You are talking like a paid sock-puppet of the Erdogan regime. (I have not seen such cynical posts on this site when other dictators have been denounced.) Does that mean you are calling Turkey "rotten to the core"?
Criminalize inflammatory libel-- but with tough anti-SLAPP law
I favor criminal prosecution of a false claim that a pizza parlor is raping and torturing children in a back room (subject to NY Times v. Sullivan standards)-- but *only* if there is a criminal equivalent to a tough anti-SLAPP law. Defendants whose speech is justified under NY Times v. Sullivan standards should be reimbursed all their defense costs, and if the alleged libel was probably true, those prosecuting it should face prison time (and other criminal penalties) three times what the alleged libeler faced.
In a perfect courtroom, if there should come a lawsuit where the missing records were relevant, the jury would be informed of the record destruction, and instructed to assume that the missing records prove the city's guilt. But that is not how trials usually work...
Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 27 Dec 2018 @ 10:47am
Re: The GDPR...
In the spirit of the GDR (look it up in Wikipedia), which built a wall to protect its people from CIA assassins and other fascists, whether the people wanted such zealous protection or not.
Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 23 Dec 2018 @ 11:11am
Re:
I agree with most of your post, except this:
> For what reason should copyright last longer than a person’s life? (If you say “to give it to their heirs”, for what reason should those people be allowed to profit from works they had no hand in creating?)
Ulysses S. Grant, stripped of his life savings by a con man, was able to keep his widow out of the poorhouse (with the aid and encouragement of publisher Mark Twain) by writing his war memoirs. He died of cancer just ten days after turning in the last page. Should we really have laughed in his face and told him his widow would get nothing?
Copyright should be for a reasonable term, *regardless* of the creator's life span. 28 years, renewable (for a significant fee) for another 28, was reasonable. Lifespan plus fifty years is ridiculous.
Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 18 Dec 2018 @ 10:18am
Hey, Troll--
The original post and comments were not about copyright claims ("use private property without consequences"). It was about FOSTA-- shutting down anything potentially related to sex imagery or work.
[sarc] Large corporations like the "New York Times" (licensed press outlets?) could be trusted with the responsibility to monitor themselves, and exempted from draconian civil and criminal penalties unless deliberate criminal intent is shown (highly unlikely). For the occasional mistake that lets something bad through, they could pay a reasonable fine, reflecting the fact that they are responsible and licensed, unlike "cowboy" bloggers and small independent publishers.[end sarc]
The relevant First Amendment text is the right of the people "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." A petition against police misconduct is taken a *lot* more seriously if it is backed up by recorded evidence.
"Predatory publication" or "pay-for-play publication"?
I question the term "predatory publication" here. It looks like the publications are giving their customers (the marginal professors) what they want. Wouldn't the term "pay-for-pay publication" be less confusing-- describing exactly what is involved?
Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 29 Nov 2018 @ 11:40am
Any partisan divide on this issue in Australia?
Australia is currently ruled by the right-of-center coalition. Has the left-of-center opposition voiced any disagreement with this copyright travesty, or are they just as bad?
After private indexers are driven out of the EU market, EU authorities will recognize the need for a publicly owned monopoly substitute ("EUgle"?). As "EUgle" gets brought on line, EU authorities will recognize how foolish it is that a government corporation should have to pay publishers for providing them a service. From there, it will be a short step for EUgle to start charging publishers for this service, at monopoly rates.
Since they claim to be motivated by holiness, let them show it by adopting an "honor code": "I will not view porn, or tolerate a roommate who does." Notre Dame might have to reshuffle some dorm assignments, but that sort of thing happens anyway.
A better remedy would be a top-placed "right of reply": Google should ensure that the *first* listed link for someone's name would be his official "right of reply" page where the target gives his answer to unfavorable mentions on other web pages. That could include brief "not me" comments about charges against others sharing his name.
One of the EU plaintiffs was a Spanish doctor who wished to block reference to a malpractice case 20 years earlier. Under my remedy, his "right of reply" page could point out that this was a single incident over twenty years ago, and that a search of the open, First-Amendment-style Internet would confirm that no one had complained seriously about him since then.
For those rubbished all over the Internet (and elsewhere) by a stalker, the "right of reply" page would be a perfect place to explain who the stalker was, their motive, and links to other Internet material showing that the stalker's sanity or honesty were doubtful.
On the post: Turkish Court Jails Journalist For Telling The Truth About A Politician's Offshore Tax Shelter
Re: Re: Re: Contraire
On the post: Proposed Update To Singapore's Copyright Laws Surprisingly Sensible
Thanks to USA's absence from TPP?
On the post: Latest EU Copyright Directive Still Demands Internet Companies Wave Magic Wands
Re: (Naming eurocrats)
On the post: Latest EU Copyright Directive Still Demands Internet Companies Wave Magic Wands
Wie sagt man "nerd harder " auf Deutsch?
On the post: Naperville, IL Development Project Forced To Drop Name To Avoid Public Confusing It With City 1.7K Miles Away
Re: Re:
On the post: Producers Of Movie About Falling In Love With Nazis Using DMCA To Silence Criticism
Springtime for Hilter and Germany...
On the post: 'Fake News' Results In Real Jail Time For Ohio Woman
Criminalize inflammatory libel-- but with tough anti-SLAPP law
(subject to NY Times v. Sullivan standards)--
but *only* if there is a criminal equivalent to a tough anti-SLAPP law. Defendants whose speech is justified under NY Times v. Sullivan standards should be reimbursed all their defense costs, and if the alleged libel was probably true, those prosecuting it should face prison time (and other criminal penalties) three times what the alleged libeler faced.
On the post: California Town OKs Destruction Of Police Shooting Records Days Before They Could Be Obtained By The Public
utopian jury instructions?
On the post: How The GDPR Nearly Ruined Christmas
Re: The GDPR...
On the post: Copyright Industry Lobbyists Can't Even Get Their Story Straight On Article 13: Does It Expand Copyright Or Keep It The Same?
Re:
> For what reason should copyright last longer than a person’s life? (If you say “to give it to their heirs”, for what reason should those people be allowed to profit from works they had no hand in creating?)
Ulysses S. Grant, stripped of his life savings by a con man, was able to keep his widow out of the poorhouse (with the aid and encouragement of publisher Mark Twain) by writing his war memoirs. He died of cancer just ten days after turning in the last page. Should we really have laughed in his face and told him his widow would get nothing?
Copyright should be for a reasonable term, *regardless* of the creator's life span. 28 years, renewable (for a significant fee) for another 28, was reasonable. Lifespan plus fifty years is ridiculous.
On the post: NY Times Columnist Nick Kristof Led The Charge To Get Facebook To Censor Content, Now Whining That Facebook Censors His Content
The original post and comments were not about copyright claims ("use private property without consequences"). It was about FOSTA-- shutting down anything potentially related to sex imagery or work.
On the post: NY Times Columnist Nick Kristof Led The Charge To Get Facebook To Censor Content, Now Whining That Facebook Censors His Content
A solution Kristof would like...
On the post: EU General Court Refuses To Allow St. Andrews Links To Trademark 'St. Andrews' For All The Things
Re: Also Saint Andrew is the Patron Saint of Scotland
On the post: EU General Court Refuses To Allow St. Andrews Links To Trademark 'St. Andrews' For All The Things
Re: St. Andrews Lynx?
On the post: Federal Court Says Massachusetts' Wiretap Law Can't Be Used To Arrest People For Recording Public Officials
Re: Frankly,
On the post: School Boots Professor Off Campus After He Exposes Its Complicity In Predatory Publishing Schemes
"Predatory publication" or "pay-for-play publication"?
On the post: Australian Parliament Moves Copyright Amendment Out Of Committee and Into Law
Any partisan divide on this issue in Australia?
On the post: Small And Medium Publishers Protest EU Link Tax, Which Will Harm Them, While Helping Only Large Publishers
EU authorities will change their mind when...
On the post: The 'Men Of Notre Dame' Demand A Porn Filter That Won't Work To Keep Them From Watching Porn
An honor code would avoid more collateral damage
On the post: Canadian Privacy Commissioner Goes To Court To Determine If Canada Can Force Google To Delete History
Right-of-reply-- a better compromise
To balance reputation and privacy against free speech and the public's right to know, the EU court's proposed blackout of Google searches
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579559280623224964?mod=WSJ_hp_L EFTTopStories&mg=reno64-wsj
is seriously defective-- a tool for swindlers, thieves, psychotics, crooked politicians and others to mug a blinded public again and again.
A better remedy would be a top-placed "right of reply":
Google should ensure that the *first* listed link for someone's name would be his official "right of reply" page where the target gives his answer to unfavorable mentions on other web pages. That could include brief "not me" comments about charges against others sharing his name.
One of the EU plaintiffs was a Spanish doctor who wished to block reference to a malpractice case 20 years earlier. Under my remedy, his "right of reply" page could point out that this was a single incident over twenty years ago, and that a search of the open, First-Amendment-style Internet would confirm that no one had complained seriously about him since then.
For those rubbished all over the Internet (and elsewhere) by a stalker, the "right of reply" page would be a perfect place to explain who the stalker was, their motive, and links to other Internet material showing that the stalker's sanity or honesty were doubtful.
Next >>