I was just about to mention this. How long will it be until other countries follow Germany's lead and threaten companies with huge fines? Is it still considered government censorship when companies are choosing to take down posts to avoid the potential of a 50 million Euro fine?
One of my friends recently posted some photos from the Tokyo ComicCon. Will SDCC be going after the international comic cons also? After all, countries like Japan have signed treaties to honor US copyrights, so there's no reason not to go after every single convention company.
I get how the media gives attention to this guy for this idiotic quest to create restrictive laws and spend taxpayer money defending it, but where's the side of the story that talks about the people who don't agree with this?
Where are the quotes from the other lawmakers who think this is a dumb idea? Why isn't the other 99% of the Indiana legislature speaking up against it or giving quotes to the media? Are they afraid that everyone in Indiana will vote them out if they denounce this bad proposal?
What's the old saying about how it's easy for bad things to happen when good people won't do anything to stop it?
I'm going to be cynical and I hope I'm proved wrong, but I don't think there will be a "voter backlash". (Again, please prove me wrong.)
In the 2016 election, we had to most qualified woman run against the least qualified man and the man won. You can say it's due to Hillary having political baggage or what not, but I say it's because Trump and the Republicans knew how to press people's buttons.
I have the bad feeling that the same thing will happen in the 2018 elections: Democrat: "Vote for me because I support net neutrality." Republican: "Vote for me and I'll bring coal jobs back to the state and I'll build a wall to keep Muslim terrorists from shooting up our schools." Democrat: "But he's accused of being a child molester." Republican: "At least I'm not a Democrat who wants to continue Obama's policies, am I right?"
I can't decide if this is an example of modern-day fascism or totalitarianism.
In the old days, dictators could keep control by saying "If you talk bad about me, I'll send you to the gulag". Now, dictators say "If you talk bad about me, I'll sue you and family for so much money that you'll go bankrupt just thinking about it." Either way, the effect is the same: people are afraid of talking bad because they fear the consequences.
I think the last paragraph sums up the real reason for this case: Trump and Harder are filing a legal threat with the assumption that the case will be very expensive to defend against. And since it's too expensive to defend, the publisher will simply give into the demands.
Trump doesn't want this to go to court and have to give a deposition over whether the alleged defamation statements are true or not. And how would it look if a sitting US president was giving testimony in a libel case to block the sale of a book? Then again, I doubt Trump cares about his image as long as he thinks he's "winning".
Another issue is whether companies like Comcast have realized that they're "too big to fail" because of their monopoly position, so they simply don't care about screwing customers. After all, what's the government going to do, kick them out of the state and leave millions of people without cable and Internet access? And what happens if a state AG does kick Comcast out of the state? People won't thank the AG for getting rid of a bad company- they'll yell and scream about how the AG turned off their cable TV.
If the fines/ punishment are far less than the profit they made, they'll treat it as a cost of doing business and there's no real reason for them to stop doing it.
My favorite part of the announcement: " "Blue Alerts can be used by state and local authorities to notify the public... to help apprehend dangerous suspects." So the public gets to help apprehend dangerous suspects? How? People already call in tips so why is a push-alert needed? Or is this telling people that it's okay to grab your gun and go help the police arrest (or "apprehend") the person?
I've said it before and I suppose I'll say it again: who are the lawyers who are taking cases like this: 1) Do they not know copyright/ trademark law? If not, why are they taking on cases if they don't know the relevant laws? 2) Do they know the law and are ignoring it just to take the client's money? Is this an ethics violation?
Either way, these lawyers should be called out and have their bar association/ license reviewed. If more lawyers learn that their licenses could be revoked for starting dumb lawsuits like this, then maybe there would be less bullying.
"In the meantime, I'm still left wondering why this is a good move by Dr. Seuss Enterprises." This is the same move that the NFL uses for the words "Super Bowl": The companies charge money to license out their property, whether it's a Seuss book or "Super Bowl". But then someone comes along and makes an unlicensed version. The company almost has no choice but to sue, if only to protect the investments from the licensees. After all, if anyone could make a mashup/ parody/ satire version, then why should people pay for a license?
The problem with issuing an apology after the first apology and after the initial statement comes down to this: who in the world thought it was a good idea to say those things in the first place? Did they think they were being smart or funny? Did they think they wouldn't get called out for offending people?
As always with things like this, the ad (and first apology) was written by someone, then approved by a manager, and then sent out by the marketing department to the public... and none of them thought there was anything wrong with what they did. Oh, but it's finally wrong when the State AG starts investigating.
Like you said, this would be a cool scene in a movie, but I think the reality would go something like this:
Interior bedroom, midnight: A man hears a prowler in the hallway outside his bedroom. **Man:** (whispers) Siri, unlock the gun safe. **Siri:** I'm sorry, I didn't get that. Please speak louder. **Man:** (normal voice) Siri, unlock the gun safe. **Siri:** I think you said you want to unlock your gun safe. I found 5 locksmiths in the area who can help with that. **Man:** No, unlock my Vaultek gun safe. **Siri**: Now dialing "Walt's Locksmith Service".
I thought the paragraph about the company's response (under the image) would go a little differently: "Once this video and the code for the hack was released publicly, Vaultek snapped into action by suing the researchers and issuing a copyright-takedown notice on YouTube for finding this vulnerability."
First, why should SDCC call themselves a comic con when they've become a comic book and pop culture convention where Hollywood studios and game makers go to promote their latest productions. Though that doesn't roll off the tongue either. ;)
Seriously, though, there's DragonCon in Atlanta and MegaCon in Orlando (and probably many other), so these conventions don't necessarily need to say "comic con" or "comic convention".
Changing the subject slightly: just why hasn't this case been thrown out? Have Beale's lawyers really convinced the judge that this anonymous review has caused harm?
Or is this yet another case of a small town judge trying to bolster his own reputation by going after "the big guys". Hey, look, our local judge is telling Google what to do! Now we have the power, not Google.
Recently, my wife and I took a weekend vacation to a Marriott near Disney World. They wanted to charge a $25 "resort fee" to cover things like "free" shuttle service to the theme parks and internet access. We told them that we have our own car and annual passes, so we don't need the shuttle service. And like most people, we have our own cell phones, so we don't need the internet service.
So they took the resort fee off our bill.
However, if all the hotels in New York or Times Square charge the same fee, then it might be hard to convince them to remove it.
To take it one step further, it would be like the Detroit Auto Show getting a trademark on "auto show" and suing the Chicago Auto Show because they think people will associate "auto show" with Detroit rather than "a show with automobiles".
It doesn't matter if Detroit was the first to use "auto show", the phrase isn't unique enough to sue over.
I wonder if the officers who call in the K-9 unit are trying to meet some kind of monthly arrest goal. Sure, the department may not have a written goal, but maybe officers compete with each other to see how many arrests they can make.
It goes something like this: "Gee, John, you got traffic duty this month. Your arrest rate is going to suck." "No it's not- I'll just call the K-9 unit in, have it 'alert' on drugs, and arrest the driver. (It's not my problem if there's no drugs or no charges are pressed- I just got another arrest this month.)"
This means CBS has another year to look at their stats to see how many subscribers are staying. Then again, Star Trek may be enough of a "prestige" show that CBS doesn't care that much about the viewership numbers as long as it keeps bringing in subscribers.
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re: Downward spiral
How long will it be until other countries follow Germany's lead and threaten companies with huge fines?
Is it still considered government censorship when companies are choosing to take down posts to avoid the potential of a 50 million Euro fine?
On the post: It Begins: Some Comic Conventions Refusing To Fold After San Diego Comic-Con Gets Its Trademark Win
Don't forget the international market
On the post: Indiana Legislator Wants To Force NFL Team To Hand Out Refunds To Fans 'Offended' By Kneeling Players
This seems one-sided
Where are the quotes from the other lawmakers who think this is a dumb idea? Why isn't the other 99% of the Indiana legislature speaking up against it or giving quotes to the media? Are they afraid that everyone in Indiana will vote them out if they denounce this bad proposal?
What's the old saying about how it's easy for bad things to happen when good people won't do anything to stop it?
On the post: Maine Governor Tells 16-Year-Old Worried About Net Neutrality Repeal To 'Pick Up A Book And Read'
I'm going to be cynical...
In the 2016 election, we had to most qualified woman run against the least qualified man and the man won. You can say it's due to Hillary having political baggage or what not, but I say it's because Trump and the Republicans knew how to press people's buttons.
I have the bad feeling that the same thing will happen in the 2018 elections:
Democrat: "Vote for me because I support net neutrality."
Republican: "Vote for me and I'll bring coal jobs back to the state and I'll build a wall to keep Muslim terrorists from shooting up our schools."
Democrat: "But he's accused of being a child molester."
Republican: "At least I'm not a Democrat who wants to continue Obama's policies, am I right?"
And the Republican wins.
On the post: Donald Trump Hires Charles Harder To Threaten Steve Bannon With A Lawsuit, Block Publication Of New Book
Fascism or Totalitarianism?
In the old days, dictators could keep control by saying "If you talk bad about me, I'll send you to the gulag".
Now, dictators say "If you talk bad about me, I'll sue you and family for so much money that you'll go bankrupt just thinking about it."
Either way, the effect is the same: people are afraid of talking bad because they fear the consequences.
On the post: Donald Trump Hires Charles Harder To Threaten Steve Bannon With A Lawsuit, Block Publication Of New Book
The point is that it could be expensive to defend
Trump doesn't want this to go to court and have to give a deposition over whether the alleged defamation statements are true or not. And how would it look if a sitting US president was giving testimony in a libel case to block the sale of a book? Then again, I doubt Trump cares about his image as long as he thinks he's "winning".
On the post: Comcast Busted For Signing People Up For Services They Didn't Want, Never Asked For
Too big to fail
After all, what's the government going to do, kick them out of the state and leave millions of people without cable and Internet access?
And what happens if a state AG does kick Comcast out of the state? People won't thank the AG for getting rid of a bad company- they'll yell and scream about how the AG turned off their cable TV.
On the post: Comcast Busted For Signing People Up For Services They Didn't Want, Never Asked For
Re: Criminal charges
If the fines/ punishment are far less than the profit they made, they'll treat it as a cost of doing business and there's no real reason for them to stop doing it.
On the post: FCC Announces National Roll Out Of Amber Alerts But For Cops
My favorite part
"Blue Alerts can be used by state and local authorities to notify the public... to help apprehend dangerous suspects."
So the public gets to help apprehend dangerous suspects? How? People already call in tips so why is a push-alert needed? Or is this telling people that it's okay to grab your gun and go help the police arrest (or "apprehend") the person?
On the post: Five Below, Trendy Retailer, Sues 10 Below, Ice Cream Seller, For Trademark Infringement
Who are the lawyers who take these cases
1) Do they not know copyright/ trademark law? If not, why are they taking on cases if they don't know the relevant laws?
2) Do they know the law and are ignoring it just to take the client's money? Is this an ethics violation?
Either way, these lawyers should be called out and have their bar association/ license reviewed.
If more lawyers learn that their licenses could be revoked for starting dumb lawsuits like this, then maybe there would be less bullying.
On the post: How The Muppets And A Font Choice Hurt The Star Trek / Dr. Seuss Mashup In Court
This is the same move that the NFL uses for the words "Super Bowl":
The companies charge money to license out their property, whether it's a Seuss book or "Super Bowl". But then someone comes along and makes an unlicensed version. The company almost has no choice but to sue, if only to protect the investments from the licensees. After all, if anyone could make a mashup/ parody/ satire version, then why should people pay for a license?
On the post: Suburban Express, Which Sued Over Online Reviews Claiming It Had Racist Drivers, Cheerfully Sends Out Racist Advertisement
Apology not accepted
Did they think they were being smart or funny? Did they think they wouldn't get called out for offending people?
As always with things like this, the ad (and first apology) was written by someone, then approved by a manager, and then sent out by the marketing department to the public... and none of them thought there was anything wrong with what they did.
Oh, but it's finally wrong when the State AG starts investigating.
On the post: Smart Handgun Safe Not Smart Enough Not To Let Basically Anyone Break Into It
Re: Re: It isn't... but it could be
Interior bedroom, midnight:
A man hears a prowler in the hallway outside his bedroom.
**Man:** (whispers) Siri, unlock the gun safe.
**Siri:** I'm sorry, I didn't get that. Please speak louder.
**Man:** (normal voice) Siri, unlock the gun safe.
**Siri:** I think you said you want to unlock your gun safe. I found 5 locksmiths in the area who can help with that.
**Man:** No, unlock my Vaultek gun safe.
**Siri**: Now dialing "Walt's Locksmith Service".
On the post: Smart Handgun Safe Not Smart Enough Not To Let Basically Anyone Break Into It
The company's response
"Once this video and the code for the hack was released publicly, Vaultek snapped into action by suing the researchers and issuing a copyright-takedown notice on YouTube for finding this vulnerability."
On the post: Comic Con Verdict: Salt Lake Comic Con Loses The Battle, Now Seeks To Win The War
Re: Re:
Seriously, though, there's DragonCon in Atlanta and MegaCon in Orlando (and probably many other), so these conventions don't necessarily need to say "comic con" or "comic convention".
On the post: Court Says Google Must Unmask Person Who Left Wordless, One-Star Review Of Local Psychiatrist
Why hasn't this case been thrown out?
Or is this yet another case of a small town judge trying to bolster his own reputation by going after "the big guys". Hey, look, our local judge is telling Google what to do! Now we have the power, not Google.
On the post: New York City Hotels Say Obnoxious $25 'Destination Fee' 'Improves The Customer Experience'
Some better hotels will remove the resort fee
We told them that we have our own car and annual passes, so we don't need the shuttle service.
And like most people, we have our own cell phones, so we don't need the internet service.
So they took the resort fee off our bill.
However, if all the hotels in New York or Times Square charge the same fee, then it might be hard to convince them to remove it.
On the post: SLCC Rankles Judge With Social Media Posts As A Jury Prepares To Rule
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't matter if Detroit was the first to use "auto show", the phrase isn't unique enough to sue over.
On the post: Drug Dog Testing Process Eliminates Handler Bias. Unsurprisingly, Cops Don't Like it.
Maybe they need to meet a quote
Sure, the department may not have a written goal, but maybe officers compete with each other to see how many arrests they can make.
It goes something like this:
"Gee, John, you got traffic duty this month. Your arrest rate is going to suck."
"No it's not- I'll just call the K-9 unit in, have it 'alert' on drugs, and arrest the driver. (It's not my problem if there's no drugs or no charges are pressed- I just got another arrest this month.)"
On the post: 3 Million Dish Customers May Miss Thanksgiving Football In Latest Example Of TV Industry Dysfunction
Re: Re: Re:
http://deadline.com/2017/10/star-trek-discovery-second-season-renewal-cbs-all-access-120219287 7/
This means CBS has another year to look at their stats to see how many subscribers are staying.
Then again, Star Trek may be enough of a "prestige" show that CBS doesn't care that much about the viewership numbers as long as it keeps bringing in subscribers.
Next >>