Lag makes no difference when watching a movie streamed from Netflix or DLNA.
If you're using an external box - like an XBox360 or Roku device - for your smart features, then you have to contend with THEIR security issues and leaking of your personal data and watching habits.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Sometimes I'm amazed that the Spice Girls and Salt-N-Pepa never sued each other over trademark violations.
The Roger Strong, Pepper and Spice, Alex Jones, cases? Never mentioned here except by me.
It's like you hear/read something and then start repeating it with no comprehension whatsoever. Like a parrot taught to repeat "common law!" over and over.
Oh, right, because you're the ONLY person in the world with that name. -- As I recall, he was kicked off Twitter and is suing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&qu
No, NOTHING replaces common law.
Common law evolves. New laws are made all the time. Old laws get updated or replaced all the time.
And it branches off and evolves differently in different jurisdictions. There are significant differences between the laws of US states. There are significant differences between common law in Britain, Canada and the US even though they were once the same.
Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
The Roger Strong, Pepper and Spice, Alex Jones, cases? Never mentioned here except by me.
Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Clearly relevant to the case: a "platform" inserts itself outside of common law to control speech thereby loses its immunity.
Anyone who would want 10 HDMI ports is probably going to want Ethernet and "smart" features. Whether for streaming off services like Netflix or off their own network drive via DLNA.
The good news for Samsung owners is Consumer Reports found the TVs by themselves to be secure. It's when you start using their remote control app on a mobile device that security breaks down.
Before CDA 230 Facebook wouldn't have been liable if they didn't moderate anyone's comments. But the moment they did any moderation, they would have assumed liability.
CDA 230 means that Facebook can moderate his comments without assuming liability.
You honestly believe that HBO was so incompetent that they needed to stress-test their servers for over five years before going live with the "real" service? As opposed to simply limiting subscriptions to the "real" service at first?
Unfortunately this is also explains the US torture program.
People claim - correctly - that a torture victim will tell you what you want to hear. That "torture is ventriloquism." But that assumes that you're torturing only one person.
So the US tortured suspects AND they tortured those around them AND they tortured those who they suspected merely might have some distant connection to them. Then compared notes. It was a data mining operation.
Which is why Gitmo had to be expanded AND they had interrogation centers in eastern Europe and Morocco AND they were torturing in Iraqi prisons AND they were torturing in Afghanistan AND STILL they had to farm out work to places like Syria and Egypt. They were trying to get as big a dataset as possible. It's why so many were released with a "never mind" having never been charged.
In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.
The story of Stratton Oakmont is the basis for Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street. The character of Donny Azoff portrayed by Jonah Hill in the 2013 film The Wolf of Wall Street was loosely based on its president Danny Porush. (Defamed in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy) The 2000 film Boiler Room was also based on Stratton Oakmont.
Apparently there's a lot to be said for litigating your defamation lawsuits BEFORE other litigation proves the accusations true in court.
waste of billions on infrastructure that will be left to rot.
While that's brutally true of several previous Olympics, it's an unfair claim in this case.
The Pyeongchang Olympic Stadium won't be left to rot. It was built specifically for the 2018 Olympics and will be torn down immediately after. The same goes from several other venues.
I hope that someone will put some videos into the public domain for anyone to substitute in these cases. With the message "Unable to display this video due to copyright fraud by the International Olympic Committee and moral cowardice by Twitter/Facebook."
And there were court battles over exactly that, a century or so ago. The upshot was that the phone companies weren't liable.
Online services had battles over this before the Communications Decency Act:
In 1991 Cubby v. CompuServe ruled that CompuServe was merely a distributor, rather than a publisher. It was only liable for defamation if it knew, or had reason to know, of the defamatory nature of content in its forums. Since it wasn't moderating them, it didn't know.
In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.
All of which could only mean one thing: Online services that chose to remain ignorant of their content were immune from liability. Those that moderated content, even in good faith, assumed full publisher liability.
1996's CDA 230 changed this. It's now safe to make good faith efforts to prevent criminal activity. Remove 230's protections, and we may go back to "ignorance is safety."
Which would be a gift to the criminals, though those who want to kill CDA 230 will deny it.
On the post: Consumer Reports: Your 'Smart' TV Remains A Privacy & Security Dumpster Fire
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Consumer Reports: Your 'Smart' TV Remains A Privacy & Security Dumpster Fire
Re: Re: Re:
If you're using an external box - like an XBox360 or Roku device - for your smart features, then you have to contend with THEIR security issues and leaking of your personal data and watching habits.
On the post: Consumer Reports: Your 'Smart' TV Remains A Privacy & Security Dumpster Fire
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Man Sues Facebook For Moderating His Bigoted Posts, Wants Section 230 Declared Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Apparently that would be me. Those were my words, and he's citing me.
Seems I'm somehow also the citation for his "The Roger Strong case" and "Pepper and Spice case" above.
It's nice to feel needed.
On the post: Man Sues Facebook For Moderating His Bigoted Posts, Wants Section 230 Declared Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
It's like you hear/read something and then start repeating it with no comprehension whatsoever. Like a parrot taught to repeat "common law!" over and over.
:D
On the post: Man Sues Facebook For Moderating His Bigoted Posts, Wants Section 230 Declared Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&qu
Common law evolves. New laws are made all the time. Old laws get updated or replaced all the time.
And it branches off and evolves differently in different jurisdictions. There are significant differences between the laws of US states. There are significant differences between common law in Britain, Canada and the US even though they were once the same.
As for the rest, grow up.
On the post: Man Sues Facebook For Moderating His Bigoted Posts, Wants Section 230 Declared Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Sure wish I'd mentioned what I posted....
On the post: Man Sues Facebook For Moderating His Bigoted Posts, Wants Section 230 Declared Unconstitutional
Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Read the entire post.
That's how it worked before 1996's CDA 230. Any moderation - say, because you wanted a family-friendly site - meant that you assumed liability.
CDA 230 means that it's safe to moderate without assuming liability.
On the post: Consumer Reports: Your 'Smart' TV Remains A Privacy & Security Dumpster Fire
Re:
On the post: Consumer Reports: Your 'Smart' TV Remains A Privacy & Security Dumpster Fire
Re:
On the post: Man Sues Facebook For Moderating His Bigoted Posts, Wants Section 230 Declared Unconstitutional
Re:
On the post: Man Sues Facebook For Moderating His Bigoted Posts, Wants Section 230 Declared Unconstitutional
Re:
CDA 230 means that Facebook can moderate his comments without assuming liability.
On the post: Will Cy Vance's Anti-Encryption Pitch Change Now That The NYPD's Using iPhones?
Re: Re: Re: Re: One law for me, and another for thee
(Realizes that I'm taking about America....)
(Does a quick check and confirms that stun gun iPhone cases are indeed being sold in America.)
On the post: The Standalone Streaming Service HBO Didn't Want To Offer Now Has 5 Million Users
Re: Necessary Step
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: A bit more on raw intelligence
Unfortunately this is also explains the US torture program.
People claim - correctly - that a torture victim will tell you what you want to hear. That "torture is ventriloquism." But that assumes that you're torturing only one person.
So the US tortured suspects AND they tortured those around them AND they tortured those who they suspected merely might have some distant connection to them. Then compared notes. It was a data mining operation.
Which is why Gitmo had to be expanded AND they had interrogation centers in eastern Europe and Morocco AND they were torturing in Iraqi prisons AND they were torturing in Afghanistan AND STILL they had to farm out work to places like Syria and Egypt. They were trying to get as big a dataset as possible. It's why so many were released with a "never mind" having never been charged.
BTW, one of the torturers is now running for Congress in Pennsylvania.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
What I didn't know when I posted that...
The story of Stratton Oakmont is the basis for Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street. The character of Donny Azoff portrayed by Jonah Hill in the 2013 film The Wolf of Wall Street was loosely based on its president Danny Porush. (Defamed in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy) The 2000 film Boiler Room was also based on Stratton Oakmont.
Apparently there's a lot to be said for litigating your defamation lawsuits BEFORE other litigation proves the accusations true in court.
On the post: Twitter & Facebook Want You To Follow The Olympics... But Only If The IOC Gives Its Stamp Of Approval
Re:
While that's brutally true of several previous Olympics, it's an unfair claim in this case.
The Pyeongchang Olympic Stadium won't be left to rot. It was built specifically for the 2018 Olympics and will be torn down immediately after. The same goes from several other venues.
Don't you feel better now?
On the post: Twitter & Facebook Want You To Follow The Olympics... But Only If The IOC Gives Its Stamp Of Approval
On the post: Hollywood Has Some Wild Ideas For Copyright In NAFTA
Re: Re: Re:
And there were court battles over exactly that, a century or so ago. The upshot was that the phone companies weren't liable.
Online services had battles over this before the Communications Decency Act:
In 1991 Cubby v. CompuServe ruled that CompuServe was merely a distributor, rather than a publisher. It was only liable for defamation if it knew, or had reason to know, of the defamatory nature of content in its forums. Since it wasn't moderating them, it didn't know.
In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.
All of which could only mean one thing: Online services that chose to remain ignorant of their content were immune from liability. Those that moderated content, even in good faith, assumed full publisher liability.
1996's CDA 230 changed this. It's now safe to make good faith efforts to prevent criminal activity. Remove 230's protections, and we may go back to "ignorance is safety."
Which would be a gift to the criminals, though those who want to kill CDA 230 will deny it.
On the post: Washington's Growing AI Anxiety
Re: Algorithms
Next >>