Again, people are free to say whatever they want, but there are consequences. If people claim that the snacks are made of plastic, then prove it. Otherwise, the statement is false and the person (and possibly the platform) could be sued for libel.
Is it censorship? Sure, but as much you wanting to delete any posts where someone says you eat puppies when you never have.
And then these government agencies wonder why the public doesn't respect them- not just for the waste of money and the waste of resources, but that they're targeting regular people.
I just wish there was more outcry, like maybe protesting airports and the airlines, until something is changed.
I use a laptop as my main computer and it's plugged into an external monitor while at home. The lid is either completely closed or cracked slightly open so I can press the power key- in other words, angled down. So if a hacker did manage to turn on my laptop's camera, they'd get a nice video of my floor... and maybe my feet as I walk by.
The first thing media outlets need to do is stop with the "both sides" or "all sides" nonsense: just report the facts and put them in context. You don't see the TV news running shows about how the Earth is spinning and invite Flat-Earthers to give a "differing opinion". And you don't seen news specials on the Holocaust inviting Holocaust-deniers to show "both sides".
So coverage of the president should be the same way: he said he now believes the intelligence reports... but he also has a record of not believing reports and a longer record of saying one thing but doing another. News outlets, especially the NYT, would do the public a huge service if they gave more analysis into why Trump is saying these things now. Is it because he actually believes it this time or because public opinion is forming against him and he has to say it... even though he still doesn't believe it.
1) There's very little cost to send hundreds out at a time.
2) There's no penalty for getting caught sending a false one. (How many times have you read a story about a spammer getting caught or punished? Once? Twice? And yet spam messages keep coming.)
3) And of course, only a percentage of the spam has to "hit" to be effective. It doesn't sound like Digimarc cares about the misses as long as some content is taken down.
4) Like good spamming-companies, they can charge by the message/ takedown. Who cares if 95% of their takedowns are wrong when they can bill the client for sending out 5,000 takedowns? Let Google worry about whether a takedown is legitimate or not.
I really wish discussions of these kinds of issues would do away with the idea of companies not being in the same market space. The real issue is that one company (in this case, the restaurant) doesn't want another company (the band) to use a similar name in case the public thinks both are somehow related, as in the band is authorized and endorsed by the restaurant. So the company lawyers use the only tool available to them: file a cease & desist or trademark notice.
Some posters are saying this idea would never work for the music industry, yet the "free to listen" model has been around for ages... it's called THE RADIO. That's right- people would listen to songs *for free* on the radio and then go buy the album or go to a concert. Okay, sure, there were people who recorded songs off the radio, but a huge majority of listeners bought the music.
It sounds to me like you designed a game to test the media and click-bait headlines. It goes something like this:
The New Yorker reports that the Mercers have a game. Next, the "Cards Against Humanity" creator sees the click-bait headline but doesn't read the story and sends out a tweet about how he's outraged. Then another media website runs a story about how the "Cards" guy is outraged by the Mercers.
Yet NO ONE actually reads the story that says they didn't play the game! It's all media "outrage" and reporting on other people's stories. Where's the in-depth reporting? Okay, maybe the original article has accurate and good information, but that's not much good if people are only reacting to the headline.
Everyone is talking about the tracking and possible code that it would take to pay 10,000 possible jurisdictions, but what about the payment side of things? Suppose I run an Internet business and I have 100 customers and they buy 1 product each. I now have to calculate the tax of 100 purchases AND then send a payment check to each city, state, county, and jurisdiction that the customer lives in? And suppose each customer buys a $10 shirt and the tax rates range from 3% to 7%... so I'm now sending a payment check for 30 cents to 70 cents to the government agencies.
I'm sure little counties in the middle of nowhere would love to get extra income from Internet businesses, but does their staff have the ability to handle thousands of payment checks for 50 cents or 25 cents each? How much time will be spent by the government to process and acknowledge this many payments?
"This should have no place in a full price PC game" There's your fundamental problem. If you're charging full price for a game, there should not *be* advertising.
Well, sure, but movie studios have been doing something similar for years. If you buy a Disney DVD, it will probably come with unskippable trailers ("ads") for upcoming movies and TV shows on ABC. And it will probably come with an unskippable piracy warning. Okay, granted, these don't send tracking data, but it's still annoying when you pay full price for a product.
Stories like this need to be spread to the public simply to counter the claims by people (like Taylor Swift) who claim marketplace websites don't pay the musicians. People like this will rant about how they sell their music on iTunes but only make a few cents per download. Yet Apple signed contracts with the record labels to pay *them*, not the individual musicians. So guess, musicians- it's not Apple that's ripping you off, but your record label. And the manager may also be to blame for not negotiating a better royalty payment.
I say let FSL sue Reddit and see what happens. It wouldn't take long for Reddit's lawyers to show that FSL's tactics don't pass the "duck test": if it looks like malware, if it smells like malware, and if it quacks like malware, then it's malware. And look- a judge ruled *on the public record* that FSL is installing malware! Won't that be great for their business?
I think I posted this in an earlier discussion of this case, but I'd like to know if more people would be interested in arguing this point:
Is SDCC even a comic book convention any more? I would argue that, no, the primary focus of SDCC is no longer comic books, but the entire pop-culture industry. The evidence should be plain: how many comic book artists are there, compared to how many TV and movie celebrities? Is the focus on comic book themselves or on the many movie and TV projects created from the comics?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it SDCC where thousands of people camped out in the hallways for a spot in a panel discussion about the "Twilight" movies? In my non-legal opinion, an event can't call itself a "comic book convention" when it's main draw is a panel discussion about a movie!
I was going to ask when the airlines would weigh in on TSA's actions since it affects their customers: more TSA groping means less people flying means less customers for the airlines. However, airlines have their own way of dealing with this issue: simply lower the price of the tickets. Then if someone can't fly due to the TSA's list, well, there's always someone else who's willing to buy the cheap ticket.
Here's my story: Sometimes my sister's husband posts photos of their kids. Okay, nothing wrong with that. But then when I see the photo in my timeline, Facebook asks me if I want to tag my sister in the photo.
Issue #1: Does my niece really look that much like my sister that Facebook thinks it's her? We're talking about a 10 year-old girl and her 40 year-old mom.
Issue #2: Why am I allowed to tag someone else's photos if I'm not in it? I can understand tagging myself, but this is a photo posted by my brother-in-law (whom I'm friends with) of his kids. NO ONE else should be able to tag the photo.
Issue #3: If I click to tag my sister, Facebook will create a post on all of her friends' timelines saying she was tagged in a photo, which will push the photo to a wider audience. I don't know if this is what my brother-in-law intended when he posted the photo.
Facebook will probably claim this increases "social connections" or some such, but it just feels wrong to me.
So the kid pulled a prank, the police thought there was no threat and had a good laugh about it, but the school claimed there was a disruption? So let's see if I have this straight: the school is the only one who thinks there's a "threat" yet they're the ones who keep ratcheting up the penalties?
Do the school administrators not realize that the entire issue would be a non-issue if they took it as a prank also? Okay, joke's on them, let's move along to a real issue, such as the monthly *real* school shooting.
Because someone has to say it: The only thing stopping a bad guy with porn is a good guy with porn. If evil porn is causing mass shootings, then we need to get more good porn out there.
Another idea would be to take all the fines from red light cameras and give the money to public projects like educational programs, road maintenance, or you know, anything where politicians and corporations can't dip their hand into.
How long would it take for a politician to say something "offense", as in the people expect him to say it, but it runs afoul of the new law? Then could enough people complain about the politician's statement and get him or her banned from Facebook or Twitter? If that happened, I suspect the law would be repealed real quick.
On the post: Indian Court Grants PepsiCo's Takedown Request Targeting Thousands Of 'Disparaging' Social Media Posts
Free speech comes with consequences
Is it censorship? Sure, but as much you wanting to delete any posts where someone says you eat puppies when you never have.
On the post: TSA Sending Air Marshals All Over The US To Tail Non-Terrorist US Citizens
Loss of respect
I just wish there was more outcry, like maybe protesting airports and the airlines, until something is changed.
On the post: Hacked Passwords Being Used In Blackmail Attempt -- Expect More Of This
Another tip
The lid is either completely closed or cracked slightly open so I can press the power key- in other words, angled down. So if a hacker did manage to turn on my laptop's camera, they'd get a nice video of my floor... and maybe my feet as I walk by.
On the post: The View From Somewhere: The Press Needs To Be Anti-Partisan, Not Bi-Partisan
Stop the "both sides" nonsense
You don't see the TV news running shows about how the Earth is spinning and invite Flat-Earthers to give a "differing opinion". And you don't seen news specials on the Holocaust inviting Holocaust-deniers to show "both sides".
So coverage of the president should be the same way: he said he now believes the intelligence reports... but he also has a record of not believing reports and a longer record of saying one thing but doing another.
News outlets, especially the NYT, would do the public a huge service if they gave more analysis into why Trump is saying these things now. Is it because he actually believes it this time or because public opinion is forming against him and he has to say it... even though he still doesn't believe it.
On the post: Digimarc Fighting Piracy By Submitting Incomplete DMCA Notices Targeting Tons Of Non-Infringing URLs (Including Techdirt's)
These notices are spam, literally
1) There's very little cost to send hundreds out at a time.
2) There's no penalty for getting caught sending a false one. (How many times have you read a story about a spammer getting caught or punished? Once? Twice? And yet spam messages keep coming.)
3) And of course, only a percentage of the spam has to "hit" to be effective. It doesn't sound like Digimarc cares about the misses as long as some content is taken down.
4) Like good spamming-companies, they can charge by the message/ takedown. Who cares if 95% of their takedowns are wrong when they can bill the client for sending out 5,000 takedowns? Let Google worry about whether a takedown is legitimate or not.
On the post: How A US Burger Chain Brought 'Ruby Tuesday' Full Circle Through Trademark Bullying
It's not about the market space
The real issue is that one company (in this case, the restaurant) doesn't want another company (the band) to use a similar name in case the public thinks both are somehow related, as in the band is authorized and endorsed by the restaurant. So the company lawyers use the only tool available to them: file a cease & desist or trademark notice.
On the post: 'Free' Game Making $300 Million Per Month? But I Thought You Can't Make Money On Free...
The music industry
That's right- people would listen to songs *for free* on the radio and then go buy the album or go to a concert. Okay, sure, there were people who recorded songs off the radio, but a huge majority of listeners bought the music.
On the post: I Helped Design The Election Simulation 'Parlor Game' Rebekah Mercer Got, And It's Not What You Think
A game of media click-bait
It goes something like this:
The New Yorker reports that the Mercers have a game.
Next, the "Cards Against Humanity" creator sees the click-bait headline but doesn't read the story and sends out a tweet about how he's outraged.
Then another media website runs a story about how the "Cards" guy is outraged by the Mercers.
Yet NO ONE actually reads the story that says they didn't play the game! It's all media "outrage" and reporting on other people's stories.
Where's the in-depth reporting? Okay, maybe the original article has accurate and good information, but that's not much good if people are only reacting to the headline.
On the post: The Supreme Court Makes A Federal Case Out Of South Dakota's Inability To Collect Taxes From Its Residents And Thus A Big Mess
What about the payments?
Suppose I run an Internet business and I have 100 customers and they buy 1 product each. I now have to calculate the tax of 100 purchases AND then send a payment check to each city, state, county, and jurisdiction that the customer lives in?
And suppose each customer buys a $10 shirt and the tax rates range from 3% to 7%... so I'm now sending a payment check for 30 cents to 70 cents to the government agencies.
I'm sure little counties in the middle of nowhere would love to get extra income from Internet businesses, but does their staff have the ability to handle thousands of payment checks for 50 cents or 25 cents each? How much time will be spent by the government to process and acknowledge this many payments?
On the post: Studios Remove 'Spyware' From Several Games As Gaming Public Revolts
Re:
There's your fundamental problem. If you're charging full price for a game, there should not *be* advertising.
Well, sure, but movie studios have been doing something similar for years. If you buy a Disney DVD, it will probably come with unskippable trailers ("ads") for upcoming movies and TV shows on ABC. And it will probably come with an unskippable piracy warning. Okay, granted, these don't send tracking data, but it's still annoying when you pay full price for a product.
On the post: DOJ Lets Cops Know SESTA/FOSTA Is For Shutting Down Websites, Not Busting Sex Traffickers
Re: Re:
As well they should. If US websites have to follow the new GDPR/ EU privacy rules, then EU websites should follow US laws.
On the post: Chuck Palahniuk Apologizes For Blaming Piracy For His Business Partner Stealing His Money
Record labels and musicians
Yet Apple signed contracts with the record labels to pay *them*, not the individual musicians. So guess, musicians- it's not Apple that's ripping you off, but your record label. And the manager may also be to blame for not negotiating a better royalty payment.
On the post: FlightSimLabs Installs More Questionable Stuff On Users' Machines, Then Threatens Reddit
Let them sue
It wouldn't take long for Reddit's lawyers to show that FSL's tactics don't pass the "duck test": if it looks like malware, if it smells like malware, and if it quacks like malware, then it's malware.
And look- a judge ruled *on the public record* that FSL is installing malware! Won't that be great for their business?
On the post: San Diego Comic-Con Petitions Judge To Have Salt Lake Comic Con Pay Its Attorney's Fees, Bar It From Calling Itself A 'Comic Convention'
Is SDCC even a comic book convention any more?
Is SDCC even a comic book convention any more?
I would argue that, no, the primary focus of SDCC is no longer comic books, but the entire pop-culture industry. The evidence should be plain: how many comic book artists are there, compared to how many TV and movie celebrities? Is the focus on comic book themselves or on the many movie and TV projects created from the comics?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it SDCC where thousands of people camped out in the hallways for a spot in a panel discussion about the "Twilight" movies? In my non-legal opinion, an event can't call itself a "comic book convention" when it's main draw is a panel discussion about a movie!
On the post: TSA Has Been Compiling A Shitlist Of Travelers It Just Doesn't Like
Why don't the airlines weigh in on this?
However, airlines have their own way of dealing with this issue: simply lower the price of the tickets. Then if someone can't fly due to the TSA's list, well, there's always someone else who's willing to buy the cheap ticket.
On the post: Judge OKs Class Action Status For Illinoisans Claiming Facebook Violated State Privacy Law
Tagging people
Sometimes my sister's husband posts photos of their kids. Okay, nothing wrong with that.
But then when I see the photo in my timeline, Facebook asks me if I want to tag my sister in the photo.
Issue #1: Does my niece really look that much like my sister that Facebook thinks it's her? We're talking about a 10 year-old girl and her 40 year-old mom.
Issue #2: Why am I allowed to tag someone else's photos if I'm not in it? I can understand tagging myself, but this is a photo posted by my brother-in-law (whom I'm friends with) of his kids. NO ONE else should be able to tag the photo.
Issue #3: If I click to tag my sister, Facebook will create a post on all of her friends' timelines saying she was tagged in a photo, which will push the photo to a wider audience. I don't know if this is what my brother-in-law intended when he posted the photo.
Facebook will probably claim this increases "social connections" or some such, but it just feels wrong to me.
On the post: School Can't Take A Joke; Turns Student Over To Cops For Listing The School For Sale On Craigslist
Distruption of their own making
Do the school administrators not realize that the entire issue would be a non-issue if they took it as a prank also? Okay, joke's on them, let's move along to a real issue, such as the monthly *real* school shooting.
On the post: Congresswoman Says School Shootings Are Caused By Porn, Mental Illness, Single Parents... But Mostly Porn
Bad porn and good porn
The only thing stopping a bad guy with porn is a good guy with porn. If evil porn is causing mass shootings, then we need to get more good porn out there.
On the post: Chicago Wins 'Most Corrupt City' Award Due In No Small Part To Its Awful Redlight Camera System
Re: Take their time
On the post: Facebook Moderation Ramps Up In Germany And Everything Keeps Getting Worse For Its Users
Use it against them
Then could enough people complain about the politician's statement and get him or her banned from Facebook or Twitter? If that happened, I suspect the law would be repealed real quick.
Next >>