Assuming everything in your in post is accurate (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), censorship is still taking place here. If someone in the Chinese government contacted Lego and said "If you give this guy Legos we'll ban you from doing business in our country.", then China is abusing it's economic position in order to censor political speech. (Concerning, though not exactly breaking news.) On the other hand, Lego might be self-censoring out of fear of Chinese reprisal, but without a direct threat. I'd argue Lego holds a bit more of the blame in that case, though obviously China is at the heart of the problem.
You're undoubtedly correct, but there are a bunch of laws on the books prohibiting Internet Gambling. Mainly due to interstate concerns, as each state has decided for themselves whether or not gambling is ok, and allowing Internet Gambling would enable citizens in those states who don't like gambling to still do so with out of state partners. Overruling state's rights is never a popular decision, especially in a Republican controlled congress.
So, Internet Gambling (at least interstate internet gambling, anyway), is expressly forbidden by law.
You might ask, then, how are these Fantasy Sports gambling sites getting away with this?
There is a specific exemption in the statute for Fantasy Sports, 31 U.S. Code §5362(1)(E)(ix):
participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions
FanDuel and DraftKings were specifically designed to abuse that loophole. I assume that exemption is only there because some senator absolutely refused to give up his Fantasy Sports addiction.
Because those that paid for, produced, and received an explicit declaration from the artist that transfers ownership of the content rights actually end up with control of the content, copyright is fucked up? That's only an example of copyright being fucked up if you already believe copyright is fucked up. Tautologies are inherently meaningless statements.
There may be examples of the concept of Copyright itself being fucked up, but this isn't one of them. I don't know of any myself, though I agree with Copyright in principal, so if I did that would be some major cognitive dissonance. I just think that the current implementation of Copyright is seriously fucked up.
Yes. It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Jeffries has a deal with Netflix that grants Netflix the exclusive rights to this clip. And I'm sure that some of you feel that this is perfectly reasonable, because Jeffries entered into an agreement with Netflix and this is the tradeoff.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. This is a non-issue. If Netflix received the Copyright of the work via an agreement with Jeffries, then they have every right to request that YouTube take it down. It's a stupid thing for them to do, of course, but they have the right to be stupid.
This is not an example of a broken copyright system. Which is unfortunate because there are plenty of valid examples of the broken copyright system out there, but holding this instance up as one of them just serves to give trolls and Copyright Maximalists more ammunition.
He was making a wry comment that if POS devices start taking photos when doing Card Transactions, he'll stop using Credit/Debit Cards at POS devices and only at ATMs to withdrawal cash. As such, the only images would be him withdrawing his cash, not him spending it.
Not to use Java. If you're interested in a high-level, strongly-typed OOP language, go with C#.
Personally, I love Python. It's a great language for beginners, and well suited for everything from simple scripting to heavy data processing. Only drawback is mediocre GUI tooling. For GUI applications I use C# for frontend coding and have all the logic in Python.
Compared to some of the other insanity PETA has pulled... yeah. On an absolute scale, though, it's certainly not acceptable. Whether it's actionable is up to the judge who has to take time away from overseeing real cases to preside over this mess.
Where did he say it needed to be addressed by the judiciary system? I read his post to indicate something that needs to be addressed by society at large, whatever form that reasonably takes.
Is anyone else amused/concerned about the ruling referring to TLDs as extensions? Is there something lost in translation here (maybe they meant branch?), or are they confusing file extensions and TLDs since they both look like ".foo"?
Ehhhh..... sort of. Here's the definition of a "Hoax Bomb" from the statute:
Sec. 46.01. DEFINITIONS. (13) "Hoax bomb" means a device that: (A) reasonably appears to be an explosive or incendiary device; or (B) by its design causes alarm or reaction of any type by an official of a public safety agency or a volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies.
And, for immediate, reference, the section quoted in the article regarding Hoax Bomb offenses (Class A misdemeanors):
Sec. 46.08. HOAX BOMBS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly manufactures, sells, purchases, transports, or possesses a hoax bomb with intent to use the hoax bomb to: (1) make another believe that the hoax bomb is an explosive or incendiary device; or (2) cause alarm or reaction of any type by an official of a public safety agency or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies.
So, you can run afoul of this statute in the following ways:
1. Have an item that "reasonably appears to be an explosive or incendiary device" and intend to "make another believe [it] is an explosive". (What the statute was designed to prevent, I believe.)
2. Have an item that by design causes a "reaction of any type" from a public safety official, and intend to "make another believe [it] is an explosive". (Arguably worse than above.)
3. Have an item that, again, by design causes a "reaction of any type" from a public safety official, and intend to elicit a "reaction of any type" from a public safety official. (Now we start getting into grey areas. Wouldn't, say, a road flare qualify? It's an incendiary that is designed to cause a reaction, and if you use it to flag down a police car...)
4. Have an item that "reasonably appears to be an explosive or incendiary device" and intend to elicit a "reaction of any type" from a public safety official. (This one is so vague as to be meaningless. Who governs the definition of "reasonable"? I would argue that no reasonable person would mistake that clock for a bomb, but that didn't stop some idiots from pretending anyway. The kid certainly didn't want any type of reaction from public safety officials, that was the teacher. As far as cell phones... if someone can mistake a cell phone for a gun, they can surely mistake a cell phone for a bomb. So, if a cell phone "reasonably" resembles a bomb, and you intend to use it to get the attention of a public safety official... Welcome to Texas, I guess.)
Re: Re: Re: You don't have to act smart if your customers are idiots
Not binary, I just don't imagine sufficient people will be willing to stop buying from the company for them to actually care.
That number is one. Every lost customer hurts their bottom line, and no business can afford to be cavalier with customer satisfaction. If nothing else, it reduces their marketing ROI.
Re: You don't have to act smart if your customers are idiots
You're acting like it's a binary situation, either everyone boycotts Nintendo and they go out of business, or everyone lines up like zombies to fork over money. Reality is always much more nuanced.
PR debacles can quickly become disastrous, even a relatively small drop in customers over a short period (say, 10% drop this quarter) can easily trigger restructuring (read: layoffs) if projections aren't met. Particularly with regard to hardware sales, if you're not moving units as quickly as you expected, not only are you failing to keep up revenue for production costs, but now you need to pay for storage as well!
If the company is operating on a current deficit (might happen right due to large R&D/production expenditures, i.e., next console generation), their credit rating might take a hit. Shareholders would storm the gates if that happened, demanding the CEOs head on a spike. In this instance, though, I believe Nintendo has quite a lot of liquid capital, (unusual for a company that size), so probably won't happen.
No company can afford to actively piss off their customers repeatedly. (Well, unless they're an effective monopoly. Looking at you, Comcast.) All it takes is a few angry, vocal customers with social reach (like, say, popular YouTube uploaders), and there'll be an anchor dragging the company down. They're not going to cost them all their customers, but each person they reach is now going to be just that much more difficult to convert to a paying customer, pulling the company down brick by brick.
*GASP* *SHOCK* Windows no longer has built-in solitaire? THE HORROR! The world as we know it will surely come grinding to a halt without this critical OS feature.
The registries/registrars would not be enjoined, but they would be bound by the injunction against Movietube (assuming they have actual notice and are aiding Movietube). The court can order Movietube or those bound by the injunction to take action concerning Movietube's property, such as its domain names. But just because these third parties can be bound by the injunction, that doesn't mean they were enjoined.
If that's the case, why did the MPAA back off from the injunction?
That is very much a valid concern. Especially if injunctions are used punitively (which is not what their purpose is), or abused. I just don't think it's as black and white as preliminary injunctions being inherently wrong.
Using a court to destroy a company you don't like without a finding of guilt is undoubtedly something that needs to be prevented, but, as usual, things are never that simple.
That the Registries and/or Registrars be required to transfer the domain names associated with Defendants’ MovieTube Websites, or any subset of these domain names specified by Plaintiffs, to a registrar to be appointed by Plaintiffs to re-register the domain names in respective Plaintiffs’ names and under Plaintiffs’ respective ownership.
How is that an injunction against MovieTube? That is neither ordering MovieTube to transfer the registration (which would be fine), nor is it a notice to a third-party to cease assistance to an enjoined act. It is very clearly an (attempted) injunction against a third party.
Don't the DMCA safe harbor provisions declare that providing said services to an entity who uses them for illegal purposes is not considered criminal facilitation? If they would be allowed to continue to provide service if named as defendants, why is the bar suddenly lowered when they are third parties?
On the post: Fertility Company Bullies Unhappy Customer With Bogus Legal Threats And Nonexistent Lawyers
Fertility Bridges
On the post: Lego Tells Political Artist To Hit The Bricks, Refusing To Sell Him Legos
Re:
On the post: Nevada Predictably Declares Daily Fantasy To Be Gambling
Re: Even if it is Gambling, so what?
So, Internet Gambling (at least interstate internet gambling, anyway), is expressly forbidden by law.
You might ask, then, how are these Fantasy Sports gambling sites getting away with this?
There is a specific exemption in the statute for Fantasy Sports, 31 U.S. Code §5362(1)(E)(ix):
FanDuel and DraftKings were specifically designed to abuse that loophole. I assume that exemption is only there because some senator absolutely refused to give up his Fantasy Sports addiction.
On the post: Why Do Senators Keep Lying About What CISA Would Be Used For?
Re: Re:
I get the attraction of a headstrong and vain rebel, but are you really going to vote for Trump?
On the post: Jim Jefferies 'Official' Clip Of His 'Gun Control' Routine Taken Down Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Pretty much.
There may be examples of the concept of Copyright itself being fucked up, but this isn't one of them. I don't know of any myself, though I agree with Copyright in principal, so if I did that would be some major cognitive dissonance. I just think that the current implementation of Copyright is seriously fucked up.
On the post: Jim Jefferies 'Official' Clip Of His 'Gun Control' Routine Taken Down Thanks To Copyright
Pretty much.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. This is a non-issue. If Netflix received the Copyright of the work via an agreement with Jeffries, then they have every right to request that YouTube take it down. It's a stupid thing for them to do, of course, but they have the right to be stupid.
This is not an example of a broken copyright system. Which is unfortunate because there are plenty of valid examples of the broken copyright system out there, but holding this instance up as one of them just serves to give trolls and Copyright Maximalists more ammunition.
On the post: Chip And PIN Meets Facial Recognition: Chipping Away At Privacy, Pinning You Down In A Database
Re: Re: Cash is king
On the post: As Comcast Broadband Usage Caps Expand, Company Still Refuses To Admit They Even Have Caps
Re: Re:
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
On the post: Daily Deal: Using Python For Data Analysis And More...
Re: recommendations
Personally, I love Python. It's a great language for beginners, and well suited for everything from simple scripting to heavy data processing. Only drawback is mediocre GUI tooling. For GUI applications I use C# for frontend coding and have all the logic in Python.
On the post: Monkey Business: PETA Sues On Behalf Of The Monkey Selfie; Claims Copyright Belongs To The Monkey
Re: Re:
On the post: Monkey Business: PETA Sues On Behalf Of The Monkey Selfie; Claims Copyright Belongs To The Monkey
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: French Regulating Body Says Google Must Honor Right To Be Forgotten Across All Of Its Domains
Extensions?
On the post: Here's The Ridiculous Texas Law That Allows Law Enforcement To Pretend A Digital Clock Is A Hoax Bomb
Re: Re: damn
And, for immediate, reference, the section quoted in the article regarding Hoax Bomb offenses (Class A misdemeanors):
So, you can run afoul of this statute in the following ways:
1. Have an item that "reasonably appears to be an explosive or incendiary device" and intend to "make another believe [it] is an explosive". (What the statute was designed to prevent, I believe.)
2. Have an item that by design causes a "reaction of any type" from a public safety official, and intend to "make another believe [it] is an explosive". (Arguably worse than above.)
3. Have an item that, again, by design causes a "reaction of any type" from a public safety official, and intend to elicit a "reaction of any type" from a public safety official. (Now we start getting into grey areas. Wouldn't, say, a road flare qualify? It's an incendiary that is designed to cause a reaction, and if you use it to flag down a police car...)
4. Have an item that "reasonably appears to be an explosive or incendiary device" and intend to elicit a "reaction of any type" from a public safety official. (This one is so vague as to be meaningless. Who governs the definition of "reasonable"? I would argue that no reasonable person would mistake that clock for a bomb, but that didn't stop some idiots from pretending anyway. The kid certainly didn't want any type of reaction from public safety officials, that was the teacher. As far as cell phones... if someone can mistake a cell phone for a gun, they can surely mistake a cell phone for a bomb. So, if a cell phone "reasonably" resembles a bomb, and you intend to use it to get the attention of a public safety official... Welcome to Texas, I guess.)
On the post: Nintendo Hates You: Massive Takedowns Of YouTube Videos Featuring Mario Bros. Fan-Created Levels
Re: Re: Re: You don't have to act smart if your customers are idiots
That number is one. Every lost customer hurts their bottom line, and no business can afford to be cavalier with customer satisfaction. If nothing else, it reduces their marketing ROI.
On the post: Nintendo Hates You: Massive Takedowns Of YouTube Videos Featuring Mario Bros. Fan-Created Levels
Re: You don't have to act smart if your customers are idiots
PR debacles can quickly become disastrous, even a relatively small drop in customers over a short period (say, 10% drop this quarter) can easily trigger restructuring (read: layoffs) if projections aren't met. Particularly with regard to hardware sales, if you're not moving units as quickly as you expected, not only are you failing to keep up revenue for production costs, but now you need to pay for storage as well!
If the company is operating on a current deficit (might happen right due to large R&D/production expenditures, i.e., next console generation), their credit rating might take a hit. Shareholders would storm the gates if that happened, demanding the CEOs head on a spike. In this instance, though, I believe Nintendo has quite a lot of liquid capital, (unusual for a company that size), so probably won't happen.
No company can afford to actively piss off their customers repeatedly. (Well, unless they're an effective monopoly. Looking at you, Comcast.) All it takes is a few angry, vocal customers with social reach (like, say, popular YouTube uploaders), and there'll be an anchor dragging the company down. They're not going to cost them all their customers, but each person they reach is now going to be just that much more difficult to convert to a paying customer, pulling the company down brick by brick.
On the post: Microsoft Retrofitting Windows 7, 8.1 With Windows 10's Privacy-Invading 'Features'
Re:
Windows no longer has built-in solitaire? THE HORROR! The world as we know it will surely come grinding to a halt without this critical OS feature.
On the post: After Internet Companies Protest, MPAA Declares Victory And Walks Away From Attempt To Backdoor SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that's the case, why did the MPAA back off from the injunction?
On the post: After Internet Companies Protest, MPAA Declares Victory And Walks Away From Attempt To Backdoor SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "killing off the service"
Using a court to destroy a company you don't like without a finding of guilt is undoubtedly something that needs to be prevented, but, as usual, things are never that simple.
On the post: After Internet Companies Protest, MPAA Declares Victory And Walks Away From Attempt To Backdoor SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is that an injunction against MovieTube? That is neither ordering MovieTube to transfer the registration (which would be fine), nor is it a notice to a third-party to cease assistance to an enjoined act. It is very clearly an (attempted) injunction against a third party.
Don't the DMCA safe harbor provisions declare that providing said services to an entity who uses them for illegal purposes is not considered criminal facilitation? If they would be allowed to continue to provide service if named as defendants, why is the bar suddenly lowered when they are third parties?
Next >>