I don't see this lasting for more than a week before even the politicians acknowledge that it is unworkable.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the legislative cycle. They meet for two months each year, do their mischief, and head home. If there is a problem, either the governor issues an ``emergency'' decree (which may last for over a year and continue past the next legislative session, or forever) or you wait until next year. Special sessions to deal with problem are, ahem, unusual.
The good news is that they finished up yesterday. The bad news is that now you have a bunch of undesirables, formerly confined to Tallahassee, now bothering the whole state.
One problem with trying to capture a single word such as ``the'' is that it may appear in other, older marks. There is less of this risk if you use a made-up word, so, for instance, ``Fartfarthernugent'' should provide little opposition.
Many years ago, an Atlanta-based beverage company made a product incorporating quite a bit of sugar. They promoted it as ``the real thing''. I used to purchase a fair amount of the product for home use.
No doubt the mark was famous back in the day. It has been decades since they switched to corn sweetener and stopped selling ``the real thing'', at least here in the States. Corn sweetener is much cheaper, and the marketing folks claim that the corn-sweetener-based product tastes so similar to the real thing that it might be termed ``classic''.
I used to purchase unhealthful beverages. When I was in the grocery, I never once accidentally purchased an out-of-state school instead of the beverages I expected. Neither did I mistakenly come home with overpriced clothing. And I suspect that very few people seeking education, or whatever is offered in the Buckeye state, got confused and came home with a carton of fizzy beverage instead.
Are we allowed to comment on ``the'' implicit assumption by Ohio State that its potential students are a bunch of morons in a hurry?
I actually do believe Officer Kim Potter really, genuinely intended to fire her tazer
If that was her intent, then we have at least depraved indifference to the risk of death. She fired at the driver of a vehicle. Assuming depraved indifference instead of intent for death is generous. When you fire at a driver to incapacitate him, you necessarily expect great harm, both to the driver and to passengers and other drivers in the area.
That is why we use ``stop sticks'' here. They flatten the tires, slowing the vehicle, and often avoiding really bad wrecks. And we try to block the roads first so that there are no other drivers in the area.
it does not penalize a wrongful accusation and takedown if it's made in good faith
Good faith is patently optional. You can tell that because many of the takedown notices are automated, which means that good faith never had a chance to enter into it.
Takedown notices for material which does not belong to the giver of notice (e.g. takedown for original material posted by author) are similarly necessarily devoid of good faith.
There might be a question of good faith where fair use is involved,. The guy claiming immunity for sending the takedown notice is going to have to demonstrate at least a modicum of consideration if he wants to rely on the defense.
Ultimately, however, good faith is unnecessary because the statute is essentially toothless as to bogus takedown notices. A robot can just spew such notices with no fear of consequences.
They are different, but I can articulate the difference. The ones in DC on 06-Jan were overwhelmingly white republicans, supporting core republican values of whiteness, strong central government, and distrust for data.
The ``others'' were diverse, distrustful of government which repeatedly failed, and prone to believe the video over reports from Fox and OANN.
With this new bill, had it happened in Florida, everybody involved would be in jail.
No, the new law is not aimed at white republicans. The new law, announced last summer in the wake of Floyd-inspired protests, was intended to clamp down on the uppity persons of color.
You may recall that the police in DC responded differently to Floyd-inspired peaceful protests, which were met with overwhelming force, and Trump-inspired violence, which was met with underwhelming manpower and delayed response. Applying the new law, which requires arrests in order for the detention-without-bail and felony charges to kick in, we see that only the Floyd-type protesters would be affected.
Some anonymous coward ought to look into whether state and Federal judges operate under the same rules. Also, whether a state discipinary agency can reach Federal judges, consistent with the supremacy clause.
It is totally generic, and it is not signed by anyone.
That is actually fairly common. I see quite a few letters ``signed'', if you can call it that, only by the name of the firm. No hand-written anything, and not always including the disclaimer that no attorney has yet looked at any part of the file.
Of course no attorney has looked at it. The term ``spray and pray'' seems appropriate in such cases; they are playing the numbers. It is no better than debt collectors.
Assuming they pay 55 cents for the postage, and the investment in paper and envelopes is lost in the noise. If they send a few hundred of these letters, and one responds usefully (e.g. sends money), the operation is paid for. Here, if one of the recipients response without instructing them to go pound sand up their butts, they can report back to the client success in protecting the valuable mark.
In the mean time, they gain deniability. No one at the firm sent the letter, and no one is liable for prohibited practices. Think of it as a win all around.
Well, yeah, it does tend to reinforce the idea that some law firms are populated by sleazy individuals, but other than that it is a win all around. And I have not heard of any mandatory bar association actually leaning on law firms that do this sort of thing, so you may presume that sleazy activity is at least implicitly endorsed by the respective states and their bars. So maybe it is not a win for the ``real'' lawyers out there, but for everyone involved with the sending it is a win all around.
Too bad the legal systems worldwide don't seem capable of handling the correct answer.
Too bad the legal system in the U.S., where Google are to be found, is unable to provide a usable result. A usable result would be perjury convictions for a substantial portion of the persons swearing falsely under oath to support a DMCA takedown notice.
More dec actions to have material reinstated, brought against such perjurers, might also have some deterrent effect. But that is costly and uncertain, and in any event the statute is fairly toothless as to false takedown notices.
I do not recall hearing of any such action also seeking a fee shift under the copyright statutes. If that were done, it might ultimately be less costly for the person whose material was wrongfully taken down. Even clever use of the offer-of-judgment rules might make it somewhat less costly.
Even if not, there is a First Amendment right to criticize public figures, New York Times Co. v. Lester B. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and Proctorio surely qualify as such if they are providing government-mandated software. So gather some facts and criticize them at will.
the judiciary is supposed to protect the public against this type of police misconduct
Not exactly. In many jurisdictions, the cops know which judges will sign off on warrants without asking annoying questions. They tend to present warrant applications to those judges.
This practice avoids inconvenience for the police. We hope that it also prevents the public from having any foolish expectation of protection from government overreach.
the kind of conservatism that Lincoln chose to leave behind by abandoning the Whigs and running for the new Republican Party
Surely this is the same Abraham Lincoln (R-Ill) who said to abolish slavery, but do not permit negroes to marry whites, or socialize with whites, or serve on juries, or vote. Conservative values, indeed.
He would be right at home with police abusing negroes, so long as the latter were nominally free. And the party is right there with him, though more flexible now: ``good people on both sides''.
The people running those servers were notified, repeatedly.
Yes, but the ``notification'' consisted of a MS windows logo shown at boot time. That warning is pretty general and could not be said to give specific warning of the problem at hand.
The jury acquitting OJ was faced with testimony from a cop who admitted planting evidence. It is harder for the state to obtain convictions when the cops actually admit such things rather than keeping quiet about it.
The mistake she made was thinking the guy would survive being shot
Do we have any reason to believe that she expected the victim to survive a shooting? Even tasing a guy driving a car is asking for a wreck. You do something like that if you intend great harm, not if you have reasonable concerns about misdemeanor FTAs.
Perhaps we can credit an after-the-shooting ``Oops'' given for the body cam recording as being authentic. In that case we probably have negligent homicide rather than intentional, but right now there is some cause for distrust of police in the Twin Cities area and this certainly does not help.
It is certainly difficult to believe the chief's claim that it was an accidental discharge. Cop draws weapon which requires extra effort to reach, aims at victim, and fires. That is not so much accident as clearly demonstrated intent. And a chief who lies when we can see that he is lying is probably unreliable in other situations as well, which does not enhance public trust in law enforcement.
Nope. Corporations cannot appear ``pro se'' because they are not natural persons. They must be represented, and normally a non-lawyer cannot provide that representation. There are exceptions to the non-lawyer rule, but those do not apply here.
At least myspace.com still resolves to a live site, even if it only receives about 10 visitors a day (five of whom are just checking to see if the name still resolves).
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
Re:
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the legislative cycle. They meet for two months each year, do their mischief, and head home. If there is a problem, either the governor issues an ``emergency'' decree (which may last for over a year and continue past the next legislative session, or forever) or you wait until next year. Special sessions to deal with problem are, ahem, unusual.
The good news is that they finished up yesterday. The bad news is that now you have a bunch of undesirables, formerly confined to Tallahassee, now bothering the whole state.
On the post: Groups Worry New Text Message Spam Filters Aren't Being Built Transparently, Could Harm Legit Outreach Efforts
Re: Re:
That is easy. Unsolicited electronic communication. That includes such things as
and a whole bunch of others from whom I have not heard as recently.
On the post: OSU, Marc Jacobs Call Truce Over Infuriating Competing Trademark Applications For The Word "The"
Not The Real Thing
One problem with trying to capture a single word such as ``the'' is that it may appear in other, older marks. There is less of this risk if you use a made-up word, so, for instance, ``Fartfarthernugent'' should provide little opposition.
Many years ago, an Atlanta-based beverage company made a product incorporating quite a bit of sugar. They promoted it as ``the real thing''. I used to purchase a fair amount of the product for home use.
No doubt the mark was famous back in the day. It has been decades since they switched to corn sweetener and stopped selling ``the real thing'', at least here in the States. Corn sweetener is much cheaper, and the marketing folks claim that the corn-sweetener-based product tastes so similar to the real thing that it might be termed ``classic''.
I used to purchase unhealthful beverages. When I was in the grocery, I never once accidentally purchased an out-of-state school instead of the beverages I expected. Neither did I mistakenly come home with overpriced clothing. And I suspect that very few people seeking education, or whatever is offered in the Buckeye state, got confused and came home with a carton of fizzy beverage instead.
Are we allowed to comment on ``the'' implicit assumption by Ohio State that its potential students are a bunch of morons in a hurry?
On the post: Federal Court Tells Minnesota State Police To Stop Attacking, Harassing, And Arresting Journalists Covering Protests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that was her intent, then we have at least depraved indifference to the risk of death. She fired at the driver of a vehicle. Assuming depraved indifference instead of intent for death is generous. When you fire at a driver to incapacitate him, you necessarily expect great harm, both to the driver and to passengers and other drivers in the area.
That is why we use ``stop sticks'' here. They flatten the tires, slowing the vehicle, and often avoiding really bad wrecks. And we try to block the roads first so that there are no other drivers in the area.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Google Refuses To Honor Questionable Requests For Removal Of 'Defamatory' Content (2019)
Re: Re:
Good faith is patently optional. You can tell that because many of the takedown notices are automated, which means that good faith never had a chance to enter into it.
Takedown notices for material which does not belong to the giver of notice (e.g. takedown for original material posted by author) are similarly necessarily devoid of good faith.
There might be a question of good faith where fair use is involved,. The guy claiming immunity for sending the takedown notice is going to have to demonstrate at least a modicum of consideration if he wants to rely on the defense.
Ultimately, however, good faith is unnecessary because the statute is essentially toothless as to bogus takedown notices. A robot can just spew such notices with no fear of consequences.
On the post: Florida Governor Signs Law That Punishes Protesters For Protesting, Denies Them Bail
Re:
They are different, but I can articulate the difference. The ones in DC on 06-Jan were overwhelmingly white republicans, supporting core republican values of whiteness, strong central government, and distrust for data.
The ``others'' were diverse, distrustful of government which repeatedly failed, and prone to believe the video over reports from Fox and OANN.
On the post: Florida Governor Signs Law That Punishes Protesters For Protesting, Denies Them Bail
Re: Re: Re:
No, the new law is not aimed at white republicans. The new law, announced last summer in the wake of Floyd-inspired protests, was intended to clamp down on the uppity persons of color.
You may recall that the police in DC responded differently to Floyd-inspired peaceful protests, which were met with overwhelming force, and Trump-inspired violence, which was met with underwhelming manpower and delayed response. Applying the new law, which requires arrests in order for the detention-without-bail and felony charges to kick in, we see that only the Floyd-type protesters would be affected.
On the post: Patent Loving Judge Keeps Pissing Off Patent Appeals Court, But Doesn't Seem To Care Very Much
Re:
Some anonymous coward ought to look into whether state and Federal judges operate under the same rules. Also, whether a state discipinary agency can reach Federal judges, consistent with the supremacy clause.
On the post: Not All Tech Regulatory Desires Are Equal: And We Should Stop Pretending They Are
cynical speculation
Facebook have, on page 7A of the 25-Apr-2021 edition of the NY Times, a full-page color advertisement advocating for changes in S:230 immunity.
On the post: Not This Again: Facebook Threatens To Sue Guy Who Registered 'DontUseInstagram.com'
Re: Artificial Stupidity
That is actually fairly common. I see quite a few letters ``signed'', if you can call it that, only by the name of the firm. No hand-written anything, and not always including the disclaimer that no attorney has yet looked at any part of the file.
Of course no attorney has looked at it. The term ``spray and pray'' seems appropriate in such cases; they are playing the numbers. It is no better than debt collectors.
Assuming they pay 55 cents for the postage, and the investment in paper and envelopes is lost in the noise. If they send a few hundred of these letters, and one responds usefully (e.g. sends money), the operation is paid for. Here, if one of the recipients response without instructing them to go pound sand up their butts, they can report back to the client success in protecting the valuable mark.
In the mean time, they gain deniability. No one at the firm sent the letter, and no one is liable for prohibited practices. Think of it as a win all around.
Well, yeah, it does tend to reinforce the idea that some law firms are populated by sleazy individuals, but other than that it is a win all around. And I have not heard of any mandatory bar association actually leaning on law firms that do this sort of thing, so you may presume that sleazy activity is at least implicitly endorsed by the respective states and their bars. So maybe it is not a win for the ``real'' lawyers out there, but for everyone involved with the sending it is a win all around.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Google Refuses To Honor Questionable Requests For Removal Of 'Defamatory' Content (2019)
Too bad the legal system in the U.S., where Google are to be found, is unable to provide a usable result. A usable result would be perjury convictions for a substantial portion of the persons swearing falsely under oath to support a DMCA takedown notice.
More dec actions to have material reinstated, brought against such perjurers, might also have some deterrent effect. But that is costly and uncertain, and in any event the statute is fairly toothless as to false takedown notices.
I do not recall hearing of any such action also seeking a fee shift under the copyright statutes. If that were done, it might ultimately be less costly for the person whose material was wrongfully taken down. Even clever use of the offer-of-judgment rules might make it somewhat less costly.
On the post: EFF, College Student Sue Proctorio Over DMCAs On Fair Use Critique Tweets Of Software
Re: I would expect better from EFF
True. But a school board paying them may be.
Even if not, there is a First Amendment right to criticize public figures, New York Times Co. v. Lester B. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and Proctorio surely qualify as such if they are providing government-mandated software. So gather some facts and criticize them at will.
On the post: Detroit PD Detective Sued For His (Second) Bogus Arrest Predicated On Questionable Facial Recognition Searches
Re: Re: The least he could do...
Not exactly. In many jurisdictions, the cops know which judges will sign off on warrants without asking annoying questions. They tend to present warrant applications to those judges.
This practice avoids inconvenience for the police. We hope that it also prevents the public from having any foolish expectation of protection from government overreach.
On the post: Filming Cops Is The Best Accountability Tool: Officer Derek Chauvin Convicted Of Murder For Killing George Floyd
Re: Re:
Surely this is the same Abraham Lincoln (R-Ill) who said to abolish slavery, but do not permit negroes to marry whites, or socialize with whites, or serve on juries, or vote. Conservative values, indeed.
He would be right at home with police abusing negroes, so long as the latter were nominally free. And the party is right there with him, though more flexible now: ``good people on both sides''.
On the post: FBI Flexes Rule 41 Powers, Uses Remote Access Technique To Neutralize Compromised Software All Over The US
Re: Re:
Yes, but the ``notification'' consisted of a MS windows logo shown at boot time. That warning is pretty general and could not be said to give specific warning of the problem at hand.
On the post: Federal Court Tells Minnesota State Police To Stop Attacking, Harassing, And Arresting Journalists Covering Protests
Re:
The jury acquitting OJ was faced with testimony from a cop who admitted planting evidence. It is harder for the state to obtain convictions when the cops actually admit such things rather than keeping quiet about it.
On the post: Federal Court Tells Minnesota State Police To Stop Attacking, Harassing, And Arresting Journalists Covering Protests
Re: Re: Re:
Do we have any reason to believe that she expected the victim to survive a shooting? Even tasing a guy driving a car is asking for a wreck. You do something like that if you intend great harm, not if you have reasonable concerns about misdemeanor FTAs.
Perhaps we can credit an after-the-shooting ``Oops'' given for the body cam recording as being authentic. In that case we probably have negligent homicide rather than intentional, but right now there is some cause for distrust of police in the Twin Cities area and this certainly does not help.
It is certainly difficult to believe the chief's claim that it was an accidental discharge. Cop draws weapon which requires extra effort to reach, aims at victim, and fires. That is not so much accident as clearly demonstrated intent. And a chief who lies when we can see that he is lying is probably unreliable in other situations as well, which does not enhance public trust in law enforcement.
On the post: MyPillow CEO Sues Dominion For Violating His Company's Right To Say The Things About Election Fraud It Definitely Isn't Saying
Re: Who's filing these?
Nope. Corporations cannot appear ``pro se'' because they are not natural persons. They must be represented, and normally a non-lawyer cannot provide that representation. There are exceptions to the non-lawyer rule, but those do not apply here.
On the post: Republican's 'Big Tech Accountability' Platform Calls For Both More And Less Moderation, And A 'Not Fairness Doctrine' Fairness Doctrine
Re: Who numbers lists like that?
Preview is your friend. Markdown is your enemy, but so far the competing ``HTML'' technology does not appear to be catching on.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Friendster Battles Fakesters (2003)
At least myspace.com still resolves to a live site, even if it only receives about 10 visitors a day (five of whom are just checking to see if the name still resolves).
Next >>