Cops To Criminal Defendants
So how is that supposed to work?
They do a trial, and if the accused is declared guilty then the liars are to be exposed?
Or is the prosecutor supposed to guess the outcome of the trial with and without the disclosure, and only disclose if it makes a difference?
You can't tell me this is an actual standard.
... (Reading the decision of the Court)
Glad to know it actually is not.
On the post: Tone Deaf Facebook To Cripple VR Headsets Unless You Link It To Your Facebook Account
Re:
Unfortunately, this still allows FB to track you.
It just tracks some of your interests independently from the others. Two half-profiles, and they might have ways to link your profiles internally.
I'm not sure about this, but given that they already had ways to track users that never even signed in, I wouldn't be surprised if they could find you across different logins.
On the post: DC Police Union Sues To Block The Release Of Names Of Officers Involved In Shootings
Re:
Of course there is a reason.
You know that criminals don't have rights. Even just being accused of a crime makes them lose their rights instantly.
Cops on the other hand are above the law. There is no reason to risk their privacy even after repeatedly killing dozens of people.
(ps: If you don't read this as sarcasm, please fix your sarcasm detector asap.)
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Amazon's Attempt To Remove 'Sock Puppet' Reviews Results In The Deletion Of Legitimate Reviews (November 2012)
Re: It's a good thing
You might want to reference Ray Bradbury here. (Farenheit 451)
On the post: Portland Journalists Ask For Sanctions As Federal Agents Continue To Assault Reporters And Legal Observers
The courts should know by now...
... that if you give any loophole or "good faith exception", they will be abused.
Let's rewrite this as it should have been written first:
There. No easy loophole anymore.
So easy, I wonder if the loopholes were intentional.
And you can't even object that you surprise agents with new rules. These were the rules from the beginning. The Court only was supposed to remind them that they are supposed to uphold the Constitution, which doesn't exempt them from it.
On the post: Japan's Top Court Says 45 Million Twitter Users Must Check That Anything They Retweet Is Not A Copyright Infringement
Re: Re:
It would be cheap for the copyright holders.
They would just leave the cost of enforcing to the police, as if police was not already overburdened with tons of work that have nothing to do with police.
Effective, it will certainly not be. But I doubt copyright holders would bat an eye at police shooting down suspected copyright violators. Imagine them breaking down your door and shooting at you because you have a computer mouse (aka "dangerous blunt weapon") in your hand.
On the post: Companies Are Selling Cops Access To Personal Data Harvested From Malicious Hacking And Data Breaches
Re: Techdirt Does The Same Thing, selling your records to the CI
Oh, juicy.
I'm perfectly ready to believe you, as soon as you cite your sources.
Just "I heard" doesn't quite convince me, but I promise I'll believe you when you provide some proper evidence.
You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath though.
On the post: EFF, Orin Kerr Ask The Supreme Court To Prevent Turning The CFAA Into A Convenient Way To Punish Site Users, Security Researchers
Also of note is how TOS can change at any time, without consent from the user. Giving them the force of law through CFAA would allow for a bigger potential for abuse than one might think at first sight.
On the post: In The Middle Of A Pandemic, ICE Says Foreign Students Must Attend Physical Classes If They Don't Want To Be Kicked Out Of The Country
Re: Re: Re: Bait and Switch much?
Anyone: "Why did you do this?"
Any cartoon villain ever: "Because I can."
Yep, ICE is definitely in business for the cruelty alone.
On the post: GOOGLE THREATENS TO DEFUND TECHDIRT? Where Are All The Politicians Complaining?
That's rich coming from him and his R-tagged colleagues.
Unless he meant something like "Free speech is just what I agree with."
In any case, he's right, but it sure sounds pretty hypocritical coming from his side.
Republicans are not the only ones guilty of this, but it's definitely more prevalent in their party: they want to control and often censor the speech of others, but they are the fastest to cry about "free speech" when their own expression is being moderated, downgraded or even just criticized, totally ignoring the irony of wanting to prevent others' "speech" simply on the basis that it's a critic of theirs.
On the post: Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act
Re: Re: Reform
I understand his post and there is a part that you ignored. I still disagree with him, but you seem to have missed the part where he said "That's why we want reforms."
He does misunderstand the current version, but he's clear that he understands it enough to know that it doesn't do what he wants. Namely, allowing censorship against speech he doesn't like.
Like many other conservatives, trolls and right-wing extremists, he likes the First Amendment as long as it covers him and his like-minded comrades. And he outright ignores it when it comes to speech that ranges from center to left-wing. Or even moderate right-wing. Thus he wants section 230 to match his view of the First Amendment. He wants a law that he can defend or ignore at his leisure depending on the content, not one that gets thrown in his face every time his pride or sensitivity is hurt.
For him, it doesn't matter what the law states (even as clearly as section 230), nor what the initial intention was (despite - for some of them - pretending to be "originalists" or something of the like). He has his idea of what the law should be and what it actually is doesn't matter.
Problem is, some politicians have the same idea, and they have the power to change the law to match this idea of an empty shell that cries of so-called "good intentions", but without any power to actually be enforced.
On the post: Court Cites George Floyd Killing While Denying Immunity To Officers Who Shot A Black Man 22 Times As He Lay On The Ground
Re: Re: Re:
I also try to be optimistic and believe in human nature.
The problem here is that cops are actively trained to be violent, to see themselves as predators lest they be prey, to shoot first at the first sign of movement because this movement could end your life.
Add to this the fact that good cops are actually fired when found. There was this example of a cop de-escalating a situation with a suicidal man, and he was pretty successful until his colleagues arrived and shot the man down without asking questions. The single cop was fired for endangering the colleagues who arrived late. The victim was acting crazy, waving a gun around that turned out to not even be loaded, so the "reinforcements" can be justified (they couldn't know the gun was empty), and the first cop even defended them in his report. Still got fired because he wasn't trigger-happy.
And that's only one of many examples.
Be optimistic by default, but don't forget to also look at reality. Cops are not bad by nature. They are trained to be bad and often retaliated when they are not bad, or at the very least willfully blind to the actions of "bad apples".
On the post: Trump Campaign Gets Parody Cartoon Taken Down Off Redbubble Over Trademark Claim On MAGA Hats
Re: Trademarked for what markets?
As long as people think "having a trademark on a word" means "I own this word", this kind of actions will happen. They are going to willfully ignore what the purpose of trademark is, and also what its limitations are. Even if it was registered for cartoons, you can't prevent people from talking about your brand in any form of communication. That is not how it works.
Next >>