C'mon, man. You know that some people (coughbluecough) are incapable of comprehending that a generally nice company can do some reprehensible things, and reliably horrible companies are capable of acts of good.
...Probable cause is what is needed in lieu of a warrant. That probable cause is supposed to be a reasonable belief that the searched items are contraband or part of criminal activities, and in plain view. Warrant-less searches are well and long established as legal, when performed in conjunction with an arrest. The problem is that if there is no arrest, what crime are the searches associated with?
The cable pay-per-view version is not the streaming version. While the video may be the same, the PPV version was broadcast over cable, and the streaming version was distributed over the internet.
Now, if the PPV version was bad, that just means that pirates got the same shitty show as anyone did. However, the pirated stream was ripped from the PPV version, not the awful streamed version of the fight.
Gramma got a bundled cable and phone service. All she knows is that she plugs the phone into the box, and it works just like it always has. However, that cable phone is VOIP.
I think Verizon home phones work the same way, just over FiOS, or whatever it's called.
You might try that "research" thing yourself, even though you keep imagining reasons why any source we find is invalid.
If Fair Use is in play, it doesn't matter who owns the copyright. Fair Use would still apply if FULL AND UNDISPUTED copyright was held by the photographer.
That said, Wikipedia has never been attributed ownership of the picture. The macaque definitely took the picture, though, so if he was legally capable of holding a copyright, it would be his. Since the "artist" can't have a copyright, then the photo can only be public domain.
If you want more research than I can get from reputable sources, that's called "original research," and it's generally considered unacceptable without peer review.
By being "creative", I think they sabotaged their own claim?
IANAL, but...
By making their trademark the purposely truncated "Pierogi Fest," aren't they basically admitting to the fact that "Pierogi Festival" is too generic and descriptive to qualify?
I know that's why companies name their products things like "Shooz" instead of shoes, and use adjectives like "XTREEM!"
Re: Re: Re: entire US Midwest* is block-banned so must use TOR to get around bi-coastal 1-percenter censoring.
Hundreds of people were run off? No, I'm pretty sure most of them were YOU, and it didn't work. As for blocking and responding, I'm doing what any responsible neighbor does:
You remove the turd from the sidewalk, and inform the one who made it that such behavior is unacceptable. Since you refuse to make of of that oldest and greatest of protests, the boycott (as in, stop earning Techdirt money by commenting), I guess I'll stop trying to correct your misunderstandings, and get on your level, no substance (as you say yourself.)
Re: entire US Midwest* is block-banned so must use TOR to get around bi-coastal 1-percenter censoring.
We have MANY working and artistic people. I work in petrochem, AND am an amateur writer.
YOU do not represent myself, nor anyone I know.
Plain and simple, you are a nutter.
You despise anonymity, yet hide behind it to harass people who believe differently than you. When they just wish to turn the volume down on you, but leave your aberrant propaganda visible to the masochistic, you scream and flood the board with accusations of censorship, and misguided rants on the nature of the private enterprises you claim to defend.
Yes, those private businesses, as they are free to do (not being government entities and all), have decided that it is in their best business interests to censor things that they don't like.
Seeing as how they aren't the government, you are free to use a competing service, one that doesn't censor the things you don't want them to censor. Why, you can even make your own! People might even appreciate your uncensored searches/content/opinions that you become bigger than the incumbents!
I, for one, dislike censorship of any kind, but appreciate the fact that, just as I have a right to choose which business I interact with, those businesses have a right to regulate their own content. After all, the First Amendment only applies to government bodies and government officials who are acting in that capacity.
I don't know about that. Security guards are able to remove hecklers, even from public events, city council meetings, etc.
This is completely off the top of my head, but I seem to remember that Twitter was only blocking purely abusive posting. If I'm not remembering wrong, then I see that blocking as much the same as kicking out hecklers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
Business/= government.
Businesses are (actually) quite free to tell you to buzz off, which Techdirt doesn't even do. They just put a little black bar over your offensive material. It's not even permanent! Anyone can click it to see your ass on display.
You live in a strange and most likely confusing world, when you can't comprehend that private businesses are not bound by constraints only intended for public officials and the offices they represent.
The subtext was that since it's the ISPs putting up the loudest resistance to net neutrality, to "end your business with companies that oppose NN" is to not have access to the internet.
Which is why this subject is so important. The companies running what amounts to a utility are screaming in resistance to their customers wanting protection from them.
"It'd be a shame if your pretty internet there... stopped working. If you pay a little internet insurance, see, we'll keep that from happening, kapisch?"
On the post: New Documents And Testimony Shows Officers Lied About Their Role In An Arrested Teen's Death
Re:
Because miscarriages of justice concern everyone.
On the post: UK Court Says Company Is Innocent In Massive Data Breach Caused By Vindictive Employee, But Must Nonetheless Pay Compensation
Re:
It's a minimum sentencing/zero tolerance issue.
On the post: Ajit Pai Attacked Hollywood & Silicon Valley Because Even Republicans Are Against His Net Neutrality Plan
Re: Re:
C'mon, man. You know that some people (coughbluecough) are incapable of comprehending that a generally nice company can do some reprehensible things, and reliably horrible companies are capable of acts of good.
Things have to be black or white, right?
On the post: Home Security Company Says No One Linking To Its Website Is Allowed To Disparage It
Re: Double whammy!
On the post: Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Cell Site Location Info Case
Re: "if [Google] were to steal my location [and other] information"
You really can't comprehend the difference between the government and Google, huh?
On the post: EFF, ACLU Sue Government Over Warrantless Electronic Searches At The Border
Re: STILL GETTING IT FUCKING WRONG!
...Probable cause is what is needed in lieu of a warrant. That probable cause is supposed to be a reasonable belief that the searched items are contraband or part of criminal activities, and in plain view. Warrant-less searches are well and long established as legal, when performed in conjunction with an arrest. The problem is that if there is no arrest, what crime are the searches associated with?
On the post: Music Industry Is Painting A Target On YouTube Ripping Sites, Despite Their Many Non-Infringing Uses
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mayweather V. McGregor: Showtime Got Injunctions On Pirate Stream Sites Which Didn't Work & Neither Did Their Own Stream
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mayweather V. McGregor: Showtime Got Injunctions On Pirate Stream Sites Which Didn't Work & Neither Did Their Own Stream
Re: Re: Re:
The cable pay-per-view version is not the streaming version. While the video may be the same, the PPV version was broadcast over cable, and the streaming version was distributed over the internet.
Now, if the PPV version was bad, that just means that pirates got the same shitty show as anyone did. However, the pirated stream was ripped from the PPV version, not the awful streamed version of the fight.
On the post: AT&T Lies Again, Insists Net Neutrality Rules Will Hurt First Responders
Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be missing a salient point here:
Many home phones are VOIP.
Gramma got a bundled cable and phone service. All she knows is that she plugs the phone into the box, and it works just like it always has. However, that cable phone is VOIP.
I think Verizon home phones work the same way, just over FiOS, or whatever it's called.
On the post: Congress Gives The FCC An Earful On Its Despised Plan To Kill Net Neutrality
Re:
All those dirty immigrant names!
America's for REAL Americans!
First Nations ONLY, biatch!
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
You might try that "research" thing yourself, even though you keep imagining reasons why any source we find is invalid.
If Fair Use is in play, it doesn't matter who owns the copyright. Fair Use would still apply if FULL AND UNDISPUTED copyright was held by the photographer.
That said, Wikipedia has never been attributed ownership of the picture. The macaque definitely took the picture, though, so if he was legally capable of holding a copyright, it would be his. Since the "artist" can't have a copyright, then the photo can only be public domain.
If you want more research than I can get from reputable sources, that's called "original research," and it's generally considered unacceptable without peer review.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
But the idea of fair use burns you like acid, too, doesn't it?
On the post: Would You Confuse 'Pierogi Fest' With 'Edwardsville Pierogi Festival'? Neither Would We
By being "creative", I think they sabotaged their own claim?
IANAL, but...
By making their trademark the purposely truncated "Pierogi Fest," aren't they basically admitting to the fact that "Pierogi Festival" is too generic and descriptive to qualify?
I know that's why companies name their products things like "Shooz" instead of shoes, and use adjectives like "XTREEM!"
On the post: How May 35th Freedoms Have Blossomed With China's Martian Language
Re: Re: Re: entire US Midwest* is block-banned so must use TOR to get around bi-coastal 1-percenter censoring.
You remove the turd from the sidewalk, and inform the one who made it that such behavior is unacceptable. Since you refuse to make of of that oldest and greatest of protests, the boycott (as in, stop earning Techdirt money by commenting), I guess I'll stop trying to correct your misunderstandings, and get on your level, no substance (as you say yourself.)
Another turd on the sidewalk.
Bad dog.
On the post: How May 35th Freedoms Have Blossomed With China's Martian Language
Re: entire US Midwest* is block-banned so must use TOR to get around bi-coastal 1-percenter censoring.
YOU do not represent myself, nor anyone I know.
Plain and simple, you are a nutter.
You despise anonymity, yet hide behind it to harass people who believe differently than you. When they just wish to turn the volume down on you, but leave your aberrant propaganda visible to the masochistic, you scream and flood the board with accusations of censorship, and misguided rants on the nature of the private enterprises you claim to defend.
Please, PLEASE. Go back to your hole.
On the post: Court Rules Temporary Ban Of Facebook Commenter By Gov't Official Violates The First Amendment
Re: Related and interesting:
Seeing as how they aren't the government, you are free to use a competing service, one that doesn't censor the things you don't want them to censor. Why, you can even make your own! People might even appreciate your uncensored searches/content/opinions that you become bigger than the incumbents!
I, for one, dislike censorship of any kind, but appreciate the fact that, just as I have a right to choose which business I interact with, those businesses have a right to regulate their own content. After all, the First Amendment only applies to government bodies and government officials who are acting in that capacity.
On the post: Court Rules Temporary Ban Of Facebook Commenter By Gov't Official Violates The First Amendment
Re:
This is completely off the top of my head, but I seem to remember that Twitter was only blocking purely abusive posting. If I'm not remembering wrong, then I see that blocking as much the same as kicking out hecklers.
On the post: Court Rules Temporary Ban Of Facebook Commenter By Gov't Official Violates The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
Businesses are (actually) quite free to tell you to buzz off, which Techdirt doesn't even do. They just put a little black bar over your offensive material. It's not even permanent! Anyone can click it to see your ass on display.
You live in a strange and most likely confusing world, when you can't comprehend that private businesses are not bound by constraints only intended for public officials and the offices they represent.
On the post: If You Want To Protect The Internet, Look To Congress
Re: Re: Re:
The subtext was that since it's the ISPs putting up the loudest resistance to net neutrality, to "end your business with companies that oppose NN" is to not have access to the internet.
Which is why this subject is so important. The companies running what amounts to a utility are screaming in resistance to their customers wanting protection from them.
"It'd be a shame if your pretty internet there... stopped working. If you pay a little internet insurance, see, we'll keep that from happening, kapisch?"
Next >>