Metadata is likely exempt, seeing as how facts are one of the few things not covered by copyright in the US. Metadata is usually facts about when a post happened, from where, to where, how long it took to compose, what ads were clicked on by the user, how many were skipped, and so on.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am Part of the Resistance Inside Techdirt. I am Spartacus too.
..."Trans Gender Traitors"
"soft pathetic pussy face"
Dude, we ain't the ones that jumped in the gutter first.
You just didn't realize it, because your head is shoved up your own ass, and the smell was familiar.
No, it's just insane that SLCC lost a case about calling their convention a "con," since that had been commonplace since the 1930s.
WorldCon (54), Academy Con (65-67), Balticon (66-present) New York Comicon (64), AggieCon (69), Bubonicon (69). All in use before SDCC, all a descriptor attached to "con." The jury was unreasonable, if not misled.
And, are you calling SDCC "weenies?" Because they are the ones trying to "take" from the commons, not SLCC.
No argument with that, I just don't think it has a legal basis.
Even if I personally think it has some moral appeal. Even if it meant archiving games that I personally find repugnant or irrelevant.
Morality notwithstanding,"orphan works" can be very dangerous territory. Even libraries have been charged with copyright violation, for the simple act of digitizing a work they had on hand that had no way to identify or contact the author. Personal archiving is legal, but allowing anyone else to access that archive? Ehh, watch your back.
For now, at least. Hopefully, something can changed in that regard.
The internet could shut down right now, and it wouldn't stop file sharing. Nothing stopped people from recording, copying, and even playing TV shows to groups of people in the 70s and 80s.
Even now, there's not an internet connection in the world with the bandwidth to truly compare to good old SneakerNet. Which is a guy with a hard drive in his pocket, for the ignorant.
I don't think the concept of abandonware actually has legal grounds. If it was owned by a corporation, even if the company dissolved, their assets are almost invariably purchased by someone. Even if it's just creditors.
If it was created by an individual, the property belongs to his estate. If his estate has no inheritors, ownership defaults to the government, making the software public domain. Still not abandonware, though.
Anti-SLAPP law is not "loser pays." It's "harasser pays."
A real case, even if lost, doesn't fall under these rules. But you knew that before you said it.
As for your continued and mildly amusing crusade against the bar exam system, it's not a monopoly. Anyone who can pass the test can be a licensed lawyer. They can also do a shitty job.
Someone who hasn't passed the bar is just about guaranteed to do a shitty job.
Your right to representation includes a right to competent representation, and the bar exam system is the best way we have of trying to accomplish that. It fails, but it's better than not having a way of weeding out the worst of the worst.
Simple dissent is, in fact, reason enough to boot him from the platform completely. It's private property. As a blog owner, Techdirt can censor anyone here from saying things they don't like. Just like a newspaper can refuse to print your letter to the editor.
You don't have a right to use someone else's property. You just don't. My local grocery store is open to the public. They have no soliciting signs. Same thing.
As you said before, private /= privately-owned. Until a specific website is regulated as a utility, it's just a billboard, and the owner is free to cover or even remove any unwanted postings.
At this point, the police shouldn't even be allowed to say they work in "law enforcement," since they can break the law with impunity if they are creative enough, and they also aren't required to know the law they are supposed to be enforcing.
"I work in arresting. I also do evidence gathering and creation."
Qualified immunity is also applied in ways completely opposite to every other use of the term "qualified." Currently, everything is qualified, until that qualification is revoked.
In any other usage, "qualified" would mean that few or no things were "qualified" until they were firmly established.
Re: BUT you love legalisms when favor you pirates / drug sellers.
1) That is NOT the definition of "common law," except in your head. Common law, according to the whole world except for you, is another word for jurisprudence.
That means "{a thing} is/isn't a law because of legal precedent."
2) Abraham Lincoln DID need a license to practice law, and got it, Illinois, 1836. Up until that point, he had been what would be called a "legal assistant," writing documents for actual lawyers.
3) Like common law, I don't think "legalism" means what you think it means. If you are referring to a child pornographer escaping justice due to investigators violating the Constitution (illegal search/seizure), that's on the cops.
4) Censorship by private entities is an expression of their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The same First Amendment that lets you spew your nonsense everywhere. Well, not everywhere. You are free to stage a protest on the public sidewalk in front of Techdirt's office. They are free, in turn, to point and laugh, and refuse you entry to their building.
You know, you sure do try to claim a lot of rights about other people's property.
On the post: The Intellectual Dishonesty Of Those Supporting The Existing Text Of The EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Metadata is likely exempt, seeing as how facts are one of the few things not covered by copyright in the US. Metadata is usually facts about when a post happened, from where, to where, how long it took to compose, what ads were clicked on by the user, how many were skipped, and so on.
On the post: The Intellectual Dishonesty Of Those Supporting The Existing Text Of The EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re:
According to US copyright law, everything is automatically copyrighted.
This post I'm writing? Copyrighted.
Your post?
So: websites have to be written, formatted, given a theme, etc.
By the very act of existing, a website's purpose is to give access to copyrighted material. Even if it's no-one's material but that of the author.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: September 2nd - 8th
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am Part of the Resistance Inside Techdirt. I am Spartacus too.
..."Trans Gender Traitors"
"soft pathetic pussy face"
Dude, we ain't the ones that jumped in the gutter first. You just didn't realize it, because your head is shoved up your own ass, and the smell was familiar.
Now, don't faint from the naughty words.
On the post: Bonkers Attorney's Fees Ruling Results In SDCC Getting $4 Million Out Of SLCC AFter $20k Jury Award
Re: HA, HA! You wrong yet again!
No, it's just insane that SLCC lost a case about calling their convention a "con," since that had been commonplace since the 1930s.
WorldCon (54), Academy Con (65-67), Balticon (66-present) New York Comicon (64), AggieCon (69), Bubonicon (69). All in use before SDCC, all a descriptor attached to "con." The jury was unreasonable, if not misled.
And, are you calling SDCC "weenies?" Because they are the ones trying to "take" from the commons, not SLCC.
On the post: And Now Comes The Pushback As One ROMs Site Is Challenging Nintendo's Takedown Of ROM Sites
Re:
No argument with that, I just don't think it has a legal basis.
Even if I personally think it has some moral appeal. Even if it meant archiving games that I personally find repugnant or irrelevant.
Morality notwithstanding,"orphan works" can be very dangerous territory. Even libraries have been charged with copyright violation, for the simple act of digitizing a work they had on hand that had no way to identify or contact the author. Personal archiving is legal, but allowing anyone else to access that archive? Ehh, watch your back.
For now, at least. Hopefully, something can changed in that regard.
On the post: And Now Comes The Pushback As One ROMs Site Is Challenging Nintendo's Takedown Of ROM Sites
Re:
The internet could shut down right now, and it wouldn't stop file sharing. Nothing stopped people from recording, copying, and even playing TV shows to groups of people in the 70s and 80s.
Even now, there's not an internet connection in the world with the bandwidth to truly compare to good old SneakerNet. Which is a guy with a hard drive in his pocket, for the ignorant.
On the post: And Now Comes The Pushback As One ROMs Site Is Challenging Nintendo's Takedown Of ROM Sites
Re: so lawyer question
I don't think the concept of abandonware actually has legal grounds. If it was owned by a corporation, even if the company dissolved, their assets are almost invariably purchased by someone. Even if it's just creditors.
If it was created by an individual, the property belongs to his estate. If his estate has no inheritors, ownership defaults to the government, making the software public domain. Still not abandonware, though.
On the post: And Now Comes The Pushback As One ROMs Site Is Challenging Nintendo's Takedown Of ROM Sites
Re: Draconian enough WILL work. Guaranteed. Here's the plan.
Dude, people still commit crimes under threat of death.
What's a little unlikely jail time?
On the post: A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make CDA 230 More Effective
Re: Re: AND??
Anti-SLAPP law is not "loser pays." It's "harasser pays."
A real case, even if lost, doesn't fall under these rules. But you knew that before you said it.
As for your continued and mildly amusing crusade against the bar exam system, it's not a monopoly. Anyone who can pass the test can be a licensed lawyer. They can also do a shitty job.
Someone who hasn't passed the bar is just about guaranteed to do a shitty job.
Your right to representation includes a right to competent representation, and the bar exam system is the best way we have of trying to accomplish that. It fails, but it's better than not having a way of weeding out the worst of the worst.
On the post: A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make CDA 230 More Effective
Re: Re:
On the post: A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make CDA 230 More Effective
Re:
Simple dissent is, in fact, reason enough to boot him from the platform completely. It's private property. As a blog owner, Techdirt can censor anyone here from saying things they don't like. Just like a newspaper can refuse to print your letter to the editor.
You don't have a right to use someone else's property. You just don't. My local grocery store is open to the public. They have no soliciting signs. Same thing.
As you said before, private /= privately-owned. Until a specific website is regulated as a utility, it's just a billboard, and the owner is free to cover or even remove any unwanted postings.
On the post: Railtown Brewing Sues Railbird Taphouse Over Trademark Concerns
...My head...
It seems that it's going to be their customers getting railed, though.
On the post: Ajit Pai Coddles Big Telecom, Demonizes Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Re: Knee-jerk defense claiming telecoms are worse is contemptible.
On the post: Appeals Court Judge: Qualified Immunity Is A Rigged Game The Government Almost Always Wins
Re:
"I work in arresting. I also do evidence gathering and creation."
On the post: We Shouldn't Want Internet Giants Deciding Who To Silence; But They Should Let Users Decide Who To Hear
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Judge: Qualified Immunity Is A Rigged Game The Government Almost Always Wins
Re: Where is the qualified in qualified immunity?
Qualified immunity is also applied in ways completely opposite to every other use of the term "qualified." Currently, everything is qualified, until that qualification is revoked.
In any other usage, "qualified" would mean that few or no things were "qualified" until they were firmly established.
On the post: Appeals Court Judge: Qualified Immunity Is A Rigged Game The Government Almost Always Wins
Re: BUT you love legalisms when favor you pirates / drug sellers.
1) That is NOT the definition of "common law," except in your head. Common law, according to the whole world except for you, is another word for jurisprudence. That means "{a thing} is/isn't a law because of legal precedent."
2) Abraham Lincoln DID need a license to practice law, and got it, Illinois, 1836. Up until that point, he had been what would be called a "legal assistant," writing documents for actual lawyers.
3) Like common law, I don't think "legalism" means what you think it means. If you are referring to a child pornographer escaping justice due to investigators violating the Constitution (illegal search/seizure), that's on the cops.
4) Censorship by private entities is an expression of their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The same First Amendment that lets you spew your nonsense everywhere. Well, not everywhere. You are free to stage a protest on the public sidewalk in front of Techdirt's office. They are free, in turn, to point and laugh, and refuse you entry to their building.
You know, you sure do try to claim a lot of rights about other people's property.
On the post: Ajit Pai Coddles Big Telecom, Demonizes Silicon Valley
Re: Knee-jerk defense claiming telecoms are worse is contemptible.
"don't patronize with catty little snipes like "adorable".
"Pro-tip. If you're serious and adult"
Your meds are off again.
On the post: We Shouldn't Want Internet Giants Deciding Who To Silence; But They Should Let Users Decide Who To Hear
Re: Re: Re:
Or just to leave, period.
No one deserves a second chance, but most times a kind proprietor will give them one anyways.
Or several hundred, if Techdirt is any example.
On the post: We Shouldn't Want Internet Giants Deciding Who To Silence; But They Should Let Users Decide Who To Hear
Re: Re: Re:
My, my. You're consuming content with paying for it.
Dirty pirate.
Next >>