In prior articles you’ve written regarding antitrust, as well as in your arguments on Twitter, the consumer harm standard is important to your arguments.
I’m not fully aware of that being the case, but assuming that’s true, so what? Do you have a problem with that standard? And how is that relevant to this article? And is that really something “that the Chicago school foisted upon us with the help of the Reagan Administra[]tion”, as you claim?
At any rate, please point to these articles where he makes those arguments.
And the non-staff posts about antitrust tend to come from Koch-funded think-tanks, whose arguments are oft incoherent or contradictory.
Please point out the posts or authors and the allegedly Koch-funded think-tanks they allegedly come from, along with evidence connecting to back up these allegations about them.
The one about how the FTC is “antitrust Gerrymandering” where the author is very much trying to gerrymander antitrust to fit his arguments […]
I read the article, and I don’t agree. Please explain how he “tr[ies] to gerrymander antitrust to fit his arguments” in that article. Furthermore, you don’t say what think tank the author allegedly comes from or anything, which is what you are supposed to be proving here.
[…] and the one about how Lina Khan will somehow ruin the FTC by scaring away academics both come to mind.
Once again, I read the article. In that article, the author speaks on a gag order from Lina Khan, which could plausibly scare away academics. Again, please explain exactly what the problem is and, more importantly, your evidence that the author came from a “ Koch-funded think-tank[]”, which is what you were actually arguing.
The thing is that I could see a distinction drawn between clearly pornographic content, which involves actual sexual activity being clearly portrayed, and nude content, which just involves not wearing clothing.
The only issue there is defining “sexual activity”. Is intercourse required? Or would masturbation count? And, if intercourse is required, is intercourse solely genital-to-genital? Or do oral and anal count? And what about paizuri? Does mutual masturbation count? And is BDSM “sexual activity”? Does there need to be more than one participant? This does need to be clearly defined, but it is possible to clearly define “sexual activity” in such a way. And, either way, do real people have to be depicted? Or can drawings, comics, and cartoons be a violation?
Of course, I am in no way claiming that OnlyFans is or will be so clear with their new restrictions, or that even my restriction is “good”, but I can say that it could be done in a way that is fairly clear and straightforward.
You asked about what OnlyFans is doing, not FOSTA, SESTA, or government officials are doing, so my answer would definitely be moderation. For one thing, as noted, “censorship” is “you can’t do that anywhere”, and OnlyFans is only restricting content on its own platform. Assuming (without arguing, conceding, or rejecting) that there are no other sites willing to keep such “sexually explicit” content on their platforms, OnlyFans is still only restricting what can appear on its own platform, not anywhere else. That they may be doing so because someone else is effectively saying “you can’t do that anywhere” doesn’t mean that OnlyFans is saying “you can’t do that anywhere” rather than just “you can’t do that here”.
That said, I believe that it is, at the very least, easily arguable that OnlyFans’s decision here is the result of censorship. It’s just that the censorship isn’t what OnlyFans is doing that’s censorship per se.
Actually, I’m not sure how social media will “abolish[]” “the Constitutional processes” at all. Even assuming that “public opinion prejudice”, “Jim Crow censorship of social media”, and “extreme hatred from social media” all exist and present problems, and that they will taint the jury pools for any trial and thus make getting a fair trial difficult if not impossible, I fail to see how that would abolish any constitutional processes.
Also, are you unfamiliar with voir dire and jury selection? If any of the prospective jurors display clear bias or prejudice against or in favor of the defendant or (in a civil trial) against or in favor of the plaintiff, either attorney can dismiss that prospective juror from the jury pool with cause or—for a limited number of jurors—without cause, and displaying clear bias or prejudice with regards to either side or to that particular case as a whole is generally considered to be good cause for dismissal. (Same goes for bias or prejudice for or against any of the lawyers involved.) Heck, the judge might even dismiss such a juror. And if such a bias or prejudice is uncovered later or a juror is found to have engaged in outside research regarding the case or any of its participants, that’s grounds for a mistrial (or at least removal of any “tainted” jurors). And if a party’s attorney is found to have such a bias or prejudice and that party loses, that can be grounds for a new trial as well due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Basically, you would need the judge, the attorneys for both sides, and any appellate judges to all have the same prejudice/bias for or against the same party for a trial with prejudiced or biased jurors against a party to both go to completion and to not be overturned, vacated, or reversed unless the evidence against the losing party was so objectively clear and convincing and the evidence in favor of the losing party pretty unconvincing that no reasonable jury would rule in favor of the losing party.
NO One in America […] will have NO defense in court against perjury.
Assuming you meant, “No one in America […] will have ANY defense in court against perjury,” I don’t see how that follows from what you’ve said or anything in the article. In order to be convicted of perjury, the following criteria (among others) must be proven in a court of law:
The accused person made a statement (spoken, signed, or written).
The statement made was/is objectively and provably false.
The statement was made while the accused was under oath or under penalty of perjury.
The statement is considered “material” (which is admittedly broad).
The accused knew the statement was false (or at least had serious doubts) when the statement was made.
This gives us a lot of defenses against perjury. If the statement is not capable of being proven true or false, such a statement cannot be perjury, so that is one defense (though I believe that statements are more likely to be considered capable of being true or false in a case of perjury than in a case of defamation, but it’s still a defense to say that it was just an opinion). If the statement is actually true, that is also a defense. It would also be a defense if the statement was not made while the accused was under oath or was not made under penalty of perjury, though it is rare for anyone to try to call something perjury without that element being pretty undeniable. There’s also the defense that the statement was immaterial, though that, too, is fairly unlikely to work. Another defense would be if the accused did not know it was false or doubted it was true.
And it should be noted that the prosecution has the burden of proof on all of these, and needs to prove them beyond all reasonable doubt. On top of that, the bar for proving elements 2 and 5 is quite high, especially with regards to element 5.
It’s actually pretty rare for someone to actually be prosecuted for perjury at all, and it’s even rarer for someone to actually be convicted.
I fail to see how social media will change any of that.
Private companies don’t “censor” by removing or deleting content or suspending or banning users from their platforms any more than a bar is censoring when they kick someone out for their speech. Therefore, Twitter isn’t censoring anybody at all, let alone conservatives.
There is no evidence that Twitter removes, deletes, suspends, or bans content from or accounts of conservatives more than liberals either in terms of raw numbers or in proportion, that such actions are taken against conservatives because they are conservative or express conservative ideas, or that equivalent behavior is more likely to be punished or punished more harshly by Twitter when done by conservatives than when done by liberals. As such, there is no reason to believe that conservatives are being treated unfairly by Twitter regarding its moderation efforts when compared to liberals. If anything, the opposite appears more likely to be true.
It doesn’t even matter, really. Under the 1A and §230, Twitter is legally permitted to moderate content on its platform however it likes. If that includes them discriminating against conservatives, then so be it. If that includes discriminating against liberals, then so be it. If you don’t like it, then take your ball and go somewhere else, whether it be Parler, some other platform, somewhere else, or home. Likewise, Parler can moderate however it likes, regardless of whether or not they discriminate against liberals.
If you have a problem with any of those assertions or ideas, please present actual evidence that disprove them. We don’t really accept claims without evidence as good arguments, and we certainly don’t accept “you know it” or “it’s so obvious” as good arguments without more.
We’re not complaining or crying about anything. We’re laughing or rolling our eyes, but we’re not complaining. Parler can do whatever it wants with user-made content on its platform. It can remove what it likes and leave up what it likes. As long as it complies with the DMCA and bans on child porn and doesn’t do anything unlawful, Parler can do whatever it likes as far as I’m concerned.
And I doubt Facebook or Twitter care that much, either, especially since most people on Parler were either banned or suspended from their respective platforms, anyways, or still maintain any Twitter or Facebook accounts they already had. But even aside from that, Twitter and Facebook’s respective users far outnumber Parler’s, and most of the revenue they receive come from advertisers rather than users, so Parler doesn’t really present a significant issue for them.
Also, I, personally, rarely use Twitter and almost never use Facebook, so I don’t really care what you think of them.
No one’s crying foul. We all agree that Parler has every right to do what it’s doing, and we aren’t saying that Parler is necessarily unjustified in doing what it’s doing.
All TD is doing is just pointing out that Parler isn’t just removing illegal, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful and unprotected content and leaving up any content that is protected by the 1A that doesn’t violate FTC or FCC guidelines like it claimed it would, and that it is effectively doing what every platform that accepts user-made content does: do some actual moderation beyond what the law suggests ought to be done.
Also, liberals get harassed and bullied on Twitter at least as much as conservatives, and the moderation on Twitter and Facebook has not been shown to target conservatives on their platforms for being conservative or sharing conservative ideas or treating conservatives on their platforms worse than liberals. If anything, it’s the opposite.
Finally, moderation is not censorship, bullying, or harassment.
I find Giuliani’s motion to dismiss rather telling. See, compared to Powell, Giuliani is much more careful about what he says in court. Sure, he’s still crazy and not a great lawyer, and he has ethical issues as well, but he is at least competent enough to know roughly what is or isn’t going to be found entirely frivolous in court, at least that would lead to sanctions or discipline (though he is wrong sometimes).
When he asked for dismissal, he asked for dismissal on fairly narrow and technical grounds: that a corporation cannot recover damages beyond lost profits, and that Dominion had failed to adequately plead special damages.
Note what he did not claim: He did not claim that the statements were true, that he sincerely believed they were true beyond any serious doubt, or that the statements were pure opinion, hyperbole, or opinion based upon disclosed facts, like the other two did. I think he knew that Dominion had adequately pled the statements were statements of false facts, were based on undisclosed evidence, or implied false facts, and that they were made with actual malice. He knew that, at this stage of litigation, things were pretty bad for him, and he wasn’t going to get out of it like most defendants in a defamation suit do.
Almost every day TD states that "social media" is no longer pretending to be fair forums, but "moderating" to an agenda
That is categorically not what they say. They say that social media sites have the legal and constitutional right to moderate “to an agenda”, and that if there is any bias in application of policies, it has favored so-called “conservatives”, not liberals.
and then turn any "Republicans" upset with that into basis for another attack!
Also wrong. They say that such Republicans—as well as non-Republicans making the same sorts of claims—are factually and legally incorrect, or at least that they failed to prove the facts are true or that the alleged facts would even prove anything wrong or illegal. This is also entirely consistent with what they have actually said about social media.
What I have seen regarding depositions is that if a deponent is overly combative like Nunes was or the lawyer does something obviously wrong, they can be held in contempt and/or sanctioned.
I’ve read a number of depositions. In none of them do I recall the lawyer either for the deponent or the opposing party to have ever asked the deponent any question at all as part of the deposition, nor to show the deponent any evidence at all. That lawyer can basically just raise objections and advise their client, but those are pretty much the only things that they are supposed to do in a deposition. Well, they can also speak to the deposing attorney on certain issues, like legal issues or when addressed, but that’s basically it.
Also, I’ve never heard of a deposition where the lawyer for the deponent or for the opposing party would file a motion because the deposing lawyer prematurely ended the deposition. And public interest in something doesn’t really apply to arguments made or evidence provided within the deposition; only regarding whether or not the records of the deposition should or should not be sealed.
So, even ignoring the protection order, this is already completely bizarre.
And with the protection order, this makes even less sense. Being asked whether or not you have seen something doesn’t open the door to being able to be shown it by your attorney, period. And if you think that a piece of evidence obtained under a protection order should be publicized, that should be raised with the judge if and when asking for a protection order to be removed or amended; it’s not something to argue about in a deposition.
Being a socialist doesn't mean I'm to the left of the Democratic party, in fact, almost the opposite. Neoliberalism has proven to be a huge boondoggle, putting Wall Street on steroids while picking fights with countries all over the globe.
It’s entirely arguably true that being a socialist doesn’t necessarily make you to the left of the Democratic Party. However, “putting Wall Street on steroids” and “pickling fights with countries all over the globe” isn’t really a leftist thing; it seems rather bipartisan, actually.
Copyright leads one to the delusion they have the right to control the creative work of others
(emphasis added)
A “delusion” suggests that the belief is false or not connected to reality. However, from a legal standpoint, at least, tp is actually right this time (for once). Copyright holders do have the legal right to control other’s creative works to the extent they are “derivative” of a work the copyright holder has the exclusive rights to make derivative works from that work and are not considered “fair use”, and this does, in fact, give them leverage over derivative works.
It is true, though, that in general, tp is proof of your claim given how much they tend to overestimate the amount of control copyright holders actually have.
Honest question here: Does Rockstar, specifically, have a reputation for not paying their employees? I wouldn’t be surprised if they were underpaid and/or made to work overtime with little to no additional pay, but I rarely—if ever—hear about major game studios not paying an employee at all for working, so if this is something that is actually happening, I’d like to know so I can tell my acquaintances who play their games about this.
The point being made “in a tiny bit of fairness” to Rockstar has more to do with how this makes financial sense and isn’t just a power move that is completely legal. It wasn’t intended as a defense of Rockstar’s intentions.
In my own “in fairness” argument here, I would like to point out that it may be the case that the remasters will also support mods like GTA V does, and most of the more popular mods for the old games are meant to make them more “modern” rather than anything particularly creative or beyond what a remaster would do, so it’s plausible that the intent is more to drive people to buy remasters as opposed to sticking with the old one. Again, greed is definitely a major factor, but as far as questionable copyright takedowns or takedowns against mods and fan projects go, I’ve seen far, far less defensible ones.
I wish they had taken a different approach, but it’s entirely understandable when they are planning to release remasters soon.
AFAICT, Vindex hasn’t sued anyone (yet); they’ve only sent out DMCA takedown requests. Prenda, OTOH, really only brought lawsuits, and (again, AFAICT) never sent any DMCA notices. So, to Vindex’s credit, they haven’t sued anyone for copyright infringement with their IP-tracking systems.
OTOH, Prenda was never dumb enough to essentially admit or declare, under penalty of perjury, that they were using a honey pot. They were at least smart and competent enough not to sue the person at IP address 127.0.0.1 or claim that someone infringed their copyright using that IP address
On the post: FTC Tries Tries Again With An Antitrust Case Against Facebook
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not fully aware of that being the case, but assuming that’s true, so what? Do you have a problem with that standard? And how is that relevant to this article? And is that really something “that the Chicago school foisted upon us with the help of the Reagan Administra[]tion”, as you claim?
At any rate, please point to these articles where he makes those arguments.
Please point out the posts or authors and the allegedly Koch-funded think-tanks they allegedly come from, along with evidence connecting to back up these allegations about them.
I read the article, and I don’t agree. Please explain how he “tr[ies] to gerrymander antitrust to fit his arguments” in that article. Furthermore, you don’t say what think tank the author allegedly comes from or anything, which is what you are supposed to be proving here.
Once again, I read the article. In that article, the author speaks on a gag order from Lina Khan, which could plausibly scare away academics. Again, please explain exactly what the problem is and, more importantly, your evidence that the author came from a “ Koch-funded think-tank[]”, which is what you were actually arguing.
On the post: OnlyPrudes: OnlyFans, The Platform For Sexually Explicit Content, Says No More Sexually Explicit Content (Except For Nudes)
Re:
The thing is that I could see a distinction drawn between clearly pornographic content, which involves actual sexual activity being clearly portrayed, and nude content, which just involves not wearing clothing.
The only issue there is defining “sexual activity”. Is intercourse required? Or would masturbation count? And, if intercourse is required, is intercourse solely genital-to-genital? Or do oral and anal count? And what about paizuri? Does mutual masturbation count? And is BDSM “sexual activity”? Does there need to be more than one participant? This does need to be clearly defined, but it is possible to clearly define “sexual activity” in such a way. And, either way, do real people have to be depicted? Or can drawings, comics, and cartoons be a violation?
Of course, I am in no way claiming that OnlyFans is or will be so clear with their new restrictions, or that even my restriction is “good”, but I can say that it could be done in a way that is fairly clear and straightforward.
On the post: OnlyPrudes: OnlyFans, The Platform For Sexually Explicit Content, Says No More Sexually Explicit Content (Except For Nudes)
Re: Considering what Stephen T. Stone said…
You asked about what OnlyFans is doing, not FOSTA, SESTA, or government officials are doing, so my answer would definitely be moderation. For one thing, as noted, “censorship” is “you can’t do that anywhere”, and OnlyFans is only restricting content on its own platform. Assuming (without arguing, conceding, or rejecting) that there are no other sites willing to keep such “sexually explicit” content on their platforms, OnlyFans is still only restricting what can appear on its own platform, not anywhere else. That they may be doing so because someone else is effectively saying “you can’t do that anywhere” doesn’t mean that OnlyFans is saying “you can’t do that anywhere” rather than just “you can’t do that here”.
That said, I believe that it is, at the very least, easily arguable that OnlyFans’s decision here is the result of censorship. It’s just that the censorship isn’t what OnlyFans is doing that’s censorship per se.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: A threat to our Courts and Justice System
Actually, I’m not sure how social media will “abolish[]” “the Constitutional processes” at all. Even assuming that “public opinion prejudice”, “Jim Crow censorship of social media”, and “extreme hatred from social media” all exist and present problems, and that they will taint the jury pools for any trial and thus make getting a fair trial difficult if not impossible, I fail to see how that would abolish any constitutional processes.
Also, are you unfamiliar with voir dire and jury selection? If any of the prospective jurors display clear bias or prejudice against or in favor of the defendant or (in a civil trial) against or in favor of the plaintiff, either attorney can dismiss that prospective juror from the jury pool with cause or—for a limited number of jurors—without cause, and displaying clear bias or prejudice with regards to either side or to that particular case as a whole is generally considered to be good cause for dismissal. (Same goes for bias or prejudice for or against any of the lawyers involved.) Heck, the judge might even dismiss such a juror. And if such a bias or prejudice is uncovered later or a juror is found to have engaged in outside research regarding the case or any of its participants, that’s grounds for a mistrial (or at least removal of any “tainted” jurors). And if a party’s attorney is found to have such a bias or prejudice and that party loses, that can be grounds for a new trial as well due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Basically, you would need the judge, the attorneys for both sides, and any appellate judges to all have the same prejudice/bias for or against the same party for a trial with prejudiced or biased jurors against a party to both go to completion and to not be overturned, vacated, or reversed unless the evidence against the losing party was so objectively clear and convincing and the evidence in favor of the losing party pretty unconvincing that no reasonable jury would rule in favor of the losing party.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: A threat to our Courts and Justice System
Assuming you meant, “No one in America […] will have ANY defense in court against perjury,” I don’t see how that follows from what you’ve said or anything in the article. In order to be convicted of perjury, the following criteria (among others) must be proven in a court of law:
The accused person made a statement (spoken, signed, or written).
The statement made was/is objectively and provably false.
The statement was made while the accused was under oath or under penalty of perjury.
The statement is considered “material” (which is admittedly broad).
This gives us a lot of defenses against perjury. If the statement is not capable of being proven true or false, such a statement cannot be perjury, so that is one defense (though I believe that statements are more likely to be considered capable of being true or false in a case of perjury than in a case of defamation, but it’s still a defense to say that it was just an opinion). If the statement is actually true, that is also a defense. It would also be a defense if the statement was not made while the accused was under oath or was not made under penalty of perjury, though it is rare for anyone to try to call something perjury without that element being pretty undeniable. There’s also the defense that the statement was immaterial, though that, too, is fairly unlikely to work. Another defense would be if the accused did not know it was false or doubted it was true.
And it should be noted that the prosecution has the burden of proof on all of these, and needs to prove them beyond all reasonable doubt. On top of that, the bar for proving elements 2 and 5 is quite high, especially with regards to element 5.
It’s actually pretty rare for someone to actually be prosecuted for perjury at all, and it’s even rarer for someone to actually be convicted.
I fail to see how social media will change any of that.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Well this didn't age well:
I fail to see the issue. It’s just as true now as it was then, and it was true then as well, so… what do you mean it hasn’t aged well?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Lies, lies, lies
Private companies don’t “censor” by removing or deleting content or suspending or banning users from their platforms any more than a bar is censoring when they kick someone out for their speech. Therefore, Twitter isn’t censoring anybody at all, let alone conservatives.
There is no evidence that Twitter removes, deletes, suspends, or bans content from or accounts of conservatives more than liberals either in terms of raw numbers or in proportion, that such actions are taken against conservatives because they are conservative or express conservative ideas, or that equivalent behavior is more likely to be punished or punished more harshly by Twitter when done by conservatives than when done by liberals. As such, there is no reason to believe that conservatives are being treated unfairly by Twitter regarding its moderation efforts when compared to liberals. If anything, the opposite appears more likely to be true.
If you have a problem with any of those assertions or ideas, please present actual evidence that disprove them. We don’t really accept claims without evidence as good arguments, and we certainly don’t accept “you know it” or “it’s so obvious” as good arguments without more.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Respectable lawyers tweet
No one’s all that surprised. This is exactly what all of us expected to happen. That’s kinda the point.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Then stick with YOUR echo chambers
We’re not complaining or crying about anything. We’re laughing or rolling our eyes, but we’re not complaining. Parler can do whatever it wants with user-made content on its platform. It can remove what it likes and leave up what it likes. As long as it complies with the DMCA and bans on child porn and doesn’t do anything unlawful, Parler can do whatever it likes as far as I’m concerned.
And I doubt Facebook or Twitter care that much, either, especially since most people on Parler were either banned or suspended from their respective platforms, anyways, or still maintain any Twitter or Facebook accounts they already had. But even aside from that, Twitter and Facebook’s respective users far outnumber Parler’s, and most of the revenue they receive come from advertisers rather than users, so Parler doesn’t really present a significant issue for them.
Also, I, personally, rarely use Twitter and almost never use Facebook, so I don’t really care what you think of them.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: this is a joke
No one’s crying foul. We all agree that Parler has every right to do what it’s doing, and we aren’t saying that Parler is necessarily unjustified in doing what it’s doing.
All TD is doing is just pointing out that Parler isn’t just removing illegal, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful and unprotected content and leaving up any content that is protected by the 1A that doesn’t violate FTC or FCC guidelines like it claimed it would, and that it is effectively doing what every platform that accepts user-made content does: do some actual moderation beyond what the law suggests ought to be done.
Also, liberals get harassed and bullied on Twitter at least as much as conservatives, and the moderation on Twitter and Facebook has not been shown to target conservatives on their platforms for being conservative or sharing conservative ideas or treating conservatives on their platforms worse than liberals. If anything, it’s the opposite.
Finally, moderation is not censorship, bullying, or harassment.
On the post: Judge Says Voting Machine Company Can Continue To Sue Trump's Buddies Over Bogus Election Fraud Claims
I find Giuliani’s motion to dismiss rather telling. See, compared to Powell, Giuliani is much more careful about what he says in court. Sure, he’s still crazy and not a great lawyer, and he has ethical issues as well, but he is at least competent enough to know roughly what is or isn’t going to be found entirely frivolous in court, at least that would lead to sanctions or discipline (though he is wrong sometimes).
When he asked for dismissal, he asked for dismissal on fairly narrow and technical grounds: that a corporation cannot recover damages beyond lost profits, and that Dominion had failed to adequately plead special damages.
Note what he did not claim: He did not claim that the statements were true, that he sincerely believed they were true beyond any serious doubt, or that the statements were pure opinion, hyperbole, or opinion based upon disclosed facts, like the other two did. I think he knew that Dominion had adequately pled the statements were statements of false facts, were based on undisclosed evidence, or implied false facts, and that they were made with actual malice. He knew that, at this stage of litigation, things were pretty bad for him, and he wasn’t going to get out of it like most defendants in a defamation suit do.
On the post: Why Is The Republican Party Obsessed With Social Media?
Re: Re: Obviously, because the "corporate party"
That is categorically not what they say. They say that social media sites have the legal and constitutional right to moderate “to an agenda”, and that if there is any bias in application of policies, it has favored so-called “conservatives”, not liberals.
Also wrong. They say that such Republicans—as well as non-Republicans making the same sorts of claims—are factually and legally incorrect, or at least that they failed to prove the facts are true or that the alleged facts would even prove anything wrong or illegal. This is also entirely consistent with what they have actually said about social media.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Deposition Goes Off The Rails, As He Keeps Suing (And Actually Gets A Minor Victory In One Suit)
Re:
What I have seen regarding depositions is that if a deponent is overly combative like Nunes was or the lawyer does something obviously wrong, they can be held in contempt and/or sanctioned.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Deposition Goes Off The Rails, As He Keeps Suing (And Actually Gets A Minor Victory In One Suit)
I’ve read a number of depositions. In none of them do I recall the lawyer either for the deponent or the opposing party to have ever asked the deponent any question at all as part of the deposition, nor to show the deponent any evidence at all. That lawyer can basically just raise objections and advise their client, but those are pretty much the only things that they are supposed to do in a deposition. Well, they can also speak to the deposing attorney on certain issues, like legal issues or when addressed, but that’s basically it.
Also, I’ve never heard of a deposition where the lawyer for the deponent or for the opposing party would file a motion because the deposing lawyer prematurely ended the deposition. And public interest in something doesn’t really apply to arguments made or evidence provided within the deposition; only regarding whether or not the records of the deposition should or should not be sealed.
So, even ignoring the protection order, this is already completely bizarre.
And with the protection order, this makes even less sense. Being asked whether or not you have seen something doesn’t open the door to being able to be shown it by your attorney, period. And if you think that a piece of evidence obtained under a protection order should be publicized, that should be raised with the judge if and when asking for a protection order to be removed or amended; it’s not something to argue about in a deposition.
On the post: Why Is The Republican Party Obsessed With Social Media?
Re: We need TWO parties
It’s entirely arguably true that being a socialist doesn’t necessarily make you to the left of the Democratic Party. However, “putting Wall Street on steroids” and “pickling fights with countries all over the globe” isn’t really a leftist thing; it seems rather bipartisan, actually.
On the post: Rockstar Begins A War On Modders For 'GTA' Games For Totally Unclear Reasons
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the legal right doesn’t exist now.
On the post: Rockstar Begins A War On Modders For 'GTA' Games For Totally Unclear Reasons
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technically, you said:
(emphasis added)
A “delusion” suggests that the belief is false or not connected to reality. However, from a legal standpoint, at least, tp is actually right this time (for once). Copyright holders do have the legal right to control other’s creative works to the extent they are “derivative” of a work the copyright holder has the exclusive rights to make derivative works from that work and are not considered “fair use”, and this does, in fact, give them leverage over derivative works.
It is true, though, that in general, tp is proof of your claim given how much they tend to overestimate the amount of control copyright holders actually have.
On the post: Rockstar Begins A War On Modders For 'GTA' Games For Totally Unclear Reasons
Re:
Honest question here: Does Rockstar, specifically, have a reputation for not paying their employees? I wouldn’t be surprised if they were underpaid and/or made to work overtime with little to no additional pay, but I rarely—if ever—hear about major game studios not paying an employee at all for working, so if this is something that is actually happening, I’d like to know so I can tell my acquaintances who play their games about this.
On the post: Rockstar Begins A War On Modders For 'GTA' Games For Totally Unclear Reasons
Re: Re:
The point being made “in a tiny bit of fairness” to Rockstar has more to do with how this makes financial sense and isn’t just a power move that is completely legal. It wasn’t intended as a defense of Rockstar’s intentions.
In my own “in fairness” argument here, I would like to point out that it may be the case that the remasters will also support mods like GTA V does, and most of the more popular mods for the old games are meant to make them more “modern” rather than anything particularly creative or beyond what a remaster would do, so it’s plausible that the intent is more to drive people to buy remasters as opposed to sticking with the old one. Again, greed is definitely a major factor, but as far as questionable copyright takedowns or takedowns against mods and fan projects go, I’ve seen far, far less defensible ones.
I wish they had taken a different approach, but it’s entirely understandable when they are planning to release remasters soon.
On the post: It Happened Again: Antipiracy Outfit Asks Google To Delist 127.0.0.1 On Behalf Of Ukrainian TV Station
Re:
Well, there are 2 differences.
AFAICT, Vindex hasn’t sued anyone (yet); they’ve only sent out DMCA takedown requests. Prenda, OTOH, really only brought lawsuits, and (again, AFAICT) never sent any DMCA notices. So, to Vindex’s credit, they haven’t sued anyone for copyright infringement with their IP-tracking systems.
Next >>