Not sure what TinEye is, I don't see it referenced in the article. Is it in one of the links?
BTW, you do know you can check a box on your account page that keeps you signed in. You will need to set your browser to save the cookie and your password. But when I clear my browser info I don't clear passwords (I only save this one), I just sign in again, all my info is there and I just have to click sign in. The only other time I lose my signed in status is when my browser (Chromium) updates, but it just takes two clicks (sign in and then sign in again on the next page) and I remain signed in until the next time the browser updates, or I clear my Internet history stuff.
Somehow, concern about how the 'obtusely woke' worry about their current feelz seems about as significant as that ant crossing ones path in the woods would be to ones travels.
"The Chamber of Commerce is using the Hollywood style lettering, which is an approximation of the famous Hollywood sign, and the star behind their heads (which it apparently believes is an implied reference to the stars on Hollywood's walk of fame), to argue that this is unauthorized use of their marks."
This statement might suggest lettering style and the use of a star.
"While I haven't seen the full cease-and-desist letter..."
While this one leaves the actual reason up in the air. I am conjecturing that the fact that they used the term 'Hollywood' is what the Chamber has their shorts in a twist about. Then there's that star thing. Is it possible that any representation of a star, on its own, could be trademarked? There are times when a star is part of a more complex logo that it is, but without the rest of the logo...?
However, if it is only lettering style (how could that be trademarked?) it would explain why the Hollywood Reporter hasn't gotten their own, frame-able, cease and desist letter. Could be cause for jealousy. Is that actionable?
Targeting groups by the police for 1st Amendment activities is a bias that is actually illegal. Some platform eliminating someone for violating their Terms of Service is not illegal.
Along that line, I think if the so called left behaved as egregiously as the so called right, they would be banned as well. Note the trend? Kicked off for egregious behavior, not point of view.
So the moral of the story is, tell your far (label) wing brethren to follow the TOS and to state their minds in more respectful ways and they will maintain their status on platforms.
I forgot about Hollywood Florida. What in the hell is the USPTO doing by giving a trademark for a place name when there is more than one place with that name, and more than one existed prior to the trademark application? What dolts.
Tweets are not the only things some police forces are causing to disappear. How about evidence, as in communications that is used in developing cases. A report from Al Jazeera suggests that at least one department is using a messaging app called Tiger Text that causes the message to disappear after some set time. Presumably some of these texts would be appropriate discovery in Brady material, but will never be available. The app is on phones distributed by the department. Oh how open our LEO's are.
Back to the instant story. The fact that they took down the tweet does not preclude the fact that the tweet existed, especially when screenshots have been taken. I am not sure when those screenshots will appear as evidence of some charge of misbehavior by the MSP, but I am wagering 5 Internets that they will. I would guess at what those charges might be, but it seems to me that there are a variety of possibilities available, and I wouldn't want to miss any.
Re: So, federal rules likely dangerous and impossible?
Well, if you keep one eye closed the the other squinting tightly and wave your 'Techdirt Loves Google Filter™' (which has a small but committed market) furiously, one could see it that way.
On the other hand, the article referenced the EFF, who to my knowledge has no taint with regard to their love of the Google, but who complain about the lack of consumer groups being invited to a meeting where consumers are going to be discussed certainly seems poignant. Did you miss those parts of the article and only see what you wanted to see?
Letting only industry have input over consumer issues is likely dangerous, to consumers, but not impossible to imagine given the makeup of this meeting and in the light of both hard and soft money in politics.
There is a certain amount of truth to that. It seems to me however that the Government funded DARPA, then got out of their way (though DARPA is still government). Then DARPA along with a bunch of universities created the Internet. I don't know enough about the actual goings on back then to know where the 'innovation' came from, but the inclusion of the universities makes stating that DARPA created the Internet all on its own...suspect.
There is a certain amount of truth to that. It seems to me however that the Government funded DARPA, then got out of their way (though DARPA is still government). Then DARPA along with a bunch of universities created the Internet. I don't know enough about the actual goings on back then to know where the 'innovation' came from, but the inclusion of the universities makes stating that DARPA created the Internet all on its own...suspect.
>"...given this long list of security failures..."
To us they are failures. To them the are features. Why would the State Department actually want anyone else to know what they think or do? Who do we think they work for?
I am not so sure that Governments are the primary drivers of innovation. They certainly contributed to the financing of innovative ideas that came from elsewhere, but that makes them abettor's, not drivers.
Now that you mention it, I am trying to imagine what Disney might steal from this treasure trove. Given the subjects covered the possibilities might be enormous.
More importantly, once Disney co-opts something from this segment of the Public Domain, does it preclude anyone else from using it? They have tried that tactic in the past.
Will they have to pay the authors or would it be considered a work for hire, even though they didn't do the hiring and we did the paying?
Policy has nothing to do with whether a defamatory comment is made. The policy might suggest removing the comment, but then the defamation (if it meets the tests, of which there are four not three) was still there. Depending on the length of time the post was allowed to stay up might impact whether or not it gets noticed, but only the one making the defamatory statement is guilty of defamation, not the policy maker(s) or the platform upon which it appears.
It might be misleading. It might be considered fraud if money were taken. It might be nasty, disingenuous, or a lie. But unless some statement is made disparaging another as fact, rather than opinion, it isn't libel.
Libel and slander are both forms of defamation. Defamation is a common law tort, governed by state law, in which an individual makes a "publication" of a defamatory statement of and concerning the plaintiff that damages the reputation of the plaintiff. The distinction between slander and libel comes in the form of the publication.
Slander involves the oral "publication" of a defamatory remark that is heard by another, which injures the subject's reputation or character. Slander can occur through the use of a hand gesture or verbal communication that is not recorded. Libel, on the other hand, is the written "publication" of a defamatory remark that has the tendency to injure another's reputation or character. Libel also includes a publication on radio, audio or video. Even though this would be considered oral, or verbal, communication to someone it is actually considered to be libel because it is published in a transfixed form.
What are the elements of a cause of action for libel or slander?
The elements of a defamation suit; whether slander or libel, are:
A defamatory statement;
Published to a third party;
Which the speaker knew or should have known was false;
That causes injury to the subject of the communication
A policy wouldn't satisfy unless if denigrated someone, and why would a policy do such? Even if they announce policy x but practice y it would take someone using the service the 'policies' relate to, and then actually commit libel for libel to have taken place. Just stating ones policy falsely doesn't satisfy the tests listed above.
My first reaction to this statement was: tell that to the state retail tax boards. Now I will add: tell that to national retail tax boards, and maybe those who impose import/export tariffs.
He know what the truth is, it just won't fit in his mouth.
"Of course, those who demand greater government control of the Internet haven’t given up."
Pai's disingenuous characterization is not very subtle. In fact the demand is not for government control of the Internet, but for control over internet providers, no matter what flavor.
Control to keep the expected dumb pipes dumb. Control to encourage actual competition to keep quality high and prices low.
Control to keep those offering service honest in their advertising and billing practices.
Control to separate content from access.
Control to keep corporations from overly influencing Government in their favor rather than the owners of this country, the people.
On the post: State Cops Accidentally Out Their Surveillance Of Anti-Police Groups With Browser Screenshot
Re: Simple question...
BTW, you do know you can check a box on your account page that keeps you signed in. You will need to set your browser to save the cookie and your password. But when I clear my browser info I don't clear passwords (I only save this one), I just sign in again, all my info is there and I just have to click sign in. The only other time I lose my signed in status is when my browser (Chromium) updates, but it just takes two clicks (sign in and then sign in again on the next page) and I remain signed in until the next time the browser updates, or I clear my Internet history stuff.
On the post: State Cops Accidentally Out Their Surveillance Of Anti-Police Groups With Browser Screenshot
Re:
On the post: Congress Fails To Include A Single Consumer Advocate In Upcoming Privacy Hearing
Re: Re: Re: Running as intended...
Actual citizens have problems registering to vote, how would an illegal alien get through?
On the post: Hollywood Chamber Of Commerce Trademark Bullies Kevin Smith's Podcast Over Hollywood Sign
Re: Re: Re:
You might be right..but:
This statement might suggest lettering style and the use of a star.
While this one leaves the actual reason up in the air. I am conjecturing that the fact that they used the term 'Hollywood' is what the Chamber has their shorts in a twist about. Then there's that star thing. Is it possible that any representation of a star, on its own, could be trademarked? There are times when a star is part of a more complex logo that it is, but without the rest of the logo...?
However, if it is only lettering style (how could that be trademarked?) it would explain why the Hollywood Reporter hasn't gotten their own, frame-able, cease and desist letter. Could be cause for jealousy. Is that actionable?
On the post: State Cops Accidentally Out Their Surveillance Of Anti-Police Groups With Browser Screenshot
Re: Re:
Along that line, I think if the so called left behaved as egregiously as the so called right, they would be banned as well. Note the trend? Kicked off for egregious behavior, not point of view.
So the moral of the story is, tell your far (label) wing brethren to follow the TOS and to state their minds in more respectful ways and they will maintain their status on platforms.
On the post: Hollywood Chamber Of Commerce Trademark Bullies Kevin Smith's Podcast Over Hollywood Sign
Re:
On the post: State Cops Accidentally Out Their Surveillance Of Anti-Police Groups With Browser Screenshot
Speaking of disapearing
Tweets are not the only things some police forces are causing to disappear. How about evidence, as in communications that is used in developing cases. A report from Al Jazeera suggests that at least one department is using a messaging app called Tiger Text that causes the message to disappear after some set time. Presumably some of these texts would be appropriate discovery in Brady material, but will never be available. The app is on phones distributed by the department. Oh how open our LEO's are.
Back to the instant story. The fact that they took down the tweet does not preclude the fact that the tweet existed, especially when screenshots have been taken. I am not sure when those screenshots will appear as evidence of some charge of misbehavior by the MSP, but I am wagering 5 Internets that they will. I would guess at what those charges might be, but it seems to me that there are a variety of possibilities available, and I wouldn't want to miss any.
On the post: Congress Fails To Include A Single Consumer Advocate In Upcoming Privacy Hearing
Re: So, federal rules likely dangerous and impossible?
On the other hand, the article referenced the EFF, who to my knowledge has no taint with regard to their love of the Google, but who complain about the lack of consumer groups being invited to a meeting where consumers are going to be discussed certainly seems poignant. Did you miss those parts of the article and only see what you wanted to see?
Letting only industry have input over consumer issues is likely dangerous, to consumers, but not impossible to imagine given the makeup of this meeting and in the light of both hard and soft money in politics.
On the post: Google Fiber's 'Failure' Succeeded In Shining A Light On Pathetic Broadband Competition
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Fiber's 'Failure' Succeeded In Shining A Light On Pathetic Broadband Competition
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: State Department Still Sucks At Basic Cybersecurity And Senators Want To Know Why
Accidentally on purpose
To us they are failures. To them the are features. Why would the State Department actually want anyone else to know what they think or do? Who do we think they work for?
On the post: Google Fiber's 'Failure' Succeeded In Shining A Light On Pathetic Broadband Competition
Re:
On the post: Compromise Music Modernization Act Will Bring Old Sound Recordings into The Public Domain, Tiptoe Towards Orphan Works Solution
Re: Re: "the purpose and intent of copyright law" is protect Creators,
And all this time I thought it was Don Mclean that killed it. Rather, reported its death.
On the post: Congressional Research Service Reports Now Officially Publicly Available
Re:
More importantly, once Disney co-opts something from this segment of the Public Domain, does it preclude anyone else from using it? They have tried that tactic in the past.
Will they have to pay the authors or would it be considered a work for hire, even though they didn't do the hiring and we did the paying?
On the post: CIA Game Now In Production: Last Chance To Order
Re:
On the post: How Regulating Platforms' Content Moderation Means Regulating Speech - Even Yours.
Re: Re: Re: First Amendment caveats
On the post: How Regulating Platforms' Content Moderation Means Regulating Speech - Even Yours.
Re:
On the post: How Regulating Platforms' Content Moderation Means Regulating Speech - Even Yours.
Re: First Amendment caveats
No, it isn't.
It might be misleading. It might be considered fraud if money were taken. It might be nasty, disingenuous, or a lie. But unless some statement is made disparaging another as fact, rather than opinion, it isn't libel.
A policy wouldn't satisfy unless if denigrated someone, and why would a policy do such? Even if they announce policy x but practice y it would take someone using the service the 'policies' relate to, and then actually commit libel for libel to have taken place. Just stating ones policy falsely doesn't satisfy the tests listed above.
On the post: Ajit Pai Whines About California's Net Neutrality Effort, Calls It 'Radical,' 'Illegal'
Re: State lines
On the post: Ajit Pai Whines About California's Net Neutrality Effort, Calls It 'Radical,' 'Illegal'
He know what the truth is, it just won't fit in his mouth.
Pai's disingenuous characterization is not very subtle. In fact the demand is not for government control of the Internet, but for control over internet providers, no matter what flavor.
Control to keep the expected dumb pipes dumb. Control to encourage actual competition to keep quality high and prices low.
Control to keep those offering service honest in their advertising and billing practices.
Control to separate content from access.
Control to keep corporations from overly influencing Government in their favor rather than the owners of this country, the people.
Next >>