The way I interpret the title of the show, "Empire": 1) It's based around a recording label with the word Empire. 2) It takes place in New York, the Empire State. 3) Ir's about people building an empire in the recording industry.
So, sure, the writers could have chosen a thousand other names for the fictitious record label, but I'm sure only "Empire" had the right feel.
I was just about to say this. And if the government tries to do this, is their plan to fight them in court?
Or like other posters can suggested, could Cards Against Humanity bring in a naturalist and declare their land to be the nesting place of an endangered species? Then the government agency trying to take the land has to argue with the other government agency trying to protect endangered species.
At one point, there was a story going around about how someone in the Trump administration (or maybe the Trump campaign) was standing next to a section of the Berlin Wall, going on about how great that wall was... completely oblivious to the fact that the wall is gone! She's literally standing in a front of a section of the wall in a unified Berlin in unified Germany. I just wish the reporters covering her would have pushed her to explain what she meant.
Though I think Trump is playing a long-game: he builds a wall now, then in 50 years, the wall comes down and the US and Mexico are unified to become simply "North America". Then there are no more Mexicans immigrants stealing jobs because there's no more US or Mexican citizenship- everyone is a North American citizen.
In all seriousness, way too many companies are designing their websites to be unusable unless Javascript is enabled. Want to read the article? Enable Javascript so the formatting isn't screwed up. Want to see the images in the article? Enable Javascript to see them. Want to leave a comment on the article? Enable Javascript so the page will display the Facebook commenting system.
This is exactly why there's still so much spam: a certain percentage of the audience will believe it, no matter how many other people say it's fake or a scam.
The propagandists who put out videos know the smart people will figure out it's from a video game, but they also figure their audience doesn't read enough "mainstream media" to see the stories about how it's video game footage.
And the more hard-core propagandists will simply respond with "You say you read an article about how this is video game footage? Open your eyes, sheeps! This is exactly what they want you to believe! Don't fall for their propaganda."
Going by your logic, there's a third issue at stake: 3) If monkeys can own a copyright by clicking a button, can other animals? If put my phone in front of my cat and she hits the button to take a selfie, does she own the copyright? If not, then why does a monkey get to own a copyright but not a cat?
And how far are we willing to extend this argument? Suppose a nature photographer puts a camera in a forest and the shutter is triggered by ants. Do the ants own the copyright? Or do we know have to argue "intent": the monkey and cat were curious and pressed a button, but the ants didn't do it on purpose.
Does anyone remember a website called Bluefrog? Their process for fighting spammers was similar: you forward spam to them (or in the case of Yahoo Mail, you could link a folder to automatically process spam). The Bluefrog would overload the spammer with unsubscribe requests until the spammer gave up.
That sounds great, right? Well the spammers got smart to this and started issuing DDOS attacks on Bluefrog's website and blog platform. It was bad enough to go after their website, but the blog platform had hundreds of other blogs, which were also taken down by the attack. The blogging company had to end Bluefrog's account out of self-defense, and Bluefrog itself shut down shortly after.
So will something similar happen to Re:Scam? Will spammers issue DDOS attacks on any site that talks about this service?
Were these "third parties" ever named? If they profited from Madoff's actions, wouldn't they be victims also? Or if they're not victims, why not name the businesses and prosecute them as conspirators with Madoff? Something just doesn't sound right to me.
Re: You Do Really Own What You Buy: If you buy a horse, the previous owner has no right to drop by an shoot it to force you to buy another one!
This would be a good argument except many companies have already thought of it: this is why so many transactions are now called "licenses" instead of "purchases". There's no "first sale" doctrine for "licenses".
First, why in the world did the author link to the videos that he says are disturbing for kids? Providing a clickable link will cause people to click, which gives the videos more views, which pushes the videos further up the popularity index, which gives them more advertising revenue.
Second, one idea for Google could be to negatively-rank any video with more than 10 words in it. How in the world can a video be called "Bad Baby with Tantrum and Crying for Lollipops Little Babies Learn Colors Finger Family Song 2" and NOT be junk or spam? But again, kids may not read the titles or they may not even care- they just want to see the next gross/ exciting/ stimulating video that comes next.
The documentary could stop the show's revenue stream
Would the production company have allowed clips of the show in documentary if they were asked? I would say, probably not.
I think the real issue is that the documentary definitely "maligns" the reputation of Cosby and by extension, his show. But since the production company can't sue over true facts, they have to sue over copyright.
And since the show is still on TV and sold on DVD, the production company probably doesn't want a documentary to be released, which could affect their revenue. Sure, Cosby's issues have been on the news, but a documentary could have a bigger reach: look what happened to SeaWorld after the documentary "Blackfish" was released.
When I watch ESPN, I want to hear opinions about sports and such, not opinions about Trump and Clinton. On the opposite side, if I'm watching Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight, I don't want to hear their opinions on whether the Dallas Cowboys have a good 3-4 defense.
In other words, it's okay to have opinions, but keep it relevant to the topics that the show or network covers. The execs could have worded their policy statement a little better.
I don't think the "high school diploma" education makes a different in this case. Where was this guy's police training? Isn't there a class or two at the police academy about how to write reports... and how to write reports that won't be taken apart by lawyers? Or is the training for writing reports to simply write "I feared for my life" and not worry if the sentences are coherent or the actions make sense.
If you read the article a little closer (and sort-of read between the lines), the events happened like this: The LA Times reports about a "too cozy" relationship between Disney, Anaheim, and other city governments that may or may not be corruption. Instead of debating the story or presenting evidence to the contrary or even suing for libel, Disney decided to be a child and say "You can't review our movies!".
(I'm assuming The LA Times has good research and legal departments that cleared the story to prevent Disney from suing for libel.)
Sure, Disney has every right to ban whomever it wants, but if the issue is about an article in a newspaper, then at least be adult about things and explain why the article is wrong. Then the issue would get more coverage and Disney could explain their side of things. Unless the story is true and they don't want to explain anything... hmm...
Changing the subject slightly: I think one issue to consider is that Trump is still tweeting from his personal account, not the official @POTUS account. I hope that Twitter has more restrictions on who can and can't access official government accounts, but until Trump uses the official POTUS account, then his account is subject to the same terms as everyone else's. Sure, Twitter might not delete his tweets because they're "newsworthy", but they obviously didn't change the employee access. So, technically, anyone else "on their last day" could also switch off Trump's account at any time.
Why do some courts not care about setting a precedent? If Canadian court can rule that the US company can't do some form of business world-wide, then why can't China and North Korea do the same thing? Can North Korea sue Google into de-listed any website that's critical of their government? Or can any country in the Middle East sue Google to de-list any site that's critical of Islam? Better yet, what if Russia sues Google to de-list CNN, MSNBC, and any other news website that talks about Russian interference in the 2016 election?
The other, larger issue is that there's no punishment for the false positives and holding people in jail for 2 months. Sure, this story talks about a $37,000 payout, but who's paying for that? * Not the company that made the device that said donut glaze was a drug. In fact, this issue probably won't make a dent in their profits. * Not the police union, since they were following the instructions from the company that made the device. * Not the arresting officer, since he was just doing his job.
This means the city and taxpayers pay for the results and the police and company aren't held responsible, which means no punishment, which means no reason to stop doing what they're doing.
Wow! That's an amazing and horrifying way to look at it. As a Charter/ Spectrum customer, I never realized that $3 of my bill is going straight to his salary!
Your math is a little off since your numbers are per-year, so each customer is paying $3 divided by 12 months on their monthly bill. Though your point still stands: it's $3 per customer just to pay the CEO's salary.
Suppose Trump decided to give his State of the Union address at Trump Tower instead of in the Capitol Building. The Capitol is a government building which is open the public, but Trump Tower is privately owned. Now suppose Trump told the manager of Trump Tower not to let certain people inside. Could these people sue because they were blocked from hearing Trump's State of the Union address?
Everyone knows that the going rate for a 3 year-old is $50. Of course the authorities had to get involved- this lady is severely undercutting the other sellers!
I'm going to jail for encouraging child trafficking, aren't I?
On the post: Good Ruling: Court Affirms Fox's Victory In Trademark Suit From Empire Distribution Over Its Hit Show 'Empire'
A third meaning of the title
1) It's based around a recording label with the word Empire.
2) It takes place in New York, the Empire State.
3) Ir's about people building an empire in the recording industry.
So, sure, the writers could have chosen a thousand other names for the fictitious record label, but I'm sure only "Empire" had the right feel.
On the post: Cards Against Humanity's Trolling Of Trump's Border Wall Shows How The Internet Has Removed Gatekeepers
Re: Eminent domain
And if the government tries to do this, is their plan to fight them in court?
Or like other posters can suggested, could Cards Against Humanity bring in a naturalist and declare their land to be the nesting place of an endangered species? Then the government agency trying to take the land has to argue with the other government agency trying to protect endangered species.
On the post: Cards Against Humanity's Trolling Of Trump's Border Wall Shows How The Internet Has Removed Gatekeepers
Re: Walls
Though I think Trump is playing a long-game: he builds a wall now, then in 50 years, the wall comes down and the US and Mexico are unified to become simply "North America". Then there are no more Mexicans immigrants stealing jobs because there's no more US or Mexican citizenship- everyone is a North American citizen.
On the post: Covert Cryptocurrency Miners Quickly Become A Major Problem
Re:
In all seriousness, way too many companies are designing their websites to be unusable unless Javascript is enabled.
Want to read the article? Enable Javascript so the formatting isn't screwed up.
Want to see the images in the article? Enable Javascript to see them.
Want to leave a comment on the article? Enable Javascript so the page will display the Facebook commenting system.
On the post: Russian Foreign Ministry Accuses America Of Supporting ISIS With Video Game Footage
Re:
The propagandists who put out videos know the smart people will figure out it's from a video game, but they also figure their audience doesn't read enough "mainstream media" to see the stories about how it's video game footage.
And the more hard-core propagandists will simply respond with "You say you read an article about how this is video game footage? Open your eyes, sheeps! This is exactly what they want you to believe! Don't fall for their propaganda."
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
Re: Photo booths
3) If monkeys can own a copyright by clicking a button, can other animals? If put my phone in front of my cat and she hits the button to take a selfie, does she own the copyright?
If not, then why does a monkey get to own a copyright but not a cat?
And how far are we willing to extend this argument? Suppose a nature photographer puts a camera in a forest and the shutter is triggered by ants. Do the ants own the copyright? Or do we know have to argue "intent": the monkey and cat were curious and pressed a button, but the ants didn't do it on purpose.
On the post: A Great Use For Artificial Intelligence: Scamming Scammers By Wasting Their Time
Bluefrog did something similar
That sounds great, right? Well the spammers got smart to this and started issuing DDOS attacks on Bluefrog's website and blog platform. It was bad enough to go after their website, but the blog platform had hundreds of other blogs, which were also taken down by the attack. The blogging company had to end Bluefrog's account out of self-defense, and Bluefrog itself shut down shortly after.
So will something similar happen to Re:Scam? Will spammers issue DDOS attacks on any site that talks about this service?
On the post: DOJ: Civil Asset Forfeiture Is A Good Thing That Only Harms All Those Criminals We Never Arrest
Re:
Or if they're not victims, why not name the businesses and prosecute them as conspirators with Madoff?
Something just doesn't sound right to me.
On the post: Logitech Once Again Shows That In The Modern Era, You Don't Really Own What You Buy
Re: You Do Really Own What You Buy: If you buy a horse, the previous owner has no right to drop by an shoot it to force you to buy another one!
On the post: Algorithmic Videos Are Making YouTube Unsuitable For Young Children, And Google's 'Revenue Architecture' Is To Blame
Some ideas
Second, one idea for Google could be to negatively-rank any video with more than 10 words in it. How in the world can a video be called "Bad Baby with Tantrum and Crying for Lollipops Little Babies Learn Colors Finger Family Song 2" and NOT be junk or spam?
But again, kids may not read the titles or they may not even care- they just want to see the next gross/ exciting/ stimulating video that comes next.
On the post: Lawsuit Brought By Cosby Show Production Company Against Documentary Is The Reason We Have Fair Use
The documentary could stop the show's revenue stream
I think the real issue is that the documentary definitely "maligns" the reputation of Cosby and by extension, his show. But since the production company can't sue over true facts, they have to sue over copyright.
And since the show is still on TV and sold on DVD, the production company probably doesn't want a documentary to be released, which could affect their revenue.
Sure, Cosby's issues have been on the news, but a documentary could have a bigger reach: look what happened to SeaWorld after the documentary "Blackfish" was released.
On the post: ESPN Joins List Of Companies Enforcing Stringent Social Media Policies, Which Is Both Bad And Stupid
Re: Way off base
When I watch ESPN, I want to hear opinions about sports and such, not opinions about Trump and Clinton.
On the opposite side, if I'm watching Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight, I don't want to hear their opinions on whether the Dallas Cowboys have a good 3-4 defense.
In other words, it's okay to have opinions, but keep it relevant to the topics that the show or network covers.
The execs could have worded their policy statement a little better.
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
Re:
Where was this guy's police training? Isn't there a class or two at the police academy about how to write reports... and how to write reports that won't be taken apart by lawyers?
Or is the training for writing reports to simply write "I feared for my life" and not worry if the sentences are coherent or the actions make sense.
On the post: Disney Bans LA Times Writers From Advance Screenings In Response To Negative Articles
Re:
The LA Times reports about a "too cozy" relationship between Disney, Anaheim, and other city governments that may or may not be corruption.
Instead of debating the story or presenting evidence to the contrary or even suing for libel, Disney decided to be a child and say "You can't review our movies!".
(I'm assuming The LA Times has good research and legal departments that cleared the story to prevent Disney from suing for libel.)
Sure, Disney has every right to ban whomever it wants, but if the issue is about an article in a newspaper, then at least be adult about things and explain why the article is wrong. Then the issue would get more coverage and Disney could explain their side of things.
Unless the story is true and they don't want to explain anything... hmm...
On the post: Don't Cheer For The Twitter Employee Who Deleted Donald Trump's Account
Personal versus government account
Sure, Twitter might not delete his tweets because they're "newsworthy", but they obviously didn't change the employee access. So, technically, anyone else "on their last day" could also switch off Trump's account at any time.
On the post: Equustek No-Shows Legal Challenge Of Canadian Court Order Demanding Google Delist Sites Worldwide
Setting precedent
Or can any country in the Middle East sue Google to de-list any site that's critical of Islam?
Better yet, what if Russia sues Google to de-list CNN, MSNBC, and any other news website that talks about Russian interference in the 2016 election?
On the post: Man Gets $37,500 Payout After Field Drug Test Says Donut Crumbs Are Methamphetamines
No reason to stop doing what they're doing
Sure, this story talks about a $37,000 payout, but who's paying for that?
* Not the company that made the device that said donut glaze was a drug. In fact, this issue probably won't make a dent in their profits.
* Not the police union, since they were following the instructions from the company that made the device.
* Not the arresting officer, since he was just doing his job.
This means the city and taxpayers pay for the results and the police and company aren't held responsible, which means no punishment, which means no reason to stop doing what they're doing.
On the post: Charter CEO Tries To Blame Netflix Password 'Piracy' For Company's Failure To Adapt To Cord Cutting
Re: Has someone done the math on this?!
As a Charter/ Spectrum customer, I never realized that $3 of my bill is going straight to his salary!
Your math is a little off since your numbers are per-year, so each customer is paying $3 divided by 12 months on their monthly bill.
Though your point still stands: it's $3 per customer just to pay the CEO's salary.
On the post: Lawyers: Trump's Twitter Account Not Presidential; Also: Trump Is President, Can't Be Sued
Real-world comparison
The Capitol is a government building which is open the public, but Trump Tower is privately owned.
Now suppose Trump told the manager of Trump Tower not to let certain people inside.
Could these people sue because they were blocked from hearing Trump's State of the Union address?
On the post: A Joke Tweet Leads To 'Child Trafficking' Investigation, Providing More Evidence Of Why SESTA Would Be Abused
What's the going rate for a 3 year-old?
I'm going to jail for encouraging child trafficking, aren't I?
/sarc
Next >>