Big Tech company Google was caught red-handed offering a hacking tool to schools and even the general public. The tool in question, Google Chrome, is known to decode HTML code and even display the source code of the content it displays with a simple right-click function. There are even reports that people can use an inspect tool to temporarily change what a webpage says without the authorization of the website owner. Google laughed off requests for comment, but Missouri's governor is insistent that it will hold all who downloaded and used the tool accountable as well as investigate schools that use the software in question.
As opposed to what… radical leftist conservatives?
And don’t get me started on how many “successful businessmen” had a brief yet tumultuous political career as a one-term, twice impeached former President who stoked a violent insurrection just because he couldn’t get over the fact that he lost a free and fair election!
Re: Re: Count me among those at Techdirt who think this ruling i
I do think that not every SLAPP will be automatically continued because of this case, but even if the facts merit it here, the fact that this case is precedential (based on the "Certified for Publication" language at the bottom of the document) should be concerning. This is another example of a lawsuit where the facts specific to the case may be beneficial for a particular outcome to play out, but in the process creates case law that's bad for everyone.
Re: Count me among those at Techdirt who think this ruling is wr
I completely agree, Mike! I'm not sure how different the standard and/or cost is for an anti-SLAPP motion compared to a motion to dismiss under 12(b)6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but simply saying "This statement is false and they didn't do enough investigation to confirm that it was false" sounds an awful lot like a mere legal conclusion and not a statement of fact. Under the motion to dismiss standard, that's below the standard and the case should be dismissed.
And speaking of cost, I also think discovery will make things costly and can cause some parties to settle. Very few cases go to trial these days, so simply getting a full-fledged ruling on the merits is not always a given. And when the cases do ultimately settle, there's no guarantee that the same result would be rendered had the case gone to trial. The ComicMix v. Dr. Seuss Enterprises case comes to mind in that regard: Even though the judge wanted a jury to hear whether or not it met all the requirements for substantial similarity and therefore copyright infringement, the settlement reached by the parties also required ComicMix to more or less admit that Oh, The Places You'll Boldly Go is an infringing work. They might have even had to pay a pretty penny to Dr. Seuss for a book that was never sold!
But I digress. Here, an entity like Twin Galaxies might have the legal resources to still defend the lawsuit on the merits throughout the appeals process, but the average, everyday citizen does not. When they are the defendants, it may be more financially feasible to chill their speech and pay the plaintiff in a settlement than it is to defend their rights in court. When that happens, everyone loses. The first amendment rights are weakened for everyone, and we as a society are deprived of someone else's otherwise lawful speech. If California, which has the gold standard anti-SLAPP provision, keeps the precedent on the books, that law is essentially dead for everyone in California, which is good for no one (regardless of where they live).
Even as someone who's asexual, I could tell the algorithmic censoring of NSFW content was doomed from the start. And it's not even inactive users that are affected... Somehow, this old post of mine was flagged. It had no notes, and I appealed it. It's still in limbo to this day, hence the screenshot!
Re: Re: Re: Ode to the Wait For a New Circuit Split...
Not true unfortunately… the Ninth Circuit’s decision has the phrase “For Publication” at the top of the first page. This means the legal finding is setting a binding precedent for the Ninth Circuit, and can be considered influential in other circuits. I live in the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit, for example, so while a plaintiff who might sue me over a fanvid could point to this case as persuasive in deciding the case, but any court in the Seventh Circuit is in no obligation to follow it. (But given this was the circuit that said transformative works could implicate the derivative work right in a fair use case, I’m not exactly hopeful.). Yet, within the Ninth Circuit, the court would be bound by its interpretation from this case.
I mean, I believe there's a PDF online somewhere of The Cat NOT in the Hat, another book Dr. Seuss Enterprises shut down on copyright grounds. So, I guess anything's possible!
To Trump, lawyers are just magical wizards that can intimidate his enemies by waving legal threats like a magic wand, and regardless of whether or not the law is on his side, he can force them to comply with whatever his heart demands. I wouldn't even be surprised if Trump's lawyers knew all of this was bound to fail, got yelled at by Trump to do their jobs, and put together this motion that they knew was legally frivolous!
One of the cleverest moves by the copyright industry was to claim to speak for the very people it exploits must brutally.
I was thinking about this very concept the other day. In the music industry, it's an especially vicious and exploitive cycle. The smallest musician usually tends to dream of a major label deal, so they can say they "made it" like the Katy Perry's, Coldplay's, and Taylor Swift's of this world. And if they ever get big enough to attract the attention of a major label, their number one concern tends to be creative control. They don't want the label to make creative decisions for them, be it their sound, lyrics, what songs do or don't appear on the tracklisting, who they collaborate with, etc.
Unfortunately, they gloss over the more important aspect of any deal any label would write up: By signing on the dotted line, they gain very little in the short term while the label swallows up 100% of the rights of the master recordings released through the label, which they can use to pocket more money than they hand over to you.
It gets worse once you consider how some musicians tend to be anti-copyright in one way or another. For example, Miley Cyrus once said on Jimmy Kimmel Live that she doesn't mind it if anyone downloads her music illegally, saying that they're just fans at the end of the day. Yet, you know who does mind very much? Miley's label! And unfortunately for the "pirate", it's the label and not Miley who has the copyright to the recording you've downloaded.
And what's worse, whenever the label successfully defends its legal rights in court, the artist sees nothing from that payout. These are the very artists that the label claims to be defending in court. The very same artists whenever they lobby for more copyright maximalist policies in Congress. And whenever that hypothetical artist mentioned above does make it big and is signed to a label's roster, one of their fans looks up to them and dreams of following in their footsteps. Unfortunately, those footsteps are on the path to copyright maximalism, whether the artist ever wanted it or not.
There's only one 1st amendment protection Republicans care about
The entire amicus brief tries to claim that editorial discretion is "conduct" and not speech -- and that would upend basically all 1st Amendment precedent.
If the first amendment only protects speech, does that mean the government can start regulating religious services? I mean, that's conduct, not speech! /s
Posting hyperlinks to original stories should not constitute republication. I mean, by that logic, what's next: copyright maximalists arguing that those who post hyperlinks to infringing content should be held liable for direct copyright infringement? Oh, wait...
Is there anything involving Nintendo that Nintendo won't DMCA?
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo issued legal threats against a documentary crew that films an interview with a parent while kids play Nintendo video games in the background.
[H]ow long will it be until some sucker of a Senator or Member of Congress, convinced by Thaler's nonsense, will introduce a bill to amend the Patent Act to enable AI patents?
That will happen when some other sucker in Congress is convinced by PETA's equally astounding nonsense and introduces a bill that amends the Copyright Act to enable monkeys to become copyright holders!
Now that you know what it's like to be forced to pay someone you don't owe money to for something done by a third party completely out of your control, does that mean you're going to stop asking for Facebook to pay you money when a third party decides to post links to stories on your news sites?
Lawyers filing lawsuits need to do so in good faith. Due diligence is expected. Extensive research is expected before filing lawsuits...
Let's see, where else have I heard this on Techdirt? What other lawyer is frequently mentioned here as someone who doesn't do their due diligence before filing lawsuits? Someone else who has been heavily sanctioned as a result?
Man, the name must have escaped my mind... (cough-cough)Liebowitz(cough-cough)
On the post: Missouri Admits It Fucked Up In Exposing Teacher Data, Offers Apology To Teachers -- But Not To Journalists It Falsely Accused Of Hacking
BREAKING NEWS: Schools Install Hacking Software
Big Tech company Google was caught red-handed offering a hacking tool to schools and even the general public. The tool in question, Google Chrome, is known to decode HTML code and even display the source code of the content it displays with a simple right-click function. There are even reports that people can use an inspect tool to temporarily change what a webpage says without the authorization of the website owner. Google laughed off requests for comment, but Missouri's governor is insistent that it will hold all who downloaded and used the tool accountable as well as investigate schools that use the software in question.
On the post: Because Of Course: Trump's SPAC Deal May Have Broken The Law
Re: More pro-Trump trolls spewing nonsense!
As opposed to what… radical leftist conservatives?
And don’t get me started on how many “successful businessmen” had a brief yet tumultuous political career as a one-term, twice impeached former President who stoked a violent insurrection just because he couldn’t get over the fact that he lost a free and fair election!
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
HTML for Dummies?
Maybe the state officials wouldn't have made such a careless mistake if they had just learned to "nerd harder"!
On the post: Billy Mitchell Survives Anti-SLAPP Motion From Twin Galaxies A Second Time
Re: Re: Count me among those at Techdirt who think this ruling i
I do think that not every SLAPP will be automatically continued because of this case, but even if the facts merit it here, the fact that this case is precedential (based on the "Certified for Publication" language at the bottom of the document) should be concerning. This is another example of a lawsuit where the facts specific to the case may be beneficial for a particular outcome to play out, but in the process creates case law that's bad for everyone.
On the post: Billy Mitchell Survives Anti-SLAPP Motion From Twin Galaxies A Second Time
Re: Count me among those at Techdirt who think this ruling is wr
I completely agree, Mike! I'm not sure how different the standard and/or cost is for an anti-SLAPP motion compared to a motion to dismiss under 12(b)6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but simply saying "This statement is false and they didn't do enough investigation to confirm that it was false" sounds an awful lot like a mere legal conclusion and not a statement of fact. Under the motion to dismiss standard, that's below the standard and the case should be dismissed.
And speaking of cost, I also think discovery will make things costly and can cause some parties to settle. Very few cases go to trial these days, so simply getting a full-fledged ruling on the merits is not always a given. And when the cases do ultimately settle, there's no guarantee that the same result would be rendered had the case gone to trial. The ComicMix v. Dr. Seuss Enterprises case comes to mind in that regard: Even though the judge wanted a jury to hear whether or not it met all the requirements for substantial similarity and therefore copyright infringement, the settlement reached by the parties also required ComicMix to more or less admit that Oh, The Places You'll Boldly Go is an infringing work. They might have even had to pay a pretty penny to Dr. Seuss for a book that was never sold!
But I digress. Here, an entity like Twin Galaxies might have the legal resources to still defend the lawsuit on the merits throughout the appeals process, but the average, everyday citizen does not. When they are the defendants, it may be more financially feasible to chill their speech and pay the plaintiff in a settlement than it is to defend their rights in court. When that happens, everyone loses. The first amendment rights are weakened for everyone, and we as a society are deprived of someone else's otherwise lawful speech. If California, which has the gold standard anti-SLAPP provision, keeps the precedent on the books, that law is essentially dead for everyone in California, which is good for no one (regardless of where they live).
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Tumblr's Approach To Adult Content (2013)
Re: the algorithms...
Even as someone who's asexual, I could tell the algorithmic censoring of NSFW content was doomed from the start. And it's not even inactive users that are affected... Somehow, this old post of mine was flagged. It had no notes, and I appealed it. It's still in limbo to this day, hence the screenshot!
On the post: Seuss Estate And ComicMix Copyright Case Settles In The Saddest Possible Way
Re: Re: Re: Ode to the Wait For a New Circuit Split...
Not true unfortunately… the Ninth Circuit’s decision has the phrase “For Publication” at the top of the first page. This means the legal finding is setting a binding precedent for the Ninth Circuit, and can be considered influential in other circuits. I live in the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit, for example, so while a plaintiff who might sue me over a fanvid could point to this case as persuasive in deciding the case, but any court in the Seventh Circuit is in no obligation to follow it. (But given this was the circuit that said transformative works could implicate the derivative work right in a fair use case, I’m not exactly hopeful.). Yet, within the Ninth Circuit, the court would be bound by its interpretation from this case.
On the post: Seuss Estate And ComicMix Copyright Case Settles In The Saddest Possible Way
Re:
I mean, I believe there's a PDF online somewhere of The Cat NOT in the Hat, another book Dr. Seuss Enterprises shut down on copyright grounds. So, I guess anything's possible!
On the post: Seuss Estate And ComicMix Copyright Case Settles In The Saddest Possible Way
Ode to the Wait For a New Circuit Split...
Oh, the places some go
To defend copyright
And say they were on the right side of this fight
Now, the culture’s grown thin
Yet they do not care
The author’s long dead
But they are his heir
The Trekkies held fast
For as long as they could
Their mashup was fair
As they understood
Yes, one court agreed
Another did not
The SCOTUS refused to weigh in as they fought
This battle was lost
The war boldly drags on
Some new artists are chilled
And this comic is gone
Transformation’s now weakened
Thanks to one Dr. Seuss
‘Cause the mashup is dead
Long live fair use!
On the post: Trump Asks Court To Reinstate His Twitter Account ASAP
Re:
To Trump, lawyers are just magical wizards that can intimidate his enemies by waving legal threats like a magic wand, and regardless of whether or not the law is on his side, he can force them to comply with whatever his heart demands. I wouldn't even be surprised if Trump's lawyers knew all of this was bound to fail, got yelled at by Trump to do their jobs, and put together this motion that they knew was legally frivolous!
On the post: Yet Another Move To Funnel Money To Big Copyright Companies, Not Struggling Creators
Great minds think alike!
I was thinking about this very concept the other day. In the music industry, it's an especially vicious and exploitive cycle. The smallest musician usually tends to dream of a major label deal, so they can say they "made it" like the Katy Perry's, Coldplay's, and Taylor Swift's of this world. And if they ever get big enough to attract the attention of a major label, their number one concern tends to be creative control. They don't want the label to make creative decisions for them, be it their sound, lyrics, what songs do or don't appear on the tracklisting, who they collaborate with, etc.
Unfortunately, they gloss over the more important aspect of any deal any label would write up: By signing on the dotted line, they gain very little in the short term while the label swallows up 100% of the rights of the master recordings released through the label, which they can use to pocket more money than they hand over to you.
It gets worse once you consider how some musicians tend to be anti-copyright in one way or another. For example, Miley Cyrus once said on Jimmy Kimmel Live that she doesn't mind it if anyone downloads her music illegally, saying that they're just fans at the end of the day. Yet, you know who does mind very much? Miley's label! And unfortunately for the "pirate", it's the label and not Miley who has the copyright to the recording you've downloaded.
And what's worse, whenever the label successfully defends its legal rights in court, the artist sees nothing from that payout. These are the very artists that the label claims to be defending in court. The very same artists whenever they lobby for more copyright maximalist policies in Congress. And whenever that hypothetical artist mentioned above does make it big and is signed to a label's roster, one of their fans looks up to them and dreams of following in their footsteps. Unfortunately, those footsteps are on the path to copyright maximalism, whether the artist ever wanted it or not.
On the post: Texas' Unconstitutional Social Media Censorship Bill Challenged In Court, Just As Texas Joins The Legal Fight For Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Bill
There's only one 1st amendment protection Republicans care about
If the first amendment only protects speech, does that mean the government can start regulating religious services? I mean, that's conduct, not speech! /s
On the post: 8th Circuit's Bizarre Ruling In Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Ryan Lizza
Posting hyperlinks to original stories should not constitute republication. I mean, by that logic, what's next: copyright maximalists arguing that those who post hyperlinks to infringing content should be held liable for direct copyright infringement? Oh, wait...
On the post: Satire Site Gets Ridiculous Threat Letter From Baseball Team; cc's Barbra Streisand In Its Response
Yet another incorrect movie quote:
— A League of Their Own
On the post: Kickstarter For Hand-Drawn Video Game Manuals Shuts Down Due To IP Threat
Is there anything involving Nintendo that Nintendo won't DMCA?
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo issued legal threats against a documentary crew that films an interview with a parent while kids play Nintendo video games in the background.
On the post: US Judge Gets It Right: AI Doesn't Get Patents
AI's don't monkey around...
That will happen when some other sucker in Congress is convinced by PETA's equally astounding nonsense and introduces a bill that amends the Copyright Act to enable monkeys to become copyright holders!
On the post: Rupert Murdoch Learns Why Intermediary Liability Protections Matter: Australia Says Media Orgs Can Be Sued Over Facebook Comments
Hey, News Organizations:
Now that you know what it's like to be forced to pay someone you don't owe money to for something done by a third party completely out of your control, does that mean you're going to stop asking for Facebook to pay you money when a third party decides to post links to stories on your news sites?
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
Hmm, sounds familiar...
Let's see, where else have I heard this on Techdirt? What other lawyer is frequently mentioned here as someone who doesn't do their due diligence before filing lawsuits? Someone else who has been heavily sanctioned as a result?
Man, the name must have escaped my mind...
(cough-cough)Liebowitz(cough-cough)
On the post: PSA: Universal Music Group Has Copyrighted The Moon. That is All.
Re: Re: Incorrect Star Wars quote
To be fair, the actual Star Wars quote came from A New Hope, but I didn't find it as fitting as riffing off of the sequel's title.
But hey, you forgot about The Copyfraud Awakens!
On the post: PSA: Universal Music Group Has Copyrighted The Moon. That is All.
Incorrect Star Wars quote
— Star Wars: The Copyright Empire Strikes Back
Next >>