Well, yeah, you would have a hard time claiming you have a trade secret in using Times Square as a location. I get that. However, there are plenty of locations that are not obvious merely from seeing them on the screen. Further, while the visual location may be obvious, the logistics around it (parking, who to get permits from, best caterers, etc., etc., etc.) may very well be something valuable when developed by a location company.
I don't advocate that this sort of thing gets any ADDITIONAL protection from trade secret law - merely pointing out that it's just as eligible for such protection as any other business information.
If the first company worked hard to develop a catalog of location sites, and this gives them a competitive advantage in the marketplace, and they make reasonable efforts to keep this catalog secret, then that's pretty much a trade secret.
It doesn't prevent anybody else from independently finding the same sites and building their own catalog, of course.
. . . than having the suspect's picture or address, and using that to round up associates? My brother not only shares much of my DNA, he looks a lot like me. If (assuming my brother had ever been arrested) someone picked my brother's picture out of a mugshot book, but he had an alibi, a resourceful cop might very well consider taking a look at MY whereabouts on the night in question. Same thing with addresses. Maybe it was the roommate who dun it!
It's all about linking currently-known facts to potential other leads. There are already many facts about a suspect that can lead to investigating other people, so why is DNA different?
For the record, I don't support collection of DNA at arrest. Only upon conviction. Or perhaps at arrest, but it can't be kept if charges are dropped or the suspect is acquitted. Something like that.
What is defamatory about, "I'm telling you, man, this is the TRUTH! Masnick and goats! He really does it!"?
Those are the words I wrote, standing alone, without the link. Hardly defamatory. However, if I include a link to a website which includes claims of bestiality on Masnick's part, then I would suggest there's at least a possibility that it's defamatory (keeping in mind the other things associated with defamation cases, such as truth being a defense, etc.). There was no context for the words until the link with other material was associated with it.
So, yes there is shit, but, unfortunately, you stepped in it when you weren't reading closely enough.
Not having read the details, my initial reaction is that it doesn't make sense that forwarding a link should NEVER result in liability for defamation. My suspicion is that the original case was something like - merely forwarding a link with nothing else is not necessarily defamation.
I would have to think that if I forwarded a link to www.masnickblowsgoats.com along with a cover note that said, "I'm telling you, man, this is the TRUTH! Masnick and goats! He really does it!", it might very well be considered defamatory. Of course, if Masnick should choose to deny he has anything to do with goats in that way, I'm sure we're all open to whatever proof he may produce.
There's merely pointing to what someelse has said, and then there's "pointing" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) to what someone else has said. I would think the law on defamation should recognize the difference between the two, and not provide a loophole whereby someone can defame you without responsibility merely by spreading someone else's defamatory remarks instead of saying it directly yourself.
So, I think it should all depend on the facts, not on some bright-line rule somehow designed to promote the idea that anything done online should be without legal consequences.
Resorting to legal action may or may not ultimately be a good idea. There may be other, less confrontational and/or less expensive ways to deal with it. My point is that we get to resort to the courts to help resolve disputes, and the fact that MLB runs a public web site shouldn't somehow preclude them from availing themselves of that right.
It depends. The courts can say, "MLB can control speech however it wants to in its chat rooms. That is a private setting, and they can do whatever they want, since the First Amendment binds governmetn actoin, not private action."
And the issue seems to be over disclosing identifies of posters, not asking the government to control their speech. More of a privacy thing than a First Amendment thing.
. . . than someone who runs a brick-and-mortar establishment calling the police to help him remove someone who's doing this stuff in his physical business? The cops are going to come to deal with the guy who's shouting obscene things at customers in Aisle 5. They will get his name and address. And the store owner may have a cause of action for whatever disruption caused by the jerk, regardless of the fact that the jerk was part of the general public who was invited in to shop.
I don't see how the fact that MLB invites the public to participate in its chat rooms (or whatever) somehow means they have forfeited any ability to resort to legal action if someone is being disruptive.
Sure you can be prosecuted. One of the issues may very well be whether the speech is protected. Harassment is not protected speech, so the question a court may end up deciding is whether or not this was actually harassing.
... I might have called the cops, too. Given how charged the issue was, I don't blame the guy for taking no chances.
And as far as the First Amendment issue is concerned, the First Amendment doesn't guarantee you that no one will question your speech. If you think someone's speech falls outside of First Amendment protections, you have the right (just as important as the other guy's First Amendment rights) to bring the issue to a judge/jury to decide. There's responsibility that goes along with the free speech right. Your speech may be called into question, though it may ultimately be proven to be protected. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you won't be sued or prosecuted.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
The fact that something is easy to do doesn't mean it's not wrong to do it. Yes, tools clearly exist that allow many people to obtain copies of works. Copies they did not pay for, though copyright law grants to the author the legal right to control such copying for a certain period of time.
If you acquire something of value that you did not pay for, when there was clearly someone with the right to charge you for what you have acquired, the difference between that and "stealing" is so negligible as to be not worth considering. You have circumvented someone else's right to charge. It doesn't matter that he still has the original copy. It doesn't matter that you would not have paid if that was the only way to get it. If you obtain a copy of a movie from some subset of your thousands of close friends via BitTorrent, then you have stolen. It jes' plain ain't honest to claim it's OK to grab something of value for which you did not pay the owner a fair/reasonable price.
Yes, it may very well be that if the content owner had a better business sense and was more responsive to the market, he'd find a way to sell his product that was so good that nobody would feel the urge to steal it and he'd also make a lot of money because he'd have even more happy customers. However, the fact that he DOESN'T do this doesn't justify stealing copies. It justifies the eventual failure of his business.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for the pro-copying lobby if its proponents actually did something constructive and perhaps sent the content owner a check for the reduced amount they felt was "fair" for the copy they took. Or sent money directly to whatever musical artist they felt was ripped off by the evil record labels. But nobody really does that, do they? The VAST majority of these folks just go on getting copies they didn't pay for, basking in the glory of the money they didn't have to spend to get the huge music or movie collection they've always wanted.
Well, actually, the inteded purpose was to have entertainment content seen/heard by THOSE WHO PAID to do so.
And the fact that nobody entered into a transaction by downloading via BitTorrent is exactly the problem. Not sure why you seem to present that as supporting anything.
And everybody's free to enter into business models that are dumb and don't work. Let them fail. That's the way capitalism works. Arguably someone else will come along and figure out how to make money in that market. Good for them. In the meantime, I don't see how the fact a vendor has chosen a dumb business model somehow JUSTIFIES people stealing what he's trying to sell. Yeah, you may be dumb for trying to run a movie theatre with ineffective tools for controlling who gets in. However, that doesn't mean it's OK to sneak in without paying.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
I actually don't think they are asking to be guaranteed customers. They are looking for protection against those who want their copies without actually BEING customers - in the sense of skipping the give-and-take transaction that makes one party a seller and the other a customer.
How in the world is that a "better" analogy? Content owners are actually engaging in separate transactions with everybody. They sell you a disc. Or a download. Or a theatre ticket. And they're concerned about anyone who holds a copy of the movie, but didn't buy the disc/download/ticket. Why should anybody other than the person who paid get to have their own copy?
In your analogy, the vendor is not engaging in a transaction with anybody at all, and arguably sprayed the perfume in the air for its intended purpose - to be smelled by those nearby.
... is that they're good only so far. Yes, in general, adaptation and cooperation can benefit everybody in the long run. No doubt. However, analogizing today's media-and-filesharing situation with the last century's train-and-plane situation is not really apt when you look at it closely.
It might be a better analogy if it involved someone hijacking the mail to take it off of trains and put it on planes against the will of the postal service.
I don't disagree that "piracy" can very well mean that your customers don't like some part of how you conduct your business with them. However, that is not a JUSTIFICATION for "piracy". If you don't like the deal, walk away. Vote with your wallet. We're not talking about a roof over your head or milk for your baby. Those are necessities, and sometimes one can justify appropriating something like that when the need is great. But we're talking about a movie (or a game or an ebook or some other form of entertainment content) - a luxury item. There's no justification for trying to take by "force" what the content owner legitimately didn't want to sell you. if the content owner says, "I'll sell you this movie for ten bucks, but it's only for you, and not anybody else," why can't you just respond, "you mean I can't make a copy so I can watch the movie on my business trip while my family watches it at home while I'm away? No way! No deal, man! No deal!"?
On the post: Best Hollywood Set Locations Represent A Trade Secret?
Re: Re: Why not trade secret?
I don't advocate that this sort of thing gets any ADDITIONAL protection from trade secret law - merely pointing out that it's just as eligible for such protection as any other business information.
HM
On the post: Best Hollywood Set Locations Represent A Trade Secret?
Re:
HM
On the post: Best Hollywood Set Locations Represent A Trade Secret?
Why not trade secret?
It doesn't prevent anybody else from independently finding the same sites and building their own catalog, of course.
It seems somewhat analogous to a customer list.
HM
On the post: If Your Brother Was Arrested For A Crime, Does It Violate Your Privacy When They Store His DNA?
How is this different . . .
It's all about linking currently-known facts to potential other leads. There are already many facts about a suspect that can lead to investigating other people, so why is DNA different?
For the record, I don't support collection of DNA at arrest. Only upon conviction. Or perhaps at arrest, but it can't be kept if charges are dropped or the suspect is acquitted. Something like that.
HM
On the post: Terrible Ruling: Forwarding A Link Can Be Considered Defamation
Re: Re: It depends...
Those are the words I wrote, standing alone, without the link. Hardly defamatory. However, if I include a link to a website which includes claims of bestiality on Masnick's part, then I would suggest there's at least a possibility that it's defamatory (keeping in mind the other things associated with defamation cases, such as truth being a defense, etc.). There was no context for the words until the link with other material was associated with it.
So, yes there is shit, but, unfortunately, you stepped in it when you weren't reading closely enough.
HM
On the post: Terrible Ruling: Forwarding A Link Can Be Considered Defamation
It depends...
I would have to think that if I forwarded a link to www.masnickblowsgoats.com along with a cover note that said, "I'm telling you, man, this is the TRUTH! Masnick and goats! He really does it!", it might very well be considered defamatory. Of course, if Masnick should choose to deny he has anything to do with goats in that way, I'm sure we're all open to whatever proof he may produce.
There's merely pointing to what someelse has said, and then there's "pointing" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) to what someone else has said. I would think the law on defamation should recognize the difference between the two, and not provide a loophole whereby someone can defame you without responsibility merely by spreading someone else's defamatory remarks instead of saying it directly yourself.
So, I think it should all depend on the facts, not on some bright-line rule somehow designed to promote the idea that anything done online should be without legal consequences.
HM
On the post: MLB Looks To Sue Annoying Commenters
Re: Why is this any different . . .
Resorting to legal action may or may not ultimately be a good idea. There may be other, less confrontational and/or less expensive ways to deal with it. My point is that we get to resort to the courts to help resolve disputes, and the fact that MLB runs a public web site shouldn't somehow preclude them from availing themselves of that right.
HM
On the post: MLB Looks To Sue Annoying Commenters
Re: Re: MLB Looks To Sue Annoying Commenters
And the issue seems to be over disclosing identifies of posters, not asking the government to control their speech. More of a privacy thing than a First Amendment thing.
HM
On the post: MLB Looks To Sue Annoying Commenters
Why is this any different . . .
I don't see how the fact that MLB invites the public to participate in its chat rooms (or whatever) somehow means they have forfeited any ability to resort to legal action if someone is being disruptive.
HM
On the post: Guy Charged With Harassment For Sending Email Complaint To Senator Jim Bunning
Re: Re: If I had received that email...
HM
On the post: Guy Charged With Harassment For Sending Email Complaint To Senator Jim Bunning
If I had received that email...
And as far as the First Amendment issue is concerned, the First Amendment doesn't guarantee you that no one will question your speech. If you think someone's speech falls outside of First Amendment protections, you have the right (just as important as the other guy's First Amendment rights) to bring the issue to a judge/jury to decide. There's responsibility that goes along with the free speech right. Your speech may be called into question, though it may ultimately be proven to be protected. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you won't be sued or prosecuted.
HM
On the post: Did AT&T Really Threaten A Customer With Legal Action For Emailing Feedback To CEO? [Updated]
Re: Not a hoax...
Do you email him often?
HM
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your TAMhole is showing
Really?
Criminy.
HM
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
If you acquire something of value that you did not pay for, when there was clearly someone with the right to charge you for what you have acquired, the difference between that and "stealing" is so negligible as to be not worth considering. You have circumvented someone else's right to charge. It doesn't matter that he still has the original copy. It doesn't matter that you would not have paid if that was the only way to get it. If you obtain a copy of a movie from some subset of your thousands of close friends via BitTorrent, then you have stolen. It jes' plain ain't honest to claim it's OK to grab something of value for which you did not pay the owner a fair/reasonable price.
Yes, it may very well be that if the content owner had a better business sense and was more responsive to the market, he'd find a way to sell his product that was so good that nobody would feel the urge to steal it and he'd also make a lot of money because he'd have even more happy customers. However, the fact that he DOESN'T do this doesn't justify stealing copies. It justifies the eventual failure of his business.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for the pro-copying lobby if its proponents actually did something constructive and perhaps sent the content owner a check for the reduced amount they felt was "fair" for the copy they took. Or sent money directly to whatever musical artist they felt was ripped off by the evil record labels. But nobody really does that, do they? The VAST majority of these folks just go on getting copies they didn't pay for, basking in the glory of the money they didn't have to spend to get the huge music or movie collection they've always wanted.
HM
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
And the fact that nobody entered into a transaction by downloading via BitTorrent is exactly the problem. Not sure why you seem to present that as supporting anything.
And everybody's free to enter into business models that are dumb and don't work. Let them fail. That's the way capitalism works. Arguably someone else will come along and figure out how to make money in that market. Good for them. In the meantime, I don't see how the fact a vendor has chosen a dumb business model somehow JUSTIFIES people stealing what he's trying to sell. Yeah, you may be dumb for trying to run a movie theatre with ineffective tools for controlling who gets in. However, that doesn't mean it's OK to sneak in without paying.
HM
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
HM
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
In your analogy, the vendor is not engaging in a transaction with anybody at all, and arguably sprayed the perfume in the air for its intended purpose - to be smelled by those nearby.
HM
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Re:
HM
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
The problem with all analogies...
It might be a better analogy if it involved someone hijacking the mail to take it off of trains and put it on planes against the will of the postal service.
I don't disagree that "piracy" can very well mean that your customers don't like some part of how you conduct your business with them. However, that is not a JUSTIFICATION for "piracy". If you don't like the deal, walk away. Vote with your wallet. We're not talking about a roof over your head or milk for your baby. Those are necessities, and sometimes one can justify appropriating something like that when the need is great. But we're talking about a movie (or a game or an ebook or some other form of entertainment content) - a luxury item. There's no justification for trying to take by "force" what the content owner legitimately didn't want to sell you. if the content owner says, "I'll sell you this movie for ten bucks, but it's only for you, and not anybody else," why can't you just respond, "you mean I can't make a copy so I can watch the movie on my business trip while my family watches it at home while I'm away? No way! No deal, man! No deal!"?
HM
On the post: Can We Please Put The 'Amateur Brain Surgeon' Strawman To Rest?
Re:
HM
Next >>