> It claimed the request was "vague" and "overly broad" and failed to describe an "identifiable record."
Maybe the sheriff's department actually meant that the *warrants* were vague, overly broad and failing to describe an identifiable target? Granted, that wouldn't help their case, but it would be honest.
The Court reiterates that a religious group must tolerate the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith, as long as the statements at issue do not incite hatred or religious intolerance.
So, you must tolerate criticism, unless you can't tolerate it?
> He notes in particular that these are purely informative documents, drafted in absolutely neutral and standardised terms, providing an accurate report of events or stating that no events of interest have occurred.
So, government can claim copyright after it starts encouraging using poetry to write reports?
"There was once a country named Germany That had one dictator too many. It caused us quite the affliction, So we bombed it into submission."
Re: This? Do this more often. Do this ALL the time
Obviously, it would be even better if they stopped SWAT-raiding the wrong houses on a regular basis, but accepting responsibility is a very good start. One can only reduce mistakes after acknowledging that he did make mistakes.
Later, they might even see them stop considering a SWAT raid as the default option to serve warrants.
So basically, Sessions' conclusion is that crime stops crime. Only difference is that the only allowed crime should be state-sanctioned crime by badge-wielding grunts.
Another example of the mentality of "the solution to the problem is more of the problem".
Also, this illustrates the subverted quote that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". It has recently been quoted by some authoritarian politicians to mean "we have to be on guard from terrorists", but the real meaning is that "we have to be on guard from the abuse of power of those we put in charge". The moment we give a free pass to those in positions of power (politicians, cops, ...), we lose our liberty.
Of course it's bound to backfire. But by the time it does, nobody (in power) will want to acknowledge why it did.
On this matter like on many others, some of the people advocate that "the solution to the problem is more of the problem." And since they are the "loudest" in the room (remember, "money si speech"), politicians listen to them.
If controlling everything fails to bring more fans and revenue, it must become there is not enough control, right?
(For other examples, see "the solution to the gun problem is more guns".)
Really amazing. This "war on fans" is growing so fast.
The problem is coming from the "permission culture" that is itself based on two axioms:
everything must be owned,
anything I own is under my exclusive control.
Point #1 is just absurd.
Point #2 only makes sense for material goods that only one person can enjoy at a given time.
Normally, both points are irrelevant when applied to ideas, and a legal monopoly is used to allow temporary and limited control over the expression of an idea.
This has been blown out of proportion thanks to a copious amount of lobbying money (aka legalized corruption). Now, most politicians and a good part of the general population has been convinced that "copyright" grants full control on every aspect of a work and its context (which is made easy by the fact that, regarding digital goods, every use implies a copy), and some are even going so far as to think it should last forever. Both scope and duration have been pushed to extremes.
Even though it's a little off-topic, I would point your dishonest comment on section 230.
You pretend that it prevents from suing anyone, which is patently false. It only prevents suing the platform. The author of the defamatory content can still be sued.
The fact that it's more difficult (he might explain his view) and less profitable (probably less rich than the platform itself) doesn't make suing the platform the right thing to do. And thanks to section 230, it also doesn't make it the legal thing to do.
Sadly, the Law is not written so elementary school students can understand it.
Not even adults can.
Not even adults working in law enforcement. (Sadly, these ones are not required to.)
It might seems absurd. It probably is morally speaking. But lawyers can twist the words of the law to still make it the "legal truth".
Nice potential exploit there: you can't resell the code separately from the DVD... but can you resell the DVD separately from the code?
If that works, expect Disney amend the T&C in order to try to also prevent the reselling of the DVD without violating first sale doctrine. I'm not wishing you luck with this one, Disney.
If they win, any other lawyer can just use this case (and maybe add to the irony by quoting their arguments verbatim, including the outrage section mentioning "zealous copyright holders") to defend against them.
If they lose, others could file their own lawsuit every time Disney "borrows" from them until they finally decide to lobby against copyright maximalism. As Ninja commented earlier, there is only so much they can still borrow from the public domain given the effect of their own lobbying against it.
Maybe. I would object in two points though. 1. The Gawker case is not too definite yet. Due to lack of resource and willingness - by new owners - to fight any longer, this case has not used all available courses of appeal. 2. This case is different as the charge is "defamation", where truth is a valid defense. And BuzzFeed doesn't need to prove the facts in the dossier are true, but only that the dossier is real and that the content is as stated in the article.
Your parallel to the Gawker case seems completely invalid to me.
Also, Cox and other ISPs might not have helped their case during the Net Neutrality debate.
Since they're saying that the content they push to their users is their own speech (they plead "first amendment rights" over what transits through their network), I assume they want responsibility for all the illegal content too. Right?
This reminds me of Michael Moore's movie Sicko. In a short interview of an health insurance agent, the description of the insurance company's response to claims was "always say no at first, don't even look at the content of the claim; only read the claim if the customer threatens litigation; even then, try to fight back against paying anything".
Here, FOIA-subject agencies seen to work in the exact same way. "Wait until the legal deadline; reply that nothing was found, no need to even check what was requested; if the requested threatens litigation, reply with the bare minimum possible, or even less; if actually sued, fight back with any excuse on the book."
It doesn't matter that the documents are Ajay public, if you start giving the public even this, they will feel entitled to much more.
Bad news: This happened at the taxpayers' expense, as usual.
This is the problem with such cases: there is no incentive for the cops to act properly since any mistake is paid for by others.
This will happen again, and again, as long as there is no personal accountability for cops. They should foot the bill, at least when there is evidence that they broke procedure to secure a quick win.
On the post: EFF Sues California Law Enforcement Agency For Refusing To Hand Over Stingray Documents
miscommunication?
Maybe the sheriff's department actually meant that the *warrants* were vague, overly broad and failing to describe an identifiable target?
Granted, that wouldn't help their case, but it would be honest.
On the post: Another Terrible Court Decision In Europe: Insulting A Religion Is Not Free Speech
So, you must tolerate criticism, unless you can't tolerate it?
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Advocate General: No, Of Course You Can't Copyright Military Reports
So, government can claim copyright after it starts encouraging using poetry to write reports?
"There was once a country named Germany
That had one dictator too many.
It caused us quite the affliction,
So we bombed it into submission."
On the post: Hell Forms Bobsled Team After Police Chief Admits Fault In SWAT Raid Targeting Wrong Address
Re: This? Do this more often. Do this ALL the time
Later, they might even see them stop considering a SWAT raid as the default option to serve warrants.
On the post: Jeff Sessions Says If You Want More Shootings And Death, Listen To The ACLU And Black Lives Matter
Fighting fire with fire
Another example of the mentality of "the solution to the problem is more of the problem".
Also, this illustrates the subverted quote that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". It has recently been quoted by some authoritarian politicians to mean "we have to be on guard from terrorists", but the real meaning is that "we have to be on guard from the abuse of power of those we put in charge". The moment we give a free pass to those in positions of power (politicians, cops, ...), we lose our liberty.
On the post: Congress Fails To Include A Single Consumer Advocate In Upcoming Privacy Hearing
Re: So, federal rules likely dangerous and impossible?
On the post: Success! Roanoke 'Harry Potter Festival' Changes Name To 'Generic Magic Festival' Due To WB's Bullying
Re: Re:
On this matter like on many others, some of the people advocate that "the solution to the problem is more of the problem." And since they are the "loudest" in the room (remember, "money si speech"), politicians listen to them.
If controlling everything fails to bring more fans and revenue, it must become there is not enough control, right?
(For other examples, see "the solution to the gun problem is more guns".)
On the post: Success! Roanoke 'Harry Potter Festival' Changes Name To 'Generic Magic Festival' Due To WB's Bullying
Really amazing. This "war on fans" is growing so fast. The problem is coming from the "permission culture" that is itself based on two axioms:
Point #1 is just absurd. Point #2 only makes sense for material goods that only one person can enjoy at a given time.
Normally, both points are irrelevant when applied to ideas, and a legal monopoly is used to allow temporary and limited control over the expression of an idea.
This has been blown out of proportion thanks to a copious amount of lobbying money (aka legalized corruption). Now, most politicians and a good part of the general population has been convinced that "copyright" grants full control on every aspect of a work and its context (which is made easy by the fact that, regarding digital goods, every use implies a copy), and some are even going so far as to think it should last forever. Both scope and duration have been pushed to extremes.
Can we please become reasonable again?
On the post: The Intellectual Dishonesty Of Those Supporting The Existing Text Of The EU Copyright Directive
Re:
You pretend that it prevents from suing anyone, which is patently false. It only prevents suing the platform. The author of the defamatory content can still be sued.
The fact that it's more difficult (he might explain his view) and less profitable (probably less rich than the platform itself) doesn't make suing the platform the right thing to do. And thanks to section 230, it also doesn't make it the legal thing to do.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Re: Re: Re: Oh, Bunker?
On the post: More Comic Conventions Change Their Names After Crazy SDCC Attorney's Fees And Injunction Ruling
Sadly, the Law is not written so elementary school students can understand it. Not even adults can. Not even adults working in law enforcement. (Sadly, these ones are not required to.)
It might seems absurd. It probably is morally speaking. But lawyers can twist the words of the law to still make it the "legal truth".
On the post: Police Union Offers Citizens $500 To Get Hurt, Killed, Or Sued As Amateur Cops
Re: Dialog, what we expect from them
Cops: Whatever. We have guns so shut up and do as we say.
On the post: Disney Fixes Its Sketchy DVD Rental License, Wins Injunction Against Redbox Over Digital Downloads
Re:
you can't resell the code separately from the DVD...
but can you resell the DVD separately from the code?
If that works, expect Disney amend the T&C in order to try to also prevent the reselling of the DVD without violating first sale doctrine.
I'm not wishing you luck with this one, Disney.
On the post: Irony Alert: Disney (Yes, DISNEY!) Whines About 'Overzealous Copyright Holders'
Potential win-win case for the public?
On the post: Court Says Comey And Other DOJ Officials Must Answer BuzzFeed's Questions About The Steele Dossier
Re: Yeah, this is what GAWKER thought too!
1. The Gawker case is not too definite yet. Due to lack of resource and willingness - by new owners - to fight any longer, this case has not used all available courses of appeal.
2. This case is different as the charge is "defamation", where truth is a valid defense. And BuzzFeed doesn't need to prove the facts in the dossier are true, but only that the dossier is real and that the content is as stated in the article.
Your parallel to the Gawker case seems completely invalid to me.
On the post: Sensing Blood In The Water, All Major Labels Sue Cox For 'Ignoring' Their DMCA Notices
Also, Cox and other ISPs might not have helped their case during the Net Neutrality debate.
Since they're saying that the content they push to their users is their own speech (they plead "first amendment rights" over what transits through their network), I assume they want responsibility for all the illegal content too. Right?
On the post: DHS Tells Records Requester It Can't Find Documents It Posted To Its Own Website
In a short interview of an health insurance agent, the description of the insurance company's response to claims was "always say no at first, don't even look at the content of the claim; only read the claim if the customer threatens litigation; even then, try to fight back against paying anything".
Here, FOIA-subject agencies seen to work in the exact same way. "Wait until the legal deadline; reply that nothing was found, no need to even check what was requested; if the requested threatens litigation, reply with the bare minimum possible, or even less; if actually sued, fight back with any excuse on the book."
It doesn't matter that the documents are Ajay public, if you start giving the public even this, they will feel entitled to much more.
On the post: Miami Cops Forced To Give $20,000 Back To Person They Stole It From After Screwing Up Their Supposed Drug Bust
Re:
It's a good news / bad news kind of thing.
This is the problem with such cases: there is no incentive for the cops to act properly since any mistake is paid for by others.
This will happen again, and again, as long as there is no personal accountability for cops. They should foot the bill, at least when there is evidence that they broke procedure to secure a quick win.
On the post: Five Illinois Cops Are Caught Lying On The Stand When Defense Produces A Recording Contradicting Their Testimony
Re:
"Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"
On the post: First House Republican Backs Effort To Restore Net Neutrality
He has signaled that he has... less than a faintest idea about "the cyber" and his 10-year-old son who "is so good with computers".
Reminder here.
It might best if he's kept away from this debate. Or any debate at all.
Next >>