IV is smart. Their agreement with customers of their protection service, like Google, may specific procedures for how acquisitions are treated... and with the suit, IV manages to stake a claim at some higher rate than otherwise.
Or, the agreement is silent, but IV thinks they have enough leverage to shake a payday from the traditional cash pot often set-aside, in a big acquisition, for clearing pending pre-acquisition disputes. It might even be the case that such disputes, once resolved, get deducted (up to a level a little like a deductible) from the prior MMI owner's payments. So Google may be indifferent to IV taking its pint of blood: they pay the same either way, and get MMI at the end... only the current MMI shareholders get bled.
My understanding regarding NY: Amazon is pursuing a court challenge there. While the challenge is alive (it lost at a lower level, but has been appealed), Amazon is paying New York sales taxes into an escrow account. As long as they're on the hook for sales taxes during the appeal, and hopeful of a victory, it seems they're also maintaining the affiliate program.
Having sales-affiliates who are under incentive payment plans (commissions as a percentage of sales) isn't an absurd basis for a tax nexus. And the relevant Supreme Court ruling came from 1992, and relied at least a little on how onerous it was, back then, to keep track of sales taxes everywhere. Now, there's practically 'An App For That'.
Amazon doesn't even like to pay sales taxes in states where it has actual physical distribution centers, which store and ship retail-purchased products, like it has in Nevada and Texas. (It uses a system of subsidiaries to try to avoid liability.)
Last year, the Texas comptroller decided Amazon owed almost $300 million in back taxes based on its in-state distribution center, kicking off a battle there with many twists and turns:
• GOP comptroller demands back-tax payment
• Amazon declares intent to leave state
• GOP governor announces opposition to GOP comptroller's decision
• Amazon's hometown newspaper, the Seattle Times, editorializes that Amazon should stop trying to dodge sales taxes in Texas and elsewhere
• Texas's GOP legislature passes bill (like the California one) establishing additional Amazon liability based on the affiliate logic – supporting and going beyond the Comptroller
• GOP governor with rumored presidential ambitions vetoes bill
• Texas GOP legislature starts working on ways to pass measure over veto
• Amazon offers Texas legislature 5000 – no, two weeks later, make that 6000! – new distribution jobs in state if they pass a multi-year Amazon-specific sales-tax exemption.
Since Texas has no income tax, they can't make up that exemption on the employees' income taxes – the sales tax is the state's main source of revenue. So far, the legislature has rejected Amazon's offer.
This highlights one of the reasons a national popular vote (rather than the electoral college) could create more, rather than fewer, problematic situations like Bush/Gore 2000.
By the median voter theorem, the two parties will adjust themselves so that most elections tend towards a 50-50 split. A nationwide popular vote makes a few thousand votes *anywhere* potentially result-changing. Both parties have regions where their partisans dominate; both parties have some ethically-challenged-if-its-for-the-cause rank-and-file, especially at the local levels where there's less focused media attention.
So, sneaking in a small number of votes to run up the victory totals in the most partisan, least-mentally-balanced strongholds could more easily swing the whole election. It means that instead of having to watch a few swing states very closely – states that by definition have healthy organizations on both sides – every single partisan outpost needs to be suspect.
In a close election, everyplace becomes Florida/Palm Beach County (or Waukesha County), simultaneously.
Reminds me of a favorite (though far-fetched) idea for encouraging federal fiscal responsibility I read about long ago: have two currencies, one for all private use (including taxpaying), one that's used to pay all government workers, dependents, and contractors. The exchange rate between the two would float such that for any given rolling reference period, payments in Gov$ must equal receipts in Priv$.
All at once, all the constituencies whose tight-feedback-loop lobbying and politicking throw budgets into long-term deficit would pay a lot closer attention to government overpromises -- because the main way they'd be reconciled would be automatic devaluation of Gov$.
This just in: pointing a camera at someone changes their behavior
You see this lots of times at protests and picket lines. As soon as filming (or a live news 'stand-up') starts, behavior changes: chants start, marching begins, signs are repositioned, people crowd around. Cameras off, back to waiting around.
Of course the same applies to officials and law-enforcement: as soon as there's awareness of a camera, postures/tone/behavior changes.
You can't fully trust any photo or video as an accurate representation of the same area without a camera.
Also interesting in the account you linked: the Demand Media connections. The first squatter/squatter-representative is AcquireThisName.com, which shares board members (at least) with Demand Media. The eventual auction was through NameJet, a 'partner' of Demand-owned eNom.
So perhaps that's part of the Demand Media secret sauce to take note of before its IPO: making money by holding domains hostage, even if they are clearly associated with others' trademarks.
Napster was launched in 1999, and sued in 2000. Not 1998.
A minor point, perhaps, but on a pet issue like this I'd hope TechDirt could get the details right (from either recollection or by double-checking commenter-supplied factoids).
This idea of the destination of a link changing out from under you having any bearing reflects a total misunderstanding of jurisprudence.
No trial will apply tests of defamation or precedents robotically; this isn't a logic puzzle where the legal system is trying to trap people for unintentional communication. Nor would you be likely get in trouble for forwarding a link to a long discussion thread, where a few comments were defamatory.
The issue would be: was your communicative intent spreading damaging and malicious falsehoods? Judges and juries have to assess this all the time, and (at least in the US) they err in the favor of speakers. Only if there's strong evidence you chose links specifically for their damaging falsehoods would there be some danger of liability... and if you're choosing links with malice and a disregard for the truth in a calculated effort to harm someone, well, then, you deserve liability. You shouldn't be able to 'launder' your own malicious intent just by expressing it through the language of hyperlinks.
so we'll just leave it to the judges and prosecutors to decide on the spot whether to fine us or not
No, it'll take a trial. Just like other potentially-defamatory speech is judged.
If you "excerpted lots of dematory statements", then you would be creating yourself a new work that is libelous.
Exactly. And a curated/forwarded collection of links can be a new work, too. So if I asked you, "what do you think is the truth about Mike Masnick?", and you responded with a list of links that were all individually defamatory -- malicious lies intended to destroy his reputation -- well, you've communicated something tangible, that reasonable jurors can evaluate if called upon to do so. The indirection of using links doesn't help any more than the indirection of selective quoting. You've made communicative choices -- from a vocabulary of words that include all possible links -- and your choices sent a clear message that was intentionally false and malicious, legally defamatory.
You can't use a robotic defense -- "but I personally didn't say anything!" -- because jurors are not compilers; they can and do evaluate the totality of the situation including your plainly visible intent.
I think commenters (including Mike) aren't giving the court enough credit here.
In the modern language of online discourse, links can be like words. If you choose a series of words maliciously and without regard for the truth, with the aim and effect of destroying someones reputation with falsehoods, you've met traditional standards of slander/libel/defamation. Same with conscious choice of false links to do the most possible damage.
It would be the same if you excerpted lots of defamatory statements from other authors -- choosing them without regard to their truthfulness, just based on the damage they could do. By choosing exactly what to repeat, you've communicated yourself, and can't simply pass it ff as someone else's problem.
It's not a mechanical standard, where you're going to be found guilty by a defamation-robot if one of your many links turns out bad, or changes out from under you, or was forwarded with a good-faith belief it was true. Judges/juries look at the totality of the evidence about peoples' mental states and motivations, as well as the actual effects. And that's as it should be.
Headline/copy should distinguish between Google Books Search and the Google Books Settlement.
Search is an unalloyed good. The Settlement, which uses the class-action process to grant the market leader a de facto monopoly on scanning certain kinds of books, doesn't automatically deserve the same praise.
Innovation == volatility or changes in expectations?
At some level, innovation means effective changes in how results are achieved. So let's say there is a futures or prediction market in future results. The volatility, or changes in predicted levels, over time could each be considered indicators of the kind and volume of innovation.
For example, consider measured life expectancy, and a prediction market in future life expectancy. Rises in both the volatility and level of the futures market give some reading about how much innovation people believe is in progress and likely. Conditional contracts -- (life expectancy for a diagnosis of condition X in 2020 | single-payer health-care) -- might offer best-guess estimates of the innovation expected under certain paths of action.
Regarding Hulser's NPV point (#12): I think this same analysis suggests that for fairness to the aged and sick, and from the viewpoint of those benefitting from "the progress of the arts", copyright terms should be oblivious to the lifetime of the artist.
If two authors create identically compelling works, but one author is on his deathbed, and the other young and healthy, why should it be economic policy to boost the NPV of the younger artists' work by granting it a longer copyright term?
The founders' conception of copyright had this feature -- a fixed, easily-understandable term anchored on the act-of-creation -- but it's been lost over the years.
Some disorders cause iron to collect in the body, especially the liver. I have no idea if the levels involved could explain feeling an MRI, but that's something I would learn about -- and even get checked for -- if I were in your situation, tangibly sensitive to magnetic fields others can't feel (regardless of the MRI tech's nonchalance). Look up [hemochromatosis] for more info.
On the post: Why Did Intellectual Ventures Sue Motorola Mobility... Even As Google Is An IV Investor?
Or, the agreement is silent, but IV thinks they have enough leverage to shake a payday from the traditional cash pot often set-aside, in a big acquisition, for clearing pending pre-acquisition disputes. It might even be the case that such disputes, once resolved, get deducted (up to a level a little like a deductible) from the prior MMI owner's payments. So Google may be indifferent to IV taking its pint of blood: they pay the same either way, and get MMI at the end... only the current MMI shareholders get bled.
On the post: Amazon Prepares For Showdown In California After Budget Includes Amazon Tax
Re: Re: Can only boot so many affiliates...
On the post: Amazon Prepares For Showdown In California After Budget Includes Amazon Tax
Amazon doesn't even like to pay sales taxes in states where it has actual physical distribution centers, which store and ship retail-purchased products, like it has in Nevada and Texas. (It uses a system of subsidiaries to try to avoid liability.)
Last year, the Texas comptroller decided Amazon owed almost $300 million in back taxes based on its in-state distribution center, kicking off a battle there with many twists and turns:
• GOP comptroller demands back-tax payment
• Amazon declares intent to leave state
• GOP governor announces opposition to GOP comptroller's decision
• Amazon's hometown newspaper, the Seattle Times, editorializes that Amazon should stop trying to dodge sales taxes in Texas and elsewhere
• Texas's GOP legislature passes bill (like the California one) establishing additional Amazon liability based on the affiliate logic – supporting and going beyond the Comptroller
• GOP governor with rumored presidential ambitions vetoes bill
• Texas GOP legislature starts working on ways to pass measure over veto
• Amazon offers Texas legislature 5000 – no, two weeks later, make that 6000! – new distribution jobs in state if they pass a multi-year Amazon-specific sales-tax exemption.
Since Texas has no income tax, they can't make up that exemption on the employees' income taxes – the sales tax is the state's main source of revenue. So far, the legislature has rejected Amazon's offer.
On the post: Wisconsin County That 'Found' Lost Votes Apparently Has Major Voting Irregularities For Years...
By the median voter theorem, the two parties will adjust themselves so that most elections tend towards a 50-50 split. A nationwide popular vote makes a few thousand votes *anywhere* potentially result-changing. Both parties have regions where their partisans dominate; both parties have some ethically-challenged-if-its-for-the-cause rank-and-file, especially at the local levels where there's less focused media attention.
So, sneaking in a small number of votes to run up the victory totals in the most partisan, least-mentally-balanced strongholds could more easily swing the whole election. It means that instead of having to watch a few swing states very closely – states that by definition have healthy organizations on both sides – every single partisan outpost needs to be suspect.
In a close election, everyplace becomes Florida/Palm Beach County (or Waukesha County), simultaneously.
On the post: 'Privacy' The Latest Tool Being Used For Censorship
You know a European who'd really like to be forgotten?
On the post: Finally Found: A Human That Can Beat Watson... And It Turns Out To Be Rep. Rush Holt
Cui bono?
On the post: Senator Schumer Says Websites Should Default To HTTPS
https://schumer.senate.gov/
"schumer.senate.gov uses an invalid security certificate."
On the post: Rethinking Money: Breaking Up Currencies
Gov-payment scrip
All at once, all the constituencies whose tight-feedback-loop lobbying and politicking throw budgets into long-term deficit would pay a lot closer attention to government overpromises -- because the main way they'd be reconciled would be automatic devaluation of Gov$.
On the post: Let's Play A Game: Anarchist Or Photo Op?
This just in: pointing a camera at someone changes their behavior
Of course the same applies to officials and law-enforcement: as soon as there's awareness of a camera, postures/tone/behavior changes.
You can't fully trust any photo or video as an accurate representation of the same area without a camera.
On the post: Khan Academy Buys Cybersquatted Dot Com
Demand Media connection
So perhaps that's part of the Demand Media secret sauce to take note of before its IPO: making money by holding domains hostage, even if they are clearly associated with others' trademarks.
On the post: If You Don't Get The Matching Brand Paper Towel Out Of A Dispenser In A Restroom... Is That Trademark Infringement?
Re: How about...
Zero chance of confusion or trading on another's reputation.
On the post: The Rise And Fall Of The RIAA
Napster launched 1999, sued 2000
A minor point, perhaps, but on a pet issue like this I'd hope TechDirt could get the details right (from either recollection or by double-checking commenter-supplied factoids).
On the post: Terrible Ruling: Forwarding A Link Can Be Considered Defamation
Re: Re: Links
No trial will apply tests of defamation or precedents robotically; this isn't a logic puzzle where the legal system is trying to trap people for unintentional communication. Nor would you be likely get in trouble for forwarding a link to a long discussion thread, where a few comments were defamatory.
The issue would be: was your communicative intent spreading damaging and malicious falsehoods? Judges and juries have to assess this all the time, and (at least in the US) they err in the favor of speakers. Only if there's strong evidence you chose links specifically for their damaging falsehoods would there be some danger of liability... and if you're choosing links with malice and a disregard for the truth in a calculated effort to harm someone, well, then, you deserve liability. You shouldn't be able to 'launder' your own malicious intent just by expressing it through the language of hyperlinks.
On the post: Terrible Ruling: Forwarding A Link Can Be Considered Defamation
Re: links are speech
No, it'll take a trial. Just like other potentially-defamatory speech is judged.
If you "excerpted lots of dematory statements", then you would be creating yourself a new work that is libelous.
Exactly. And a curated/forwarded collection of links can be a new work, too. So if I asked you, "what do you think is the truth about Mike Masnick?", and you responded with a list of links that were all individually defamatory -- malicious lies intended to destroy his reputation -- well, you've communicated something tangible, that reasonable jurors can evaluate if called upon to do so. The indirection of using links doesn't help any more than the indirection of selective quoting. You've made communicative choices -- from a vocabulary of words that include all possible links -- and your choices sent a clear message that was intentionally false and malicious, legally defamatory.
You can't use a robotic defense -- "but I personally didn't say anything!" -- because jurors are not compilers; they can and do evaluate the totality of the situation including your plainly visible intent.
On the post: Terrible Ruling: Forwarding A Link Can Be Considered Defamation
In the modern language of online discourse, links can be like words. If you choose a series of words maliciously and without regard for the truth, with the aim and effect of destroying someones reputation with falsehoods, you've met traditional standards of slander/libel/defamation. Same with conscious choice of false links to do the most possible damage.
It would be the same if you excerpted lots of defamatory statements from other authors -- choosing them without regard to their truthfulness, just based on the damage they could do. By choosing exactly what to repeat, you've communicated yourself, and can't simply pass it ff as someone else's problem.
It's not a mechanical standard, where you're going to be found guilty by a defamation-robot if one of your many links turns out bad, or changes out from under you, or was forwarded with a good-faith belief it was true. Judges/juries look at the totality of the evidence about peoples' mental states and motivations, as well as the actual effects. And that's as it should be.
On the post: Publisher Realizes Google Books Isn't Evil, But Quite Beneficial
Google Books Search vs. Google Books Settlement
Search is an unalloyed good. The Settlement, which uses the class-action process to grant the market leader a de facto monopoly on scanning certain kinds of books, doesn't automatically deserve the same praise.
On the post: Can We Come Up With A Better Way To Measure Innovation?
Innovation == volatility or changes in expectations?
For example, consider measured life expectancy, and a prediction market in future life expectancy. Rises in both the volatility and level of the futures market give some reading about how much innovation people believe is in progress and likely. Conditional contracts -- (life expectancy for a diagnosis of condition X in 2020 | single-payer health-care) -- might offer best-guess estimates of the innovation expected under certain paths of action.
On the post: NY Times Takes Up The Case Of Sherlock Holmes And The Lost Public Domain... But Gets It Wrong
NPV and lifetime of artist
If two authors create identically compelling works, but one author is on his deathbed, and the other young and healthy, why should it be economic policy to boost the NPV of the younger artists' work by granting it a longer copyright term?
The founders' conception of copyright had this feature -- a fixed, easily-understandable term anchored on the act-of-creation -- but it's been lost over the years.
On the post: Man Sues Neighbor For Not Turning Off WiFi And Cell Phone
Re: About electromagnetic sensitivity
Some disorders cause iron to collect in the body, especially the liver. I have no idea if the levels involved could explain feeling an MRI, but that's something I would learn about -- and even get checked for -- if I were in your situation, tangibly sensitive to magnetic fields others can't feel (regardless of the MRI tech's nonchalance). Look up [hemochromatosis] for more info.
On the post: Yes, We Can Write Our Opinions Without Contacting The Company We're Writing About First
'Right of Reply'
http://news.cnet.com/2010-1071_3-1017333.html
Next >>