Mike said "because of X, Y and Z Shiva is a fraud and liar". X, Y and Z are true. Because of that, him calling Shiva a fraud and liar are opinions based on disclosed facts, which are not something a court will hold a trial over. You might not think that's fair, but that's the way that U.S. defamation law currently works.
To go into a bit more detail about "opinions based on disclosed facts": if Mike hadn't written "because of X, Y and Z Shiv is a liar/fraud" he had written only "Shiva is a fraud/liar" without providing any reasons, a reader might think that Mike has access to information that the reader doesn't have access to, and thus give weight to Mike's statement that it doesn't deserve; that sort of thing can go to court. Or if Mike had written "due to private conversations I've had with Shiva I believe him to be a fraud/liar", but Shiva denied that those conversations took place, that's something a jury can judge. However, what Mike actually wrote was "due to X, Y and Z Shiva is a fraud/liar". X, Y and Z are publicly available knowledge. Anyone who reads what Mike wrote can judge for themselves if "X, Y and Z make Shiva a fraud/liar" is a logical statement. And since the reading public can judge for themselves, based on publicly available knowledge, if Mike's statement is logical or not, there's no need for a jury to do so.
just as Mike appreciated it when his case got thrown out of court for an argument that had nothing to do with the Email inventor or the harm that he caused him
????
The lawyer laid out the reasons Mike believes Shiva didn't "invent" email, and also claimed that what Mike said was "opinion based on disclosed facts". The former has everything to do with Shiva, and the latter is a standard defamation defense that doesn't even come close to getting "near the edge".
Probably (I haven't checked the dates) because Marble Hornets is prior art, created before Sony bought the rights, and so they would be on even shakier legal standing (if that were possible).
Marble Hornets was created after the very first Slender creepypasta by Eric Knudsen, so if the rights that Sony bought hold any weight at all they hold weight against Hornets as well.
Also, Marble Hornets isn't a "movie" in the sense that Flay is, and therefore isn't competing in quite the same way. Sony's going after a potential direct competitor for their movie launch, attempting to ensure that nobody steals CURRENT viewership.
Re: Re: Isn't the phone just one part of the two-factor?
Some banks still use security questions as a secondary authentication method, which is why you should never use questions that ask for public info, or is otherwise available to sufficiently motivated strangers.
Whenever there's a security question, my "answer" is just mashing on the keyboard, which I copy-paste into a text file which immediately gets encrypted with my PGP public key.
But how would that apply to this situation? There is no U.S. individual here who is exporting information to a non-U.S. person, is there?
Maybe someone in the U.S. govt thinks that Flash didn't discover the data breach on his own, but that rather a whistleblower tipped him off? A U.S. whistleblower telling someone outside the U.S. could be considered to be "exporting" the information.
Maybe Duke Powell meant that even when cops told the paramedics to use ketamine, the paramedics all ignored the cops, and only used ketamine if they would have without the cops saying anything?
Officer Chad Guess — who, remember, planned the Betton raid — said in a deposition that it’s “not the law to knock and announce. You know, it’s just not. It’s the officer’s discretion, each dictate determines itself.”
The mere fact that such a thing as a no-knock warrant exists means that this what he said is false. For his claimed ignorance to be true, this officer of the law would have to have never even heard of a no-knock warrant.
I'm glad that the lawsuit can proceed, but why did the plaintiffs need to use the RFRA? If the FBI harrasses an agnostic/athiest immigrant about becoming an informant is that immigrant simply out of luck?
Temporary tags must be visible and legible at all times from any distance is the government's argument.
Then it's the government's fault that the temporary tags are too small, since the govt is either the one who made the tags or who set the standard on how big the tags should be.
Google is not sending any surplus of users. Google is not increasing the number of readers. Google is merely re-shaping and re-distributing the already existing base of readers. Google is sending only readers to news sites that are already keen on reading news, and would have read news anyway, even if Google News didn't or wouldn't have existed.
Anyway, as usual for masnicks, we HAVE ONLY Wikipedia's word for this, it's NOT INDEPENDENT AUDIT.
Do you think that Wikipedia should be required to have an independent audit? Although it's a non-profit it's still a corporation and according to you (I think it's you, anyways) corporations are supposed to serve the public interest.
People are stupid, ignorant, fear driven, and weak. Democracy is not possible, and never will be. But do not let me dissuade you from its delusions. They give comfort to the ignorant while it usurps their liberty.
Any form of nation/country/government is going to be run by people, so how one run by the stupid, ignorant and fear driven going to bring about liberty? And if the populace gave up on the idea of democracy, how would they, being stupid, ignorant and fear driven, help out the nation/etc to achieve liberty?
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re: Why the Animus?
Mike said "because of X, Y and Z Shiva is a fraud and liar". X, Y and Z are true. Because of that, him calling Shiva a fraud and liar are opinions based on disclosed facts, which are not something a court will hold a trial over. You might not think that's fair, but that's the way that U.S. defamation law currently works.
To go into a bit more detail about "opinions based on disclosed facts": if Mike hadn't written "because of X, Y and Z Shiv is a liar/fraud" he had written only "Shiva is a fraud/liar" without providing any reasons, a reader might think that Mike has access to information that the reader doesn't have access to, and thus give weight to Mike's statement that it doesn't deserve; that sort of thing can go to court. Or if Mike had written "due to private conversations I've had with Shiva I believe him to be a fraud/liar", but Shiva denied that those conversations took place, that's something a jury can judge. However, what Mike actually wrote was "due to X, Y and Z Shiva is a fraud/liar". X, Y and Z are publicly available knowledge. Anyone who reads what Mike wrote can judge for themselves if "X, Y and Z make Shiva a fraud/liar" is a logical statement. And since the reading public can judge for themselves, based on publicly available knowledge, if Mike's statement is logical or not, there's no need for a jury to do so.
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny
Re: Why the Animus?
????
The lawyer laid out the reasons Mike believes Shiva didn't "invent" email, and also claimed that what Mike said was "opinion based on disclosed facts". The former has everything to do with Shiva, and the latter is a standard defamation defense that doesn't even come close to getting "near the edge".
On the post: Sony Finds Itself In Court After Bullying Film Studio Over Supposed 'Slender Man' Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not "Marble Hornets"?
IANAL, but I don't think that's a problem in the case of a copyright holder.
On the post: Sony Finds Itself In Court After Bullying Film Studio Over Supposed 'Slender Man' Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Not "Marble Hornets"?
Marble Hornets was created after the very first Slender creepypasta by Eric Knudsen, so if the rights that Sony bought hold any weight at all they hold weight against Hornets as well.
That's probably the real reason.
On the post: Sony Finds Itself In Court After Bullying Film Studio Over Supposed 'Slender Man' Copyright Infringement
Not "Marble Hornets"?
I wonder why they're going after Flay rather than, say, Marble Hornets.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Have A SIM Hijacking Problem They Don't Want To Talk About
Re: Re: Isn't the phone just one part of the two-factor?
Whenever there's a security question, my "answer" is just mashing on the keyboard, which I copy-paste into a text file which immediately gets encrypted with my PGP public key.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Have A SIM Hijacking Problem They Don't Want To Talk About
Isn't the phone just one part of the two-factor?
Even if someone hijacks my cell phone number, how does that get them access to (for example) my bank? Don't they also need my password?
On the post: DHS Subpoenas Twitter For New Zealand Security Researcher's Info
Maybe someone in the U.S. govt thinks that Flash didn't discover the data breach on his own, but that rather a whistleblower tipped him off? A U.S. whistleblower telling someone outside the U.S. could be considered to be "exporting" the information.
On the post: Cops Are Telling Paramedics To Inject Arrestees With Ketamine. Worse, EMS Crews Are Actually Doing It.
Maybe Duke Powell meant that even when cops told the paramedics to use ketamine, the paramedics all ignored the cops, and only used ketamine if they would have without the cops saying anything?
On the post: South Carolina Drug Warriors Routinely Serving Regular Warrants Like No-Knock Warrants
The mere fact that such a thing as a no-knock warrant exists means that this what he said is false. For his claimed ignorance to be true, this officer of the law would have to have never even heard of a no-knock warrant.
On the post: Court: FBI Agents Can Be Held Accountable For Tossing Immigrants On The No-Fly List Because They Refused To Be Informants
Why the RFRA?
I'm glad that the lawsuit can proceed, but why did the plaintiffs need to use the RFRA? If the FBI harrasses an agnostic/athiest immigrant about becoming an informant is that immigrant simply out of luck?
On the post: Gov't To Court: Driving A Car In Iowa With A Valid Iowa Temporary Tag Is A Traffic Violation
Then it's the government's fault that the temporary tags are too small, since the govt is either the one who made the tags or who set the standard on how big the tags should be.
On the post: Software Legend Ray Ozzie Thinks He Can Safely Backdoor Encryption; He's Very Wrong
Re: Distraction
Are you saying that existing encryption systems already have a backdoor which no encryption experts have recognized?
On the post: Latest EU Copyright Plan Would Ban Copyright Holders From Using Creative Commons
Re: "Google is not sending any surplus of users"
Well, according to a study by the Spanish Association of Publishers of Periodical Publications, the law did hurt the Spanish news media.
On the post: Latest EU Copyright Plan Would Ban Copyright Holders From Using Creative Commons
Re: Citations
Well, I'd like a citation for this:
On the post: Wikimedia's Transparency Report: Guys, We're A Wiki, Don't Demand We Take Stuff Down
Do you think that Wikipedia should be required to have an independent audit? Although it's a non-profit it's still a corporation and according to you (I think it's you, anyways) corporations are supposed to serve the public interest.
On the post: Senator Klobuchar Thinks We Need To Start Fining Social Media Companies For Not Removing Bots Fast Enough
Re: Re: Move those goalposts
Any form of nation/country/government is going to be run by people, so how one run by the stupid, ignorant and fear driven going to bring about liberty? And if the populace gave up on the idea of democracy, how would they, being stupid, ignorant and fear driven, help out the nation/etc to achieve liberty?
On the post: Nunes Demands Copies Of FISA Docs About Steele Dossier Warrants; Court Suggests Taking It Up With The FBI
Re:
But we love you!
On the post: Donald Trump Hires Charles Harder To Threaten Steve Bannon With A Lawsuit, Block Publication Of New Book
Re: Injunctive Relief?
The threat letter claims that Wolff encouraged annon to break his NDA, thus tortious interference with a contract.
On the post: Court Holds NYPD In Contempt For Refusing To Hand Over Documents Related To Black Live Matter Surveillance
What are the odds that when the court finally starts handing out sanctions, that the videos in question will have "mysteriously" disappeared?
Next >>