Well you know, no company this big can be 100,00 % evil. There's always the odd free software project by one of their employees which happens to be good for the world by mistake.
Yes, but it's quite hard to perform such a test because you'd need to vary dozens of factors, including DKIM/SPF/DMARC configuration, source domains, IP addresses in Received headers, encryption, user-agent, HTML formatting, message IDs and references, volume and timing of emails across all of these, previous interaction between the sender and the recipient etc. etc. All of which is a moving target because you cannot know what the actual spammers are doing at any given moment which may change the impact of any of those variables.
There are a few companies which claim to be measuring the deliverability in the wild but it's not clear how they do it or how reliable it might be.
That suggests intentionality, which the data doesn't seem confirm. Also, if you look at the spam rates the Yang campaign is quite bad (maybe all that talk about 1000 $ sounds too similar to Nigerian scams? :-) ) and Buttigieg isn't so good either.
Never underestimate how incompetently run a lot of ISP's infrastructure is. DNS servers are no exception. DNS resolution can take hundreds of ms in the wild.
The rest of the candidates... did not. And thus, their emails went to the promotions and spam folder because they had characteristics that are more closely associated with promotions and spam.
That was my guess before looking at the data, but after looking briefly at it I'd question whether this is really the case. The content and features of the emails might actually be rather similar; maybe Yang and Buttigieg used less popular software, not as well known to Gmail's filter as NationBuilder and ActBlue which are used by many of the others.
In the lawsuit against Book Dog Books, Wiley and others got 39 M$ for the usage of 116 books, while not providing any proof that they had actually acquired the copyright on them. Book Dog complained about this and lost because it didn't oppose such "told you so" early enough:
Defendants never challenged this testimony, nor did they ask any questions regarding Plaintiffs’ ownership of these works. No contradictory evidence of ownership presented. The jury was entirely justified in concluding that Plaintiffs established ownership for all works.
Out videos have appeared on... NBC, Fox, MTV, BBC, Ellen, CNN
Does a 95 G$/y company like Comcast/NBC care about paying the authors? Of course not, they only want to avoid expensive lawsuits. When they buy such "licenses" they are buying an insurance against lawsuits, which gives them enough plausible deniability to redirect them to Jukin media in most cases. (Surely there are indemnification clauses and whatnot attached.)
If a lawsuit goes badly, Jukin might go bankrupt but the big bucks are safe and another fake licensing company can arise.
In the only court case I could find, Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (2015), Jukin lost on almost all counts and interestingly failed to prove they own the copyrights they claim:
rights by written agreement. In response to Jukin’s proposed Statement of Undisputed Facts, Equals Three argues that it is unclear whether Jukin obtained its rights from the actual copyright owner and whether Jukin’s rights include the right to assert copyright claims. Equals Three rests this argument on Jukin’s Chief Executive’s statement in a newspaper article that the difficult part of the business for Jukin is finding the true owners of the videos it targets for acquisition.
2D reproduction of 3D object à la Bridgeman v. Corel
Let's hope the case is not dismissed on some procedural grounds. I want to learn whether a simple reproduction of a common 3D object, virtually indistinguishable from thousands of others, is copyrightable.
Liebowitz might be stupid enough to fight the case through several appeals and if we're lucky we'll get a new Bridgeman v. Corel ruling, this time for 2D reproductions of 3D objects. I'm not holding my breathe though.
The link between US intelligence and Crypto was first reported by the Baltimore Sun in 1995, leading several countries to stop buying from the company. Bizarrely, however, Iran continued to purchase Crypto equipment for several years.
Indeed I don't understand the plan. In what jurisdiction is he?
This might work if you use a very permissive license after having registered the copyright in the USA copyright register. If you successfully waive all your copyrights, your opinion may just not matter; you won't have any standing in any lawsuit anyway.
The problem is that it will be very hard to register so many works correctly. Almost certainly someone will claim one of them was already registered before, or that you've otherwise lied in the copyright registration form, and the registration will be invalidated.
You may well be right about the outcome but I'm not sure about "total idiot". Many of the useful legal doctrines in USA (like privacy and fair use) have emerged from a very tortuous history in courts across decades.
I'm sorry but Lessig wins this debate, because Mike wasn't able to agree to a single example of bad headline being defamatory. Which is fine, if you argue there shouldn't be any law against defamation; but Mike is not (explicitly) arguing that.
So, tomorrow the NYT publishes an article with headline "Mike Masnick's Car Plows Into Childs, Killing 2 and Injuring 3" (example). The headline is repeated all over the place: frontpage, Twitter, RSS feeds, email newsletters, every social media under the sun. The first paragraph describes the brutal accident. The second paragraph says, well actually, the children were a bunch of childish trolls on his websites, and by driving over them we mean he ruthlessly debunked their posts and left them utterly demolished.
All fine then? Come on Mike, give us a single example of something you would agree is and should be sanctioned as defamatory. (Real world example from court cases allowed.) Otherwise your argument is not very credible.
That said, I do think that Lessig's lawsuit is extremely unlikely end up well. It will certainly drag on for a while and attract more attention to headlines which otherwise could be forgotten sooner or later (maybe in 1 year, maybe in 20). If Lessig loses, then ok, we know the NYT is free to have the most misleading headlines one can possibly imagine. If Lessig wins, out of thousands or millions of lawsuits and legal blackmail letters which will ensure, trying to emulate him, what percentage will be from good people? More or less than 0.001 %?
Google Analytics nowadays stores its formerly third-party cookies as first-party cookies, sending them to Google servers by JavaScript, so it's no surprise that Google finds them unnecessary.
There's nothing unusual in the apparent contradiction here: privacy is pushed by the EU parliament and (when it succeeds) the EU institutions including the European Commission.
Governments (of the member states) and their police do not like privacy, for obvious reasons, therefore all efforts towards privacy are resisted by all the governmental and intergovernmental structures. This "counter-terrorism coordinator" is just one of many intergovernmental creations, as can be seen by the fact that it's under the European Council and was created just by proclamation of the European Council, not by some legal act of the Council of the EU, probably to avoid having to respect the EU treaties. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/counter-terrorism-coor dinator/
However, for any such language in Article I, Section 9 it's pretty hard IMHO to claim that the meaning is clear and narrow. I've just performed a quick search and it's easy to see court rullings using the Title of Nobility Clause to infer all sorts of things.
The writers of the Constitution wanted no title of nobility or hereditary distinction. They also provided that no office should be created, “the appointment of which shall be for a longer time than a term of years.” (Emphasis added.) It was contemplated by the authors of the Constitution that the Legislature would have the right to fix terms of office for only a period of years, thereby enabling the people periodically to select public officers. The reasons are obvious.
Our historic aversion to titles of nobility is only one aspect of our commitment to the proposition that the sovereign has a fundamental duty to govern impartially.
Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980)
The perpetuation of social stratification is also, in this court’s view, inconsistent with the public policy sought to be promoted by the exemption statutes of this state, and is fundamentally inconsistent with the history of this state and the circumstances which surrounded the creation of its original constitution. See, e.g., Constitution of the Republic of Texas [1836], General Provisions, Sec. 10 (“every head of a family shall be entitled to one league and labor of land”); id., Declaration of Rights (“no title of nobility, hereditary privileges or honors, shall ever be granted or conferred in this Republic”).
In re Leva, 96 B.R. 723 (1989)
[I swear I'm not aware of any relationship between my family and this Leva!]
As the very existence of the numerous and ponderous post-1982 decisions of the D.C. courts should make clear, however, the MFJ was far from a final resolution of the nation’s telecommunications dilemma. Its enforcement and alteration in the light of technological progress and changing market circumstances ultimately required substantial monitoring on the part of the district court, and the extensive judicial tinkering that resulted prompted many pundits to dub District Judge Greene the country’s “telecommunication’s czar.” Unsurprisingly, Congress soon became skeptical of this unusual title of.judicial nobility, and ultimately spent many long and contentious years in drafting a system of comprehensive telecommunications regulation to replace and supplement the MFJ. See SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 138 F.3d 410, 412-13 (D.C.Cir.1998). On February 8, 1996, President Clinton executed these legislative labors into law as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”).
SBC Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 154 F.3d 226 (1998)
Ok, this was fun. So I stand by my right to give lyrical/creative interpretations of USA customs, in keeping with good European tradition since Tocqueville. ;-)
Yes definitely, in case it wasn't clear it was not meant to be a credible legal argument. :) I considered adding a /s at the end but it seemed unnecessary.
On the post: Why Is Fox News Acting As State Media, Announcing Trump's Lawsuits Before They're Filed And Failing To Point Out How Frivolous They Are?
Re: Fair fashion coverage
Yes, I also heard that there was extensive coverage on Fox News about Trump wearing white trousers yesterday.
On the post: Facebook Still Can't Admit That Launching Libra During An International Privacy Scandal Is Idiotic
Re: Facebook charming
Well you know, no company this big can be 100,00 % evil. There's always the odd free software project by one of their employees which happens to be good for the world by mistake.
On the post: No, Google Isn't Hiding Elizabeth Warren's Emails To Promote Mayor Pete
Re: Message content vs. other factors
Yes, but it's quite hard to perform such a test because you'd need to vary dozens of factors, including DKIM/SPF/DMARC configuration, source domains, IP addresses in Received headers, encryption, user-agent, HTML formatting, message IDs and references, volume and timing of emails across all of these, previous interaction between the sender and the recipient etc. etc. All of which is a moving target because you cannot know what the actual spammers are doing at any given moment which may change the impact of any of those variables.
There are a few companies which claim to be measuring the deliverability in the wild but it's not clear how they do it or how reliable it might be.
On the post: No, Google Isn't Hiding Elizabeth Warren's Emails To Promote Mayor Pete
Re: Re: Simpler explanations
That suggests intentionality, which the data doesn't seem confirm. Also, if you look at the spam rates the Yang campaign is quite bad (maybe all that talk about 1000 $ sounds too similar to Nigerian scams? :-) ) and Buttigieg isn't so good either.
On the post: Hoping To Combat ISP Snooping, Mozilla Enables Encrypted DNS
Re: Re: Bonus
Never underestimate how incompetently run a lot of ISP's infrastructure is. DNS servers are no exception. DNS resolution can take hundreds of ms in the wild.
On the post: No, Google Isn't Hiding Elizabeth Warren's Emails To Promote Mayor Pete
Simpler explanations
That was my guess before looking at the data, but after looking briefly at it I'd question whether this is really the case. The content and features of the emails might actually be rather similar; maybe Yang and Buttigieg used less popular software, not as well known to Gmail's filter as NationBuilder and ActBlue which are used by many of the others.
On the post: NSA Blew $100 Million On Phone Records Over Five Years, Generated Exactly One Usable Lead
Corporate welfare
100 M$ went to some NSA-friendly corporation with NSA-connected employees, in return for nothing. Mission accomplished?
On the post: Can You License A Video You Don't Hold The Copyright Over?
Re: Highsmith v. Getty
This argument can fly if the original work (the video footage) is in the public domain, but not if it's copyrighted.
On the post: Can You License A Video You Don't Hold The Copyright Over?
Licenses as fraud or extortion
In the lawsuit against Book Dog Books, Wiley and others got 39 M$ for the usage of 116 books, while not providing any proof that they had actually acquired the copyright on them. Book Dog complained about this and lost because it didn't oppose such "told you so" early enough:
On the post: Can You License A Video You Don't Hold The Copyright Over?
Licenses as insurance
I see that on their home page they boast:
Does a 95 G$/y company like Comcast/NBC care about paying the authors? Of course not, they only want to avoid expensive lawsuits. When they buy such "licenses" they are buying an insurance against lawsuits, which gives them enough plausible deniability to redirect them to Jukin media in most cases. (Surely there are indemnification clauses and whatnot attached.)
If a lawsuit goes badly, Jukin might go bankrupt but the big bucks are safe and another fake licensing company can arise.
Jukin has registered almost 800 works, it will be interesting to see how many registrations are untruthful.
In the only court case I could find, Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (2015), Jukin lost on almost all counts and interestingly failed to prove they own the copyrights they claim:
On the post: Copyright Troll Lawsuit Over Duct Taped Banana Picture
2D reproduction of 3D object à la Bridgeman v. Corel
Let's hope the case is not dismissed on some procedural grounds. I want to learn whether a simple reproduction of a common 3D object, virtually indistinguishable from thousands of others, is copyrightable.
Liebowitz might be stupid enough to fight the case through several appeals and if we're lucky we'll get a new Bridgeman v. Corel ruling, this time for 2D reproductions of 3D objects. I'm not holding my breathe though.
On the post: US Takes Baby Steps Toward Providing Actual Public Evidence Of Huawei Spying
Re: The Crypto AG story appears to be quite old
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/11/crypto-ag-cia-bnd-germany-intelligence-report
The mystery is precisely why nobody bothered to check, although everybody knew of the rumor.
On the post: Attempt To Put Every Musical Melody Into The Public Domain Demonstrates Craziness Of Modern Copyright
Enforceability of the lack of copyright
Indeed I don't understand the plan. In what jurisdiction is he?
This might work if you use a very permissive license after having registered the copyright in the USA copyright register. If you successfully waive all your copyrights, your opinion may just not matter; you won't have any standing in any lawsuit anyway.
The problem is that it will be very hard to register so many works correctly. Almost certainly someone will claim one of them was already registered before, or that you've otherwise lied in the copyright registration form, and the registration will be invalidated.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 238: Larry Lessig Defends His 'Clickbait Defamation' Lawsuit
Re: Re: Lessig wins the day
You may well be right about the outcome but I'm not sure about "total idiot". Many of the useful legal doctrines in USA (like privacy and fair use) have emerged from a very tortuous history in courts across decades.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 238: Larry Lessig Defends His 'Clickbait Defamation' Lawsuit
Lessig wins the day
I'm sorry but Lessig wins this debate, because Mike wasn't able to agree to a single example of bad headline being defamatory. Which is fine, if you argue there shouldn't be any law against defamation; but Mike is not (explicitly) arguing that.
So, tomorrow the NYT publishes an article with headline "Mike Masnick's Car Plows Into Childs, Killing 2 and Injuring 3" (example). The headline is repeated all over the place: frontpage, Twitter, RSS feeds, email newsletters, every social media under the sun. The first paragraph describes the brutal accident. The second paragraph says, well actually, the children were a bunch of childish trolls on his websites, and by driving over them we mean he ruthlessly debunked their posts and left them utterly demolished.
All fine then? Come on Mike, give us a single example of something you would agree is and should be sanctioned as defamatory. (Real world example from court cases allowed.) Otherwise your argument is not very credible.
That said, I do think that Lessig's lawsuit is extremely unlikely end up well. It will certainly drag on for a while and attract more attention to headlines which otherwise could be forgotten sooner or later (maybe in 1 year, maybe in 20). If Lessig loses, then ok, we know the NYT is free to have the most misleading headlines one can possibly imagine. If Lessig wins, out of thousands or millions of lawsuits and legal blackmail letters which will ensure, trying to emulate him, what percentage will be from good people? More or less than 0.001 %?
On the post: Chrome's Move To Stomp Out Third Party Cookies? Good For Privacy, Good For Google's Ad Business... Or Both?
Third-party cookies superseded
Google Analytics nowadays stores its formerly third-party cookies as first-party cookies, sending them to Google servers by JavaScript, so it's no surprise that Google finds them unnecessary.
Don't worry, even the publishers are "smart" enough to use the same trick. See for instance https://noyb.eu/say-no-to-cookies-yet-see-your-privacy-crumble/ and another one found for Mozilla Firefox' cookie protection which I cannot find right now.
Google wouldn't be making this move if there was any serious money left in the practice, IMHO.
On the post: European Law Enforcement Officials Upset Facebook Is Warning Users Their Devices May Have Been Hacked
Not the EU proper
There's nothing unusual in the apparent contradiction here: privacy is pushed by the EU parliament and (when it succeeds) the EU institutions including the European Commission.
Governments (of the member states) and their police do not like privacy, for obvious reasons, therefore all efforts towards privacy are resisted by all the governmental and intergovernmental structures. This "counter-terrorism coordinator" is just one of many intergovernmental creations, as can be seen by the fact that it's under the European Council and was created just by proclamation of the European Council, not by some legal act of the Council of the EU, probably to avoid having to respect the EU treaties.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/counter-terrorism-coor dinator/
Simple isn't it?
On the post: The New York Times Tries Something Novel: Listening To And Interacting With Readers
Spiegel deletes comments with 24 hours warning
Spiegel didn't get the memo:
https://www.spiegel.de/dienste/in-eigener-sache-informationen-zur-einstellung-des-spon-forums- a-1303596.html
https://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Deathwatch&diff=42895&oldid=42891
On the post: Why Are Members Of Congress Telling A Private Organization Not To Comment On Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Re: Addiction to monopolies
However, for any such language in Article I, Section 9 it's pretty hard IMHO to claim that the meaning is clear and narrow. I've just performed a quick search and it's easy to see court rullings using the Title of Nobility Clause to infer all sorts of things.
Board of Education v. Gulick, 398 S.W.2d 483 (1966)
https://casetext.com/case/board-of-education-of-pendleton-county-v-gulick
Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980)
In re Leva, 96 B.R. 723 (1989)
[I swear I'm not aware of any relationship between my family and this Leva!]
SBC Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 154 F.3d 226 (1998)
Ok, this was fun. So I stand by my right to give lyrical/creative interpretations of USA customs, in keeping with good European tradition since Tocqueville. ;-)
On the post: Why Are Members Of Congress Telling A Private Organization Not To Comment On Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Addiction to monopolies
Yes definitely, in case it wasn't clear it was not meant to be a credible legal argument. :) I considered adding a /s at the end but it seemed unnecessary.
Next >>