He can publish his opinion on whatever platform will publish it. Just as with my opinion that the sun rises in the west. But it does reflect very badly on the platform that would publish opinions based not on facts, but rather contrary to the facts. Made up facts. Or just outright distortions (if not actual lies).
Similarly, I'm just trying to persuade people to a point of view. Everyone should enjoy the benefits of watching an early morning sunrise in the west. The NYT should be PROUD to use its credibility to publish my opinion about western sunrises.
Since most swords cut both ways, there must be some way that this way of abusing the DMCA with impunity can be used against those who created such awesome censorship powers.
You know some old saying about how the goose and gander have compatible ports, or something like that.
If it is removed from Google then it has been removed completely from the Internet.
Bing and Yahoo are just internet wannabes. Not the real internet like Google.
It is amazing how long TCP/IP existed before Google came along and invented the internet. But all those years were just build up of infrastructure so that Google could build the internet.
... again, it makes you wonder, why is Congress so intent on hiding this taxpayer funded research -- which has a history of being credible, factual and useful -- from the public?
If this information were made public, then it wouldn't have any value. Keeping it private makes it valuable. (Ask Disney why their DVDs are only available for sale for limited times, and then not again for many years.)
If this information didn't have any value, then what incentive would there be for Congress to have the research done in the first place?
Furthermore, if it were easy to debunk the statements of congresscritters, then this would undermine their business model. How would these artists get paid for their amazing creative works of fiction? There would be no more incentive to create such fact free fanciful tales for political purposes if this information were made public.
a representative from Fox was adamant about pushing for stronger punishment for sites that hosted infringing content. But she also made sure to respond to a point raised earlier about abusive takedowns.
Both of those things need to bite Fox. Hard.
Their broadcast might contain infringing content. These are people who very likely do not believe in any kind of fair use. And if they acknowledge fair use at all, then their same standard should be applied to them. "fair use is a defense in a lawsuit, but the use is considered infringing until you raise the fair use defense", etc
Fox filed a bogus takedown, and should be punished accordingly. Fox demonstrated an abusive takedown after complaining that abusive takedowns are unusual, which we all know is not true any more than copyright infringement is unusual. There needs to be seriously steep punishments for doing this. Takedown notice issuers need to abide by the same high standards as they expect everyone else to abide by in not infringing copyright. Do by example.
Therefore, this Court, in an effort to ensure that all Justice Department attorneys who appear in the courts of the Plaintiff States that have been harmed by this misconduct are aware of and comply with their ethical duties, hereby orders that any attorney employed at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. who appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course. It shall be taught by at least one recognized ethics expert who is unaffiliated with the Justice Department. At a minimum, this course (or courses) shall total at least three hours of ethics training per year. The subject matter shall include a discussion of the ethical codes of conduct (which will include candor to the court and truthfulness to third parties) applicable in that jurisdiction.”
In a footnote, Judge Hanen noted this was not the first time the DoJ has faced such an issue:
Just recently, the Sixth Circuit expressed a similar conclusion. It wrote:
In closing, we echo the district court’s observations about this case. The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws—all of them, not just selective ones—in a manner worthy of the Department’s name. The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court [like the attorneys representing the DHS in this Court] falls outside that tradition. We expect that the IRS will do better going forward. And we order that the IRS comply with the district court’s discovery orders of April 1 and June 16, 2015—without redactions, and without further delay.
Concluding the order, Judge Hanen wrote, “This Court would be remiss if it left such unseemly and unprofessional conduct unaddressed.”
According to the FBI agent, this software isn't malware because it doesn't do any permanent damage.
Similarly, enhanced interrogation isn't torture because it doesn't do any permanent damage.
Nice way to divert from the fact that there was harm, rather than on how long the harm lasts. While the harm may or may not be permanent, which can be debated, the fact is that harm WAS DONE. The computer has malware, a rootkit, of some sort installed on it.
Does the FBI do anything to remove this malware?
What makes the FBI so sure that without any updates, their brand of malware will not actually make the computer more vulnerable to other hacking efforts? They seem awfully confident of this.
If I submitted an opinion piece that the sun rises in the west instead of in the east, would the NY Times publish it? After all, it's an opinion piece and not news.
On the post: Congrats, FBI, You've Now Convinced Silicon Valley To Encrypt And Dump Log Files
Download book Applied Cryptography while it is still legal to do so
http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/
See this copyright information before downloading:
http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/about/copyright-notice.html
CRC press has granted the following specific permissions for the electronic version of this book:
Permission is granted to retrieve, print and store a single copy of this chapter for personal use. [ . . . rest omitted . . . ]
On the post: Google To France: No You Don't Get To Censor The Global Internet
Re: Re: Dear Google
On the post: Google To France: No You Don't Get To Censor The Global Internet
Right To Be Forgotten == 1984 Ministry Of Truth
On the post: Another Court Finds FBI's NIT Warrants To Be Invalid, But Credits Agents' 'Good Faith' To Deny Suppression
Re: The Magistrate Judge is at fault!
On the post: Another Court Finds FBI's NIT Warrants To Be Invalid, But Credits Agents' 'Good Faith' To Deny Suppression
The Magistrate Judge is at fault!
A judge should know better than to trust the FBI. Everything they say should be suspect.
(at least that is one message out of this)
On the post: Google To France: No You Don't Get To Censor The Global Internet
Dear France
Please, please, for the love of God, please nationally invoke your nation's right to be forgotten!
The rest of us will thank you for it.
On the post: Google To France: No You Don't Get To Censor The Global Internet
Re: Google, quit complaining and do something.
On the post: Google To France: No You Don't Get To Censor The Global Internet
Dear Google
Your position on not letting France censor the global internet is not acceptable.
I don't think you have thought this through. You don't seem to understand what this will lead to.
If this policy is allowed to stand, then it will set a precedent that no other countries can censor the internet.
Before long, no country will be allowed to censor the global internet.
Please reconsider
For the Censors!
On the post: Fantastic: Now British Firms Are Getting In On The Bogus Website/Bogus DMCA Notice Scam
Re: But what did they accomplish?
The purpose was censorship. Mission accomplished. Everyone happy.
Copyright did what it is intended to do (these days).
On the post: You're Entitled To Your Own Opinions, But Not Your Own Facts About Copyright, NY Times Edition
Re: Re: Bad speech, more speech
He can publish his opinion on whatever platform will publish it. Just as with my opinion that the sun rises in the west. But it does reflect very badly on the platform that would publish opinions based not on facts, but rather contrary to the facts. Made up facts. Or just outright distortions (if not actual lies).
Similarly, I'm just trying to persuade people to a point of view. Everyone should enjoy the benefits of watching an early morning sunrise in the west. The NYT should be PROUD to use its credibility to publish my opinion about western sunrises.
On the post: Fantastic: Now British Firms Are Getting In On The Bogus Website/Bogus DMCA Notice Scam
Re:
You know some old saying about how the goose and gander have compatible ports, or something like that.
On the post: Fantastic: Now British Firms Are Getting In On The Bogus Website/Bogus DMCA Notice Scam
Re: What I find funny...
Bing and Yahoo are just internet wannabes. Not the real internet like Google.
It is amazing how long TCP/IP existed before Google came along and invented the internet. But all those years were just build up of infrastructure so that Google could build the internet.
On the post: Fantastic: Now British Firms Are Getting In On The Bogus Website/Bogus DMCA Notice Scam
Copyright = Censorship
Digital Millennium Censorship Act
But to engage in far greater censorship you would need SOPA. Or you would need to pretend like it became law when it actually did not.
On the post: Shameful: House Panel Votes Down Plan To Make Public Domain Congressional Research Public
It is simple to explain
If this information didn't have any value, then what incentive would there be for Congress to have the research done in the first place?
Furthermore, if it were easy to debunk the statements of congresscritters, then this would undermine their business model. How would these artists get paid for their amazing creative works of fiction? There would be no more incentive to create such fact free fanciful tales for political purposes if this information were made public.
On the post: Fox In The Henhouse: Uses Someone Else's YouTube Clip In Family Guy, Then Takes Down The Original
Their broadcast might contain infringing content. These are people who very likely do not believe in any kind of fair use. And if they acknowledge fair use at all, then their same standard should be applied to them. "fair use is a defense in a lawsuit, but the use is considered infringing until you raise the fair use defense", etc
Fox filed a bogus takedown, and should be punished accordingly. Fox demonstrated an abusive takedown after complaining that abusive takedowns are unusual, which we all know is not true any more than copyright infringement is unusual. There needs to be seriously steep punishments for doing this. Takedown notice issuers need to abide by the same high standards as they expect everyone else to abide by in not infringing copyright. Do by example.
On the post: Fox In The Henhouse: Uses Someone Else's YouTube Clip In Family Guy, Then Takes Down The Original
Re:
On the post: You're Entitled To Your Own Opinions, But Not Your Own Facts About Copyright, NY Times Edition
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FBI Agent Testifies That The Agency's Tor-Exploiting Malware Isn't Actually Malware
Re:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/19/judge-orders-doj-lawyers-remedial-ethics-clas ses/?page=all
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-20/texas-judge-orders-intentionally-deceptive-doj -lawyers-take-remedial-ethics-classes
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/19/judge-in-obamas-amnesty-case- orders-every-lawyer-involved-to-take-ethics-class/
Judge Hanen’s order reads, in part:
In a footnote, Judge Hanen noted this was not the first time the DoJ has faced such an issue:
Just recently, the Sixth Circuit expressed a similar conclusion. It wrote:
Concluding the order, Judge Hanen wrote, “This Court would be remiss if it left such unseemly and unprofessional conduct unaddressed.”
On the post: FBI Agent Testifies That The Agency's Tor-Exploiting Malware Isn't Actually Malware
Nice way to divert from the fact that there was harm, rather than on how long the harm lasts. While the harm may or may not be permanent, which can be debated, the fact is that harm WAS DONE. The computer has malware, a rootkit, of some sort installed on it.
Does the FBI do anything to remove this malware?
What makes the FBI so sure that without any updates, their brand of malware will not actually make the computer more vulnerable to other hacking efforts? They seem awfully confident of this.
On the post: You're Entitled To Your Own Opinions, But Not Your Own Facts About Copyright, NY Times Edition
Re: Bad speech, more speech
Next >>