Some lying is protected by the First Amendment; other lying is not. Lying in a way that speaks negatively of a specific individual or organization is not protected by the First Amendment--it's defamation and can be enjoined. Lying about having served in the military, or the rank and/or awards you received, is protected by the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court recently held. It is false to categorically state that lying is not protected by the First Amendment.
Additionally if you think that people drawing Mohamed deserve what they get from the Muslims then you obviously think that women that get raped deserved what they got.
While those beliefs might be logically consistent, there are almost certain to be logical inconsistencies among the beliefs of any person you may encounter (including yourself).
Former students can't get their transcripts until their student loans are paid.
Nonsense. It may be the case that you can't get your transcripts if you're in default (i.e., you aren't paying as agreed) on a loan made directly by the school, but it's a rare student loan that's made directly by the school in question. They otherwise don't have any way of knowing your loan status, much less do they care.
This is a different situation from having a balance on your student account. Owe a library fine? The school may well hold your transcripts. Owe $100k on a Stafford loan? The school has no fucks to give.
And yet, if you bring your own camera to a sporting event and stream it or upload it, you will be successfully sued for copyright infringement (among other things).
I third the request for a citation--after all, if you're saying "you will be successfully sued", you must have at least one example of a case where it's happened, right?
And if there is such a case, there's a ruling laying out the reasoning, so it's hardly "[f]or no reason that anyone has ever discovered." The only one I can think of that would make any sense would be if something in the terms of the ticket assigned copyright in any recordings you made to the (venue/league/team(s)/etc.). Even that would be pretty questionable, but there's at least a logic to it.
Of course, a recording of the game could easily include other material that is copyrighted, like advertising around the stadium. It's hard to think of an advertiser who'd complain about further distribution of their ads, but that might give a hook to hang a copyright infringement argument on.
it is generally accepted that the copyright exists prior to filming
Nonsense. Any creative work (the commentary in a sports broadcast qualifies without question; the camera shots/angles/etc. are less obvious, but the "creative" threshold is pretty low) is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." With a live sports broadcast, this happens as the game is broadcast. A nonexistent work (i.e., a game that hasn't happened yet) cannot be, and is not, copyrighted.
live-streaming (or recording and uploading later) are considered copyright infringement. Nobody is quite sure why those things are infringing,
Equally nonsensical. Anybody who is in the least familiar with copyright law in the United States knows exactly why livestreaming, or recording and later uploading a copyrighted broadcast (see above), without the permission of the copyright holder or another exception like fair use, is copyright infringement.
The game itself isn't, and can't be, copyrighted, unless the league is going to take the position that the game is a creative work (which would necessarily mean that the game is rigged). But any given broadcast is most certainly copyrighted.
"Incompetent defense" won't help them in the least in a civil case (which this still is)--they chose their attorney, and they're stuck with his performance. It is, in theory, an issue with a criminal case, but it's hardly ever applied (which is just one of the things that made the Rakofsky case so noteworthy).
Well, Riethmuller's color choices are completely different from Duck's, so if you're complaining about Duck's supposedly having copied your color choices, Riethmuller shouldn't have a problem.
As to the layout, I don't see it at all. Your two versions aren't very similar, and Duck's isn't particularly similar to either of them. To the extent there are similarities, they're almost certain to be dictated by the nature of the chart, and thus not copyrightable.
Your biggest problem is that there isn't very much here that is copyrightable. The idea to make a periodic table of HTML5 elements is just that--an idea--and ideas can't be copyrighted. The fact that elements foo, bar, and baz are all of type fred is, well, a fact--and facts can't be copyrighted either. The idea to group similar elements together and color code them is pretty much dictated by the function of such a table--and functional elements, once again, can't be copyrighted (see Feist v. Rural Telephone, 499 US 340 (1991).
The color choices could be something original and creative (and thus copyrightable), but (1) none of the same colors are being used--at most, a few similar colors are used in Duck's chart, and (2) if that's the only thing copied, it's going to be de minimis.
Re: You just re-wrote Verizon's position! Traffic can't actually be unlimited.
Clearly Techdirt loves some corporations and hates others,
Only a truly blithering idiot would automatically love or hate all corporations, based solely on the fact of their corporate existence. Some corporations are good, others are bad, and still others are in between. There's nothing inherent in the corporate form to make a difference.
But buying 31 guns using only a P.O. Box for an address has a way of attracting ATF agents…and a conviction for making false statements in connection with the purchase of a firearm.
The interesting thing about this is that it says right on the federal form that PO Boxes aren't allowed. The dealer should never have allowed those transactions to proceed in the first place, and the instant background check system should have flagged it even if the dealer missed it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "full of examples of just the opposite"
How much of your freedom are you willing to bet that the responding officer(s) will be "reasonable" (for your definition of "reasonable")? Because you need to trust that their "reasonableness" will cause them to overlook the fact that you're committing a felony, and telling them that you're doing so, in the interest of finding the "real" criminal.
The lawyer can't report it--it was communicated in confidence, and it's illegal for the lawyer to break that confidence without the client's consent except in special circumstances which don't apply here. The client certainly could report it, but in so doing they're confessing to felony possession of child porn.
Though I'm not in Atlanta, I've had Comcast residential internet service in other locations. There, the cap was 300 GB, not 300 MB. For a variety of reasons, including my own experience, I think you're off by a few orders of magnitude, but I'll happily consider evidence to the contrary.
'I think the point is that FedEx may refuse to ship a package labeled "counterfeiting equipment"'
Perhaps so. It's important to note, though, that counterfeiting is illegal, while making gun parts (and indeed, entire guns) is perfectly legal in most of the United States without any special licensing, registration, or anything else.
I know it's been said already, but I can't help repeating it--this is about the most ridiculous example of making a mountain out of a molehill that I've seen. It's true, Apple visually distinguishes between SMS and iMessage messages. Anyone who has any familiarity with the limitations/features of those respective systems can imagine some pretty decent reasons why they might want to do that. Let it go already.
It's unfortunate that EFF didn't look at other (very many) registrars/hosting providers, and particularly easydns.com--with some of their coverage here recently, I'd expect they'd score well also.
Yes, emails are automatically copyrighted. They're "original works of authorship", and they're "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." Under US law, at least, they're generally automatically copyrighted as soon as they're written.
That doesn't mean, though, that they can't be reproduced without the author's permission. The biggest reason for that is fair use, which has already been discussed a bit, but is very poorly-understood. To address it fully would require a book, but commenting on a copyrighted work is one form of fair use that will allow someone (like, say, Tim) to reproduce a copyrighted work (like Norman's emails) without the author's (or copyright holder's) permission.
Another major point is that facts can't be copyrighted.
Not at all. In the US, EasyDNS would enjoy complete immunity due to section 230 of the CDA, one of the few good parts of that legislation (and one of the few that hasn't been struck down as unconstitutional). Of course, the parties and the lawsuit are in Canada.
So, on the general principle--web hosting companies have no control over what's posted there. They don't write the content, they don't edit it, they don't approve it. Why should they be responsible for what their customers post there? Should a web hosting provider be responsible to preapprove every piece of content that is posted to one of their customers' websites?
"Ah, but what if someone complains?" So what? Just because somebody is butthurt about content on a website doesn't make it defamatory. Should a hosting provider be obligated to investigate and make a determination as to whether particular content is defamatory? If so, under whose laws? Those where the customer is located? The host (and what if they have multiple data centers in different locations, ad many do)? The complainer?
EasyDNS' position is not only right (IMO, of course), it's also the only practical way to operate. They have neither the time, the obligation, nor the expertise to determine whether any of their hosted content constitutes defamation under the laws of the entire world. They leave it to the courts, who do (or at least should) have the time, expertise, and obligation to determine defamation, to do so. If the content is defamatory, they'll take it down.
No affiliation with EasyDNS other than being a customer. Might be time for me to move another domain over to them, too.
Statements in court filings are privileged, and can't be grounds for a defamation claim. However, the lawyer can be sanctioned if (as seems likely) there's no good faith basis for the statements.
On the post: Finding And Responding To The Media's Favorite Ridiculous And Misleading Free Speech Tropes
Re: This is maddening
Some lying is protected by the First Amendment; other lying is not. Lying in a way that speaks negatively of a specific individual or organization is not protected by the First Amendment--it's defamation and can be enjoined. Lying about having served in the military, or the rank and/or awards you received, is protected by the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court recently held. It is false to categorically state that lying is not protected by the First Amendment.
While those beliefs might be logically consistent, there are almost certain to be logical inconsistencies among the beliefs of any person you may encounter (including yourself).
On the post: NYTimes Exposes Giant Fake Diploma Mill Operating Out Of Pakistan; Company Threatens Everyone With Defamation
Re: transcripts, student loans, garnishment
Nonsense. It may be the case that you can't get your transcripts if you're in default (i.e., you aren't paying as agreed) on a loan made directly by the school, but it's a rare student loan that's made directly by the school in question. They otherwise don't have any way of knowing your loan status, much less do they care.
This is a different situation from having a balance on your student account. Owe a library fine? The school may well hold your transcripts. Owe $100k on a Stafford loan? The school has no fucks to give.
On the post: Appeals Court Gets It Right The Second Time: Actress Had No Copyright Interest In 'Innocence Of Muslims'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I third the request for a citation--after all, if you're saying "you will be successfully sued", you must have at least one example of a case where it's happened, right?
And if there is such a case, there's a ruling laying out the reasoning, so it's hardly "[f]or no reason that anyone has ever discovered." The only one I can think of that would make any sense would be if something in the terms of the ticket assigned copyright in any recordings you made to the (venue/league/team(s)/etc.). Even that would be pretty questionable, but there's at least a logic to it.
Of course, a recording of the game could easily include other material that is copyrighted, like advertising around the stadium. It's hard to think of an advertiser who'd complain about further distribution of their ads, but that might give a hook to hang a copyright infringement argument on.
On the post: Appeals Court Gets It Right The Second Time: Actress Had No Copyright Interest In 'Innocence Of Muslims'
Re: Re:
Nonsense. Any creative work (the commentary in a sports broadcast qualifies without question; the camera shots/angles/etc. are less obvious, but the "creative" threshold is pretty low) is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." With a live sports broadcast, this happens as the game is broadcast. A nonexistent work (i.e., a game that hasn't happened yet) cannot be, and is not, copyrighted.
Equally nonsensical. Anybody who is in the least familiar with copyright law in the United States knows exactly why livestreaming, or recording and later uploading a copyrighted broadcast (see above), without the permission of the copyright holder or another exception like fair use, is copyright infringement.
The game itself isn't, and can't be, copyrighted, unless the league is going to take the position that the game is a creative work (which would necessarily mean that the game is rigged). But any given broadcast is most certainly copyrighted.
On the post: Team Prenda Has A Very Bad Day In Court... And You Can Watch It All
Re: Is the lawyer "sandbagging"?
On the post: Designer Still Pursuing Bogus Takedown Of Periodic Table Of HTML Elements; Has No Idea How Copyright Works
Re: Re:
As to the layout, I don't see it at all. Your two versions aren't very similar, and Duck's isn't particularly similar to either of them. To the extent there are similarities, they're almost certain to be dictated by the nature of the chart, and thus not copyrightable.
Your biggest problem is that there isn't very much here that is copyrightable. The idea to make a periodic table of HTML5 elements is just that--an idea--and ideas can't be copyrighted. The fact that elements foo, bar, and baz are all of type fred is, well, a fact--and facts can't be copyrighted either. The idea to group similar elements together and color code them is pretty much dictated by the function of such a table--and functional elements, once again, can't be copyrighted (see Feist v. Rural Telephone, 499 US 340 (1991).
The color choices could be something original and creative (and thus copyrightable), but (1) none of the same colors are being used--at most, a few similar colors are used in Duck's chart, and (2) if that's the only thing copied, it's going to be de minimis.
On the post: Verizon: Nobody Really Wants Unlimited Data Plans, And Those Who Do Should Ignore Such Silly 'Gut Feelings'
Re: You just re-wrote Verizon's position! Traffic can't actually be unlimited.
Only a truly blithering idiot would automatically love or hate all corporations, based solely on the fact of their corporate existence. Some corporations are good, others are bad, and still others are in between. There's nothing inherent in the corporate form to make a difference.
On the post: Revenge Porn Site Owner Kevin Bollaert Sentenced To 18 Years In Prison
The interesting thing about this is that it says right on the federal form that PO Boxes aren't allowed. The dealer should never have allowed those transactions to proceed in the first place, and the instant background check system should have flagged it even if the dealer missed it.
On the post: What Do You Do When Preserving Evidence Is Labeled 'Possession' And Destroying It Is A Felony?
Re: Re: Re: Re: "full of examples of just the opposite"
On the post: What Do You Do When Preserving Evidence Is Labeled 'Possession' And Destroying It Is A Felony?
Re:
On the post: Despite Claims Title II Will Kill Investment, Comcast Launches Major New 2 Gigabit Deployment
Re: Comcast outrage
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
Perhaps so. It's important to note, though, that counterfeiting is illegal, while making gun parts (and indeed, entire guns) is perfectly legal in most of the United States without any special licensing, registration, or anything else.
On the post: Green Bubbles: How Apple Quietly Gets iPhone Users To Hate Android Users
The stupid, it burns!
On the post: Tomorrow Is Move Your Domain Day: Support The EFF And Get A Year For Free
On the post: Linux Developer Who Issued Bogus YouTube Takedowns Threatens Techdirt With Legal Action For Publishing His 'Private Information'
Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't mean, though, that they can't be reproduced without the author's permission. The biggest reason for that is fair use, which has already been discussed a bit, but is very poorly-understood. To address it fully would require a book, but commenting on a copyrighted work is one form of fair use that will allow someone (like, say, Tim) to reproduce a copyrighted work (like Norman's emails) without the author's (or copyright holder's) permission.
Another major point is that facts can't be copyrighted.
On the post: EasyDNS Sued For Refusing To Take Down Website Without Court Order; Then Hit Again For Writing About The Lawsuit
Re: Re: No Way
So, on the general principle--web hosting companies have no control over what's posted there. They don't write the content, they don't edit it, they don't approve it. Why should they be responsible for what their customers post there? Should a web hosting provider be responsible to preapprove every piece of content that is posted to one of their customers' websites?
"Ah, but what if someone complains?" So what? Just because somebody is butthurt about content on a website doesn't make it defamatory. Should a hosting provider be obligated to investigate and make a determination as to whether particular content is defamatory? If so, under whose laws? Those where the customer is located? The host (and what if they have multiple data centers in different locations, ad many do)? The complainer?
EasyDNS' position is not only right (IMO, of course), it's also the only practical way to operate. They have neither the time, the obligation, nor the expertise to determine whether any of their hosted content constitutes defamation under the laws of the entire world. They leave it to the courts, who do (or at least should) have the time, expertise, and obligation to determine defamation, to do so. If the content is defamatory, they'll take it down.
No affiliation with EasyDNS other than being a customer. Might be time for me to move another domain over to them, too.
On the post: Prenda Continues Character Assassination Of Alan Cooper
Re: Defamation
Next >>