If the password is the "trade secret" shouldn't PhoneDog know it?
Even if you give them the possibility that the password to the account is the trade secret, if that's the case shouldn't PhoneDog know said password? After all, it's their trade secret. If they did know it then it'd be a trivial matter to take control and/or delete the account. (Likewise, if the account relied on PhoneDog resources (such as E-mail address) they could easily take control of the account.) They haven't done so, this seems to imply that at the least he changed the password (probably around the same time he changed the account to @noahkravitz) so that would mean... he's not misappropriated their trade secret, he left it behind when he left the company.
To be fair, even most of the ardent IP trolls disliked Righthaven. Righthaven has proven time and time again that they were, at best, clueless idiots who were making utter fools of themselves and their whole legal "strategy". They've been an embarrassment to supporters of stronger IP laws (and lawyers) everywhere. I doubt anyone is going to miss them.
Not me, I don't buy Hollywood movies, I don't download them either, I rarely ever go to the theater (last time was about 3 years ago), I could care less if they go out of business, I won't miss them at all. I certainly won't miss their content, it's not worth watching, let alone paying for.
But I do care about this stuff because when it fails they use it as an excuse to encourage more draconian laws that will take away my freedoms and try to destroy the Internet in the process. I'm sick and tired of businesses I don't support (and don't give a damn about) trying to take away my rights because they feel they have some God-given right to make obscene profits without having to adapt with the times.
Of course all you copyright maximalists will refuse to believe that I don't want their product. Your world view is completely "us vs. them" and if we're not one of you we're lying, thieving, stealing jerks who want everything free. You can't fathom someone thinking your industry's worthless and not worth supporting (or watching). But we do exist, and we're freaking sick and tired of you taking away our freedoms because you can't adapt to changing times.
How about you try reading my post instead of trolling? So she paid for a pro IMDB account, that's a credit card transaction. How could Amazon have obtained her age from that? Are you claiming that any company out there obtains your age when you purchase something with your credit card? (If so, proof please, because I'm not buying it and I doubt anyone else will either.) As I pointed out (and you quote, and ignore), why would Amazon have run a credit report on her anyway? They had no reason to do so, and I seriously doubt it would be worth the cost to them (they aren't free) just to get the age of some relatively unknown actress to add to the IMDB. It just doesn't make sense.
And yes, they are regarded as confidential, but there's absolutely no logic here in how (or even why, getting her age isn't enough) Amazon would have obtained one. Not to mention there's no explanation for how Amazon obtained her social security number to run the report. That's definitely not part of a credit card transaction, and notably, while the lawsuit itself says that signing up for IMDB pro requires providing personal information, it does not claim it requires a social security number. Given that would be quite pertinent in this case it would be mentioned. And if Amazon could have gotten a report so easily, just about anyone she's ever used her credit card with could have obtained one as well.
Add in my original points, that it's pretty much impossible that all her employers (aka, the people hiring her to act) could have not known her age, that the Screen Actors Guild probably knows it, that it's likely in her credit reports, etc. and the most likely scenario is exactly what I said before: that any of a hundred different people that knew her real age due to various reasons added it to the IMDB, not that Amazon did something that makes not a bit of sense to obtain and add it. Is it possible that someone broke some confidentiality rules when adding it to the IMDB? Quite likely. But is it likely that Amazon was the one who did it? No, they really had no reason to do so.
Like I said last time, she may think she's been meticulous in hiding her real age, but the reality is likely to be something quite different.
I understand that the lawsuit is about how she claims they got her age information but...
How could those who employ her not know her age? Even if she can somehow keep it from them (which I doubt), what about the Screen Actors Guild? I seriously, seriously doubt the only way this information could have leaked is via her credit card (and do credit cards even have that info tied to them by anyone but the credit card company? Age is certainly not required for any credit card transaction I've ever completed at Amazon or anywhere else.)
If she's saying Amazon got it from her credit report, well then... it's not exactly well hidden if they have it either is it? (And why would Amazon have pulled her credit report?)
All in all, I think this info most likely leaked from one of a hundred different places than from Amazon. She may think she's been meticulous in hiding it, but the reality is likely to be something quite different.
It's a perfectly reasonable business. Good luck trying to do it however. All reports I've seen is that the Japanese publishing companies are very difficult to deal with. Obstinate would probably be putting it kindly. They're also terrified of re-importation (although somewhat less so with manga) because they tend to insanely overprice their product in the Japanese market, and have made little to no moves to provide digital manga within Japan so they're at best uninterested in allowing a company in another part of the world to provide the same service, at worst they're actively against it.
So the inevitable has happened, and despite what the WIPO article claims the problem isn't the scanlation groups, it's the big aggregators like MangaFox. The aggregators take the work the fans do, put it up in online readers, slap ads all over the site and rake in ad income, while doing none of the work. There's quite a bit of very strong dislike in the manga fan community about what sites like MangaFox do (very, very strong dislike, hate is probably a better word). Many groups have policies forbidding the big aggregators from posting their scans at all, or requiring a delay of several days (to weeks). MangaFox has a tendency to only honor these requests when it's not a super popular series.
There's also further problems with WIPO's article. Nearly all of the scanlations groups host their manga on MediaFire as it's far less annoying than most file sharing sites and works wonderfully for the small files that manga scanlations typically are. MediaFire has no points system, nor any way to earn money from downloads. Many of the scanlation groups do run ads on their sites, but it's exceptionally rare for any of them to even break even on hosting costs, much less turn a profit. All the sites making profit are the big, big aggregators like MangaFox.
Finally, and I say this as a long-time fan of anime & manga, it's very, very hard to feel sorry for the Japanese anime & manga industry. The publishing companies have been repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot for a long time, and have apparently still learned nothing. They grossly overprice their product in their own market (anime on BluRay in Japan routinely costs $60 USD or more a disc with 2 episodes a disc being the norm, that's $30 an episode!) and are terrified of re-importation (Japanese customers buying the release from another country and just disabling subtitles to watch it). This is an industry in dire need of change, but it's resisting it even more strongly than the RIAA and MPAA are in the US, and it's starting to catch up with them.
There's two trends I've noticed with Facebook (the company) that are combining here:
1. They believe everyone should share everything whether they want to or not because it's somehow "better" for everyone if they do.
2. They know better than their users how they want to use the site, thus they won't allow them to customize anything.
Combine those, you get share everything with no way to customize what you share or who you share it with, exactly what's happening.
And amazingly, even though they've incited many, many episodes of furious outrage (that's even gotten them in trouble with congress a few times) they have not learned a damn thing. They still have this insane arrogance that they know better than everyone what's best for them and do they do whatever they damn please. Even when a deaf & blind beggar who's never used the Internet could predict what they're doing will piss everyone off.
Our country's based on the ideas that everyone is entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Without a job you won't be able to have a roof over your head or food to eat. Those are kinda prerequisites to life. You'll notice that the quote does not say pursuit of life or liberty, only of happiness. Being happy isn't a right (only pursuing happiness is), but being alive most definitely is a right. So yes, having a well paying job, which is defined as one that covers the basic necessities to ensure life IS a right in the US.
Or at least it's supposed to be, it's not working out that way.
If the comment is serious enough that the US Marshals consider it a credible threat that needs to be addressed then they need to be retaining evidence in case that commenter continues to make threats and eventually acts on them. Asking for the comment to be deleted with no retention of data on the poster will actually make it more difficult for them to do their job protecting judges. That's why Mike's so surprised. It's sort of an open admission that the US Marshals aren't doing their job, or at least that they're doing it really badly.
Why? Even though the comment is offensive and stupid, it's not illegal. It didn't even suggest violence against anyone specific. Hell, it's asking a question so it's not even directly suggesting violence, merely asking if it's time to resort to it.
There's this thing called freedom of speech, TechDirt supports it. This comment is an example of it. No laws were broken, turning over the commenter's information would be unethical, and possibly illegal. (Plus the US Marshals didn't even ask for it according to the post...)
You seem to be more confused than normal, those people aren't calling down the heat on themselves. They're leaving abusive comments on the site so that they can report it to the US Marshals and cause problems for TechDirt. Both quotes are completely accurate.
And what about the liability the city incurs if there's an accident because the light is out and no one is directing traffic? The article states this light going out is a regular occurrence, so obviously there's liability incurred by not fixing it properly.
And how does leaving without doing anything to fix the traffic mess do anything to reduce their liability?
Sorry, no, this isn't about liability, the city's doing many things that are increasing their potential liability here, while stopping someone from trying to clean up the mess.
You seem to have problems with reality. Thomas is simply a commentor on Techdirt, as am I, as are you. What he's saying isn't Techdirt saying anything. And the law agrees with this, there are provisions in the law (upheld plenty of times in court) that sites aren't responsible for what their commentors say.
So stop making stuff up, you're just making yourself look childish.
Not to sound too tinfoil hat-ish, but the affidavit stating that is filed by the plaintiff's lawyers (aka, the troll) and not a single one of them are exactly known for being thorough in their research of... well, much of anything. So the guy may, or may not, be in the military but the only thing saying he isn't is based on the lawyer saying he isn't.
Personally I don't give much credence to what any of the copyright troll lawyers say, we've seen time and again that they'll stretch the truth if not outright lie as long as it benefits them.
And Facebook is supposed to know it's her creating a new account from a friend's house using an overseas proxy so it appears to be coming from another country how exactly? Magic pixies?
Sometimes you simply can't keep kids from doing things you don't want them to do. Even if it's something they really shouldn't be doing. Even if it's illegal. That's life. It sucks for the parent (and ultimately for the kid when they get hit with the inevitable consequences), but some things simply can't be prevented. This seems to be one of them. She wants to get on Facebook so bad that she'll find a way. Maybe he should have her put in jail instead, that would solve the problem handily as long as they don't have Internet access there.
Apparently you need to understand the law in the US on this. Facebook is fully COPPA compliant. Asking for age and refusing access if the person is under 13 is fine according to the law. If the person registering lies, this is not the website's fault (again, according to the law). Now if the website gains knowledge that the user is under 13 then the law requires them to delete the account and all data collected from that account. But that's IT. The rest involves how to handle users under 13, and the requirements are so onerous that most sites simply won't deal with them, thus the near universal 13+ age requirement.
So given that the Striesand effect is quite real, will he sue himself for drawing widespread attention to the fact that children can just lie to get around age checks? Who knows how many children he's endangered by doing so!
On the post: Company Sues Ex-Employee Because He Kept His Personal Twitter Account & Followers
If the password is the "trade secret" shouldn't PhoneDog know it?
On the post: US Marshal Service Told To Go After Righthaven's Assets
Re:
On the post: Warner Bros. Hates Libraries, Wants To Embargo DVD Sales To Libraries For A Month
Re:
But I do care about this stuff because when it fails they use it as an excuse to encourage more draconian laws that will take away my freedoms and try to destroy the Internet in the process. I'm sick and tired of businesses I don't support (and don't give a damn about) trying to take away my rights because they feel they have some God-given right to make obscene profits without having to adapt with the times.
Of course all you copyright maximalists will refuse to believe that I don't want their product. Your world view is completely "us vs. them" and if we're not one of you we're lying, thieving, stealing jerks who want everything free. You can't fathom someone thinking your industry's worthless and not worth supporting (or watching). But we do exist, and we're freaking sick and tired of you taking away our freedoms because you can't adapt to changing times.
On the post: Actress Sues Amazon Because Her Age Appeared On Her IMDB Profile
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Manabi": try reading an entire paragraph.
And yes, they are regarded as confidential, but there's absolutely no logic here in how (or even why, getting her age isn't enough) Amazon would have obtained one. Not to mention there's no explanation for how Amazon obtained her social security number to run the report. That's definitely not part of a credit card transaction, and notably, while the lawsuit itself says that signing up for IMDB pro requires providing personal information, it does not claim it requires a social security number. Given that would be quite pertinent in this case it would be mentioned. And if Amazon could have gotten a report so easily, just about anyone she's ever used her credit card with could have obtained one as well.
Add in my original points, that it's pretty much impossible that all her employers (aka, the people hiring her to act) could have not known her age, that the Screen Actors Guild probably knows it, that it's likely in her credit reports, etc. and the most likely scenario is exactly what I said before: that any of a hundred different people that knew her real age due to various reasons added it to the IMDB, not that Amazon did something that makes not a bit of sense to obtain and add it. Is it possible that someone broke some confidentiality rules when adding it to the IMDB? Quite likely. But is it likely that Amazon was the one who did it? No, they really had no reason to do so.
Like I said last time, she may think she's been meticulous in hiding her real age, but the reality is likely to be something quite different.
On the post: Actress Sues Amazon Because Her Age Appeared On Her IMDB Profile
Re: Re:
How could those who employ her not know her age? Even if she can somehow keep it from them (which I doubt), what about the Screen Actors Guild? I seriously, seriously doubt the only way this information could have leaked is via her credit card (and do credit cards even have that info tied to them by anyone but the credit card company? Age is certainly not required for any credit card transaction I've ever completed at Amazon or anywhere else.)
If she's saying Amazon got it from her credit report, well then... it's not exactly well hidden if they have it either is it? (And why would Amazon have pulled her credit report?)
All in all, I think this info most likely leaked from one of a hundred different places than from Amazon. She may think she's been meticulous in hiding it, but the reality is likely to be something quite different.
On the post: Mass Infringement Lawyer Complains About Too Many People Challenging His Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: WIPO Article About Manga Piracy Describes Publishers' Failure To Meet Demand In Graphic Detail
Re:
So the inevitable has happened, and despite what the WIPO article claims the problem isn't the scanlation groups, it's the big aggregators like MangaFox. The aggregators take the work the fans do, put it up in online readers, slap ads all over the site and rake in ad income, while doing none of the work. There's quite a bit of very strong dislike in the manga fan community about what sites like MangaFox do (very, very strong dislike, hate is probably a better word). Many groups have policies forbidding the big aggregators from posting their scans at all, or requiring a delay of several days (to weeks). MangaFox has a tendency to only honor these requests when it's not a super popular series.
There's also further problems with WIPO's article. Nearly all of the scanlations groups host their manga on MediaFire as it's far less annoying than most file sharing sites and works wonderfully for the small files that manga scanlations typically are. MediaFire has no points system, nor any way to earn money from downloads. Many of the scanlation groups do run ads on their sites, but it's exceptionally rare for any of them to even break even on hosting costs, much less turn a profit. All the sites making profit are the big, big aggregators like MangaFox.
Finally, and I say this as a long-time fan of anime & manga, it's very, very hard to feel sorry for the Japanese anime & manga industry. The publishing companies have been repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot for a long time, and have apparently still learned nothing. They grossly overprice their product in their own market (anime on BluRay in Japan routinely costs $60 USD or more a disc with 2 episodes a disc being the norm, that's $30 an episode!) and are terrified of re-importation (Japanese customers buying the release from another country and just disabling subtitles to watch it). This is an industry in dire need of change, but it's resisting it even more strongly than the RIAA and MPAA are in the US, and it's starting to catch up with them.
On the post: How Not To Make Music Social: The Way Spotify And Facebook Did It
Re:
Combine those, you get share everything with no way to customize what you share or who you share it with, exactly what's happening.
And amazingly, even though they've incited many, many episodes of furious outrage (that's even gotten them in trouble with congress a few times) they have not learned a damn thing. They still have this insane arrogance that they know better than everyone what's best for them and do they do whatever they damn please. Even when a deaf & blind beggar who's never used the Internet could predict what they're doing will piss everyone off.
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re: Re: Re: Re: nonsense
Or at least it's supposed to be, it's not working out that way.
On the post: US Marshals Service Asks Us To Remove A Comment
Re:
On the post: US Marshals Service Asks Us To Remove A Comment
Re:
There's this thing called freedom of speech, TechDirt supports it. This comment is an example of it. No laws were broken, turning over the commenter's information would be unethical, and possibly illegal. (Plus the US Marshals didn't even ask for it according to the post...)
On the post: US Marshals Service Asks Us To Remove A Comment
Re:
On the post: Police Ticket Guy Who Helped Direct Traffic After Traffic Light Failure; Then Leave Without Handling Traffic
Re:
And how does leaving without doing anything to fix the traffic mess do anything to reduce their liability?
Sorry, no, this isn't about liability, the city's doing many things that are increasing their potential liability here, while stopping someone from trying to clean up the mess.
On the post: Accused Of Copyright Infringement For Reprinting Images Produced In 630 A.D.
Re: Patience
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re: Wow...
So stop making stuff up, you're just making yourself look childish.
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally I don't give much credence to what any of the copyright troll lawyers say, we've seen time and again that they'll stretch the truth if not outright lie as long as it benefits them.
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Re:
Sometimes you simply can't keep kids from doing things you don't want them to do. Even if it's something they really shouldn't be doing. Even if it's illegal. That's life. It sucks for the parent (and ultimately for the kid when they get hit with the inevitable consequences), but some things simply can't be prevented. This seems to be one of them. She wants to get on Facebook so bad that she'll find a way. Maybe he should have her put in jail instead, that would solve the problem handily as long as they don't have Internet access there.
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Re:
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Simple
Next >>