Sorry, I find no "innocence" in willful ignorance of the reality around one's self. A person may be good in the traditional sense of the word, but if they simply parrot crap, then they have failed to exercise discretion, and that's exactly the same thing as planning to be an asshole.
Lots of yellow dog journalism is done specifically in the hope of destroying the people and organizations....
FTFY.
There's a pretty large difference between "finding the facts that have been hidden from the public", and "asking for any embarrassing sleaze on someone". Journalists don't publicly beg for input of the most damaging kind, they investigate and search for items of public interest. Yellow dog journalism is exactly what OAN is attempting here, and it never works out as intended.
Such action may, or may not, rise to a level of criminal intent, but it certainly sits at the civil level of defamation, or threat thereof. (And that threat gets into blackmail territory, which is unlawful.) I'm fairly certain that AT&T's lawyers won't hesitate for a second to bring in some outside counsel that is well experienced in defamation/slander law. Just to raise the cost of pursuing the case, said costs to be shifted to the defense when they lose.... big time. "Your Honor, we're business lawyers, we know nothing of civil law, so we had to bring in these other attorneys."
tl;dr:
"Oh, you didn't like us exercising our discretion to make sound fiduciary decisions, as required by both law and our stockholders? Well sparky, you're going to just love our legal bills, trust us."
If I really want to see the general content that site covered, I can always search within a day to read it at some other site that doesn't have those restrictions.
In technical terms, this is known as "the internet routes around damage".
The court presumed an awful lot in that proceeding. They even said (and the translation was correct) that "she could've used either her husband's computer, or her son's computer...." where the article specifically stated that the complaint filed with the court made no mention of any such 3rd parties. I'll go on to presume that no evidence was entered into the record regarding those two persons, either.
All we really got that's probably true is that her name is on the account that has the "guilty" IP addy assigned to it. So one should wonder why she would have an internet account if she has no computer? There was probably a good, plausible reason for that, but obviously the court "didn't wanna hear it". They just went with "guilt by indirect association", and ticked another checkbox.
So most sensible people would be fine with "we don't serve blacks" signs in Alabama as long as that helps maintaining business with their preferred clients?
And here we have a Poster Boy example of our public education hard at work. Sigh.
David, when you have learned the difference between "discrimination" and "censorship", then please return here and elucidate that difference for us. Whereupon I'll really confound you with an instruction to read the 13th Amendment, and detail for us exactly how that applies to both the OANN brou-ha-ha, and to your "counter-example". (Put in quotes, because it's about as far off the mark as one can get while still using the English language, however poorly.)
I'll all but guarantee to the rest of the readership that you won't be able figure out how 13A applies, but trust me, it does.
Shkreli wasn't convicted of taking life saving medicine out of the reach of ordinary people and potentially killing people as a result. He was convicted of investor fraud.
What was that line about Al Capone again?
AC: You can't pin that on me, coppers!
US: Maybe we can't get you for murder and racketeering, but we'll put you away just the same. Let's see your tax returns.....
Moral of the story: Two stupids don't make a "Get out of jail free" card.
... that Tim Berners-Lee didn't copyright the Internet when he invented it, back in 1993. We wouldn't be in such deep kimchee now.
Either that, or popcorn futures would've bankrupted Wall Street by now, as we all bought up tons of the stuff while watching governments twist themselves into spectacular pretzel shapes as they try to justify how they need to ignore copyright on one hand (the Internet), but stand behind it for everything else.
Winner! ECA, this is a pretty big clue as to why your submission will be stuffed into the Circular File Bin. Facebook's official response will be something like:
"Taking money from an advertiser and then not displaying his ad would be dishonest, and we're all about honesty."
What Stephen is most likely referring to is what Google gives me when I say "NFT site:techdirt.com". First six items are recent articles, and not all of them on Q. Tarantino. (The rest of the search returns on the first page are images which, for reasons I don't understand, trigger the search engine to say that they are about NFT's.) But I agree, they aren't about your research in re NFT, they're about specific people or events centered on NFT's.
This one presents one possible vision of NFTs that I thought was interesting and worth discussing.
Discussion is almost never a bad thing. The problem for most readers here is that we've been exposed to so much scammy behavior, from all angles of the human sphere, that we can't help but spot a scam when it's presented to us. I do like to think that we are predominantly open-minded, and can change our personal mindsets when needful. But the longer we have to wait for those newly exposed facts to be presented, the more easily we 'fall into a groove' of belittling the scam.
Re: 'Destroy your reputation with this one simple trick!'
TOG, I'm surprised at you:
try to kill a law that protects the first amendment
At least I certainly wasn't aware that the Constitution, w/amendments, needed any protection at all, let alone that such be somehow provided by a law.... Especially knowing that all laws passed by any legislative body, or ordained by the courts, must conform to that very same Constitution.
Having a rough day, or did your fingers simply go spastic on you for a moment? Don't worry, we all get to that point as we get older (and presumably, a bit wiser). I know I'm in deep shit, finger-wise. Sometimes I just wanna quit posting here, 'cause my errors are so embarrassingly obvious.... Makes me lokk like I ca'nt psell four hsit, ya know.
I may have read TFS a bit too quickly. Today I reread it, and find that there is a clause that allows for inheritance. But what's missing is how an aggregate total of inherited shared might conflict with the magic allowed total of shares owned by one person. That needs to be addressed before we can go much further down the road.
And it seems that the TFS has been edited. My comments above stated that the maximum number of shares (of Green Bay common stock) that can owned per person was 300, yet the the number is now 200. Something fishy going on here...
"... new owner will not be recognized". I edited that from "... is not recognized", and blew it. Sorry.
Another example. Say my father and his broth4er each bought 300 shares of common stock. Uncle dies with no heirs, and I was his favorite nephew, hence I now own 300 shares. A year later, Dad dies, and bequeaths me his 300 shares, so I now own, at least in theory, 600 shares. You can bet your bottom dollar that if I'm not compensated appropriately for the 'taking' of 300 of those shares that aren't recognized, then there's gonna be some lawyer-upping going on.
tl;dr:
Rules can't be effective if the rule makers don't consider simple ramifications like those I've mentioned. But I do have to wonder if any owner of Packers common stock ever been in this situation, and have they had to go to court over it? After all, there have been at least 3 generations since 1923, and there must've been some inheritance. My Google-Fu is weak on this topic.....
The summary doesn't mention inheritance, or rules pertaining thereto. But I do surmise that if this were tested in court, then the only defense the Packers could mount would be "Your Honor, this was a gift to us from the deceased. We merely acknowledged receipt of that gift with a certificate stating such." Public knowledge of that train of thought is likely to not go over too well. Or so I predict. Then again, this is Green Bay we're talking about here....
The first big problem I see is that they are 'valuable assets', which means that they are subject to court decrees of settlement, subject to gambling debts, can be accepted as collateral for a loan, etc. And what happens when a particularly onerous person (or company/corporation) starts receiving these transferred assets from various people? (Defaulted loans being a prime example.) Is someone (presumably the NFT issuer, or the Packers themselves) going to stand up and tell a court that their rules forbid owning more than X hundred shares, so this transfer is null and void, and the new owner will not recognized? Especially if it was the court itself who determined that a valid debt was being discharged via the transfer?
Interesting times we're living in, ain't they though....
They'll do more than that. Here's the mindset: "Oh, so you want us to do more police work, like stop people on the street or in cars? OK, we can handle that. And while we're at it, we'll fill out those forms for you as well."
Then the po-po will simply make up alleged stops whereby "no law enforcement action was taken", but you can bet your last dollar that the race listed on the form for that made-up stop will be "White".
And voila, two problems solved with one stroke. Thus allowing the racists to continue their w̶o̶r̶k̶ harassment of the citizenry unlucky enough to be born non-white.
Even after 40 years, that man can still jerk my tears.
It's been said that Robert A. Heinlein wore imagination like it was a private suit of clothes. I like to think that he passed his whole wardrobe on to Spider Robinson, who has kept it looking like it was fresh off of the tailor's table.
1) The problems noted above about Notice and takedown can be solved, both here and in copyright law, by simply going back to what the founders wanted (and they stated so in no uncertain terms): "One is innocent until proven guilty". That concept has extended into civil law over the years, though the threshold for liability is noticeably lower. Laws like the one under discussion turn the burden of proof away from the accuser, and onto the accusee. That's just un-fucking-American. Which causes me to wonder: why do I smell the distinct odor of Republican grift in the room?
All of the above points can be solved much more easily, and less costly, if we just tell the Cartel (you know which one I'm talking about) that the law is going to be modified to read "Notice and investigate". If the investigate finds the accusee to be liable, then the damages phase begins. If it goes the other way, the penalties for a false accusation start getting toted up.
Of course, if the courts don't deny it, I foresee a cottage industry in arbitration-like investigators. But like arbitrators, they can be bought, so there's no real guarantee of fairness, each and every time. But it's better than what we have now, IMHO.
2) Can you imagine the court system becoming so overwhelmed by all the litigation that could've been prevented by simply adding a S230-style provision to the law? This alone will be worth watching closely. I suspect that the judiciary will be having a few closed-door sessions with certain members of Congress in the not-too-distant future. Something about bigger budget, more judges, more courtrooms, more support personnel, extended case time limits, you know the drill.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re: "find dirt"
Sorry, I find no "innocence" in willful ignorance of the reality around one's self. A person may be good in the traditional sense of the word, but if they simply parrot crap, then they have failed to exercise discretion, and that's exactly the same thing as planning to be an asshole.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY.
There's a pretty large difference between "finding the facts that have been hidden from the public", and "asking for any embarrassing sleaze on someone". Journalists don't publicly beg for input of the most damaging kind, they investigate and search for items of public interest. Yellow dog journalism is exactly what OAN is attempting here, and it never works out as intended.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Such action may, or may not, rise to a level of criminal intent, but it certainly sits at the civil level of defamation, or threat thereof. (And that threat gets into blackmail territory, which is unlawful.) I'm fairly certain that AT&T's lawyers won't hesitate for a second to bring in some outside counsel that is well experienced in defamation/slander law. Just to raise the cost of pursuing the case, said costs to be shifted to the defense when they lose.... big time. "Your Honor, we're business lawyers, we know nothing of civil law, so we had to bring in these other attorneys."
tl;dr:
"Oh, you didn't like us exercising our discretion to make sound fiduciary decisions, as required by both law and our stockholders? Well sparky, you're going to just love our legal bills, trust us."
On the post: The Internet Wins: Adblocking (And Other Extensions) Don't Violate Copyright Law In Germany
Re: Re: 3rd party vs 1st
In technical terms, this is known as "the internet routes around damage".
On the post: The Internet Wins: Adblocking (And Other Extensions) Don't Violate Copyright Law In Germany
Re: Re:
The court presumed an awful lot in that proceeding. They even said (and the translation was correct) that "she could've used either her husband's computer, or her son's computer...." where the article specifically stated that the complaint filed with the court made no mention of any such 3rd parties. I'll go on to presume that no evidence was entered into the record regarding those two persons, either.
All we really got that's probably true is that her name is on the account that has the "guilty" IP addy assigned to it. So one should wonder why she would have an internet account if she has no computer? There was probably a good, plausible reason for that, but obviously the court "didn't wanna hear it". They just went with "guilt by indirect association", and ticked another checkbox.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Thoughts on OANN
And here we have a Poster Boy example of our public education hard at work. Sigh.
David, when you have learned the difference between "discrimination" and "censorship", then please return here and elucidate that difference for us. Whereupon I'll really confound you with an instruction to read the 13th Amendment, and detail for us exactly how that applies to both the OANN brou-ha-ha, and to your "counter-example". (Put in quotes, because it's about as far off the mark as one can get while still using the English language, however poorly.)
I'll all but guarantee to the rest of the readership that you won't be able figure out how 13A applies, but trust me, it does.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
What was that line about Al Capone again?
AC: You can't pin that on me, coppers!
US: Maybe we can't get you for murder and racketeering, but we'll put you away just the same. Let's see your tax returns.....
Moral of the story: Two stupids don't make a "Get out of jail free" card.
On the post: Remembering The Fight Against SOPA 10 Years Later... And What It Means For Today
You know what's too fucking bad?
... that Tim Berners-Lee didn't copyright the Internet when he invented it, back in 1993. We wouldn't be in such deep kimchee now.
Either that, or popcorn futures would've bankrupted Wall Street by now, as we all bought up tons of the stuff while watching governments twist themselves into spectacular pretzel shapes as they try to justify how they need to ignore copyright on one hand (the Internet), but stand behind it for everything else.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Doing others job
Winner! ECA, this is a pretty big clue as to why your submission will be stuffed into the Circular File Bin. Facebook's official response will be something like:
"Taking money from an advertiser and then not displaying his ad would be dishonest, and we're all about honesty."
And they'd say that with a straight face!
On the post: The Future Of Sports Can Be Changed By NFTs, Virtual Reality, And DAOs
Re: Re:
What Stephen is most likely referring to is what Google gives me when I say "NFT site:techdirt.com". First six items are recent articles, and not all of them on Q. Tarantino. (The rest of the search returns on the first page are images which, for reasons I don't understand, trigger the search engine to say that they are about NFT's.) But I agree, they aren't about your research in re NFT, they're about specific people or events centered on NFT's.
Discussion is almost never a bad thing. The problem for most readers here is that we've been exposed to so much scammy behavior, from all angles of the human sphere, that we can't help but spot a scam when it's presented to us. I do like to think that we are predominantly open-minded, and can change our personal mindsets when needful. But the longer we have to wait for those newly exposed facts to be presented, the more easily we 'fall into a groove' of belittling the scam.
Or so I see it, anyway..........
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Re: 'Destroy your reputation with this one simple trick!'
TOG, I'm surprised at you:
At least I certainly wasn't aware that the Constitution, w/amendments, needed any protection at all, let alone that such be somehow provided by a law.... Especially knowing that all laws passed by any legislative body, or ordained by the courts, must conform to that very same Constitution.
Having a rough day, or did your fingers simply go spastic on you for a moment? Don't worry, we all get to that point as we get older (and presumably, a bit wiser). I know I'm in deep shit, finger-wise. Sometimes I just wanna quit posting here, 'cause my errors are so embarrassingly obvious.... Makes me lokk like I ca'nt psell four hsit, ya know.
On the post: The Future Of Sports Can Be Changed By NFTs, Virtual Reality, And DAOs
Re: Re: Can't own more than X number of shares?
I may have read TFS a bit too quickly. Today I reread it, and find that there is a clause that allows for inheritance. But what's missing is how an aggregate total of inherited shared might conflict with the magic allowed total of shares owned by one person. That needs to be addressed before we can go much further down the road.
And it seems that the TFS has been edited. My comments above stated that the maximum number of shares (of Green Bay common stock) that can owned per person was 300, yet the the number is now 200. Something fishy going on here...
On the post: The Future Of Sports Can Be Changed By NFTs, Virtual Reality, And DAOs
Re: Insightful article
I took TFS to say that there are 5M shares outstanding in total, not that E.P. personally owns that number of them.
Otherwise, nice piece of analysis.
On the post: New 'TLDR' Bill Requires Companies Provide Synopsis Of Overlong, Predatory Terms Of Service
Re: RepublicWireless would be a good model
Voted Insightful for the last sentence alone!
But I do wish that we also had a DemocracyWireless, just to watch the alt-right lose their collective shit.
On the post: The Future Of Sports Can Be Changed By NFTs, Virtual Reality, And DAOs
Re: Can't own more than X number of shares?
Dammit, even preview can't save me.
"... new owner will not be recognized". I edited that from "... is not recognized", and blew it. Sorry.
Another example. Say my father and his broth4er each bought 300 shares of common stock. Uncle dies with no heirs, and I was his favorite nephew, hence I now own 300 shares. A year later, Dad dies, and bequeaths me his 300 shares, so I now own, at least in theory, 600 shares. You can bet your bottom dollar that if I'm not compensated appropriately for the 'taking' of 300 of those shares that aren't recognized, then there's gonna be some lawyer-upping going on.
tl;dr:
Rules can't be effective if the rule makers don't consider simple ramifications like those I've mentioned. But I do have to wonder if any owner of Packers common stock ever been in this situation, and have they had to go to court over it? After all, there have been at least 3 generations since 1923, and there must've been some inheritance. My Google-Fu is weak on this topic.....
On the post: The Future Of Sports Can Be Changed By NFTs, Virtual Reality, And DAOs
Can't own more than X number of shares?
The first big problem I see is that they are 'valuable assets', which means that they are subject to court decrees of settlement, subject to gambling debts, can be accepted as collateral for a loan, etc. And what happens when a particularly onerous person (or company/corporation) starts receiving these transferred assets from various people? (Defaulted loans being a prime example.) Is someone (presumably the NFT issuer, or the Packers themselves) going to stand up and tell a court that their rules forbid owning more than X hundred shares, so this transfer is null and void, and the new owner will not recognized? Especially if it was the court itself who determined that a valid debt was being discharged via the transfer?
Interesting times we're living in, ain't they though....
On the post: NYPD Officers Are Again Whining About Being Asked To Document Their Biased Policework
Re: Nothing to see
They'll do more than that. Here's the mindset: "Oh, so you want us to do more police work, like stop people on the street or in cars? OK, we can handle that. And while we're at it, we'll fill out those forms for you as well."
Then the po-po will simply make up alleged stops whereby "no law enforcement action was taken", but you can bet your last dollar that the race listed on the form for that made-up stop will be "White".
And voila, two problems solved with one stroke. Thus allowing the racists to continue their w̶o̶r̶k̶ harassment of the citizenry unlucky enough to be born non-white.
On the post: How The Financialization Of Music Could Lead To Demands For Perpetual Copyright
Re:
Even after 40 years, that man can still jerk my tears.
It's been said that Robert A. Heinlein wore imagination like it was a private suit of clothes. I like to think that he passed his whole wardrobe on to Spider Robinson, who has kept it looking like it was fresh off of the tailor's table.
On the post: Twitter Asks Court To Reconsider Order To Unmask Anonymous Critic Of A Billionaire Over Questionable Copyright Claims
Re: Re: CR and the creater.
Har har har, he said "punishment for dishonesty" and Prenda/Leibowitz in the same sentence. Ahahahahah...
On the post: How To Destroy Innovation And Competition: Putting SHOP SAFE Act Into Innovation And Competition Act
Two points:
1) The problems noted above about Notice and takedown can be solved, both here and in copyright law, by simply going back to what the founders wanted (and they stated so in no uncertain terms): "One is innocent until proven guilty". That concept has extended into civil law over the years, though the threshold for liability is noticeably lower. Laws like the one under discussion turn the burden of proof away from the accuser, and onto the accusee. That's just un-fucking-American. Which causes me to wonder: why do I smell the distinct odor of Republican grift in the room?
All of the above points can be solved much more easily, and less costly, if we just tell the Cartel (you know which one I'm talking about) that the law is going to be modified to read "Notice and investigate". If the investigate finds the accusee to be liable, then the damages phase begins. If it goes the other way, the penalties for a false accusation start getting toted up.
Of course, if the courts don't deny it, I foresee a cottage industry in arbitration-like investigators. But like arbitrators, they can be bought, so there's no real guarantee of fairness, each and every time. But it's better than what we have now, IMHO.
2) Can you imagine the court system becoming so overwhelmed by all the litigation that could've been prevented by simply adding a S230-style provision to the law? This alone will be worth watching closely. I suspect that the judiciary will be having a few closed-door sessions with certain members of Congress in the not-too-distant future. Something about bigger budget, more judges, more courtrooms, more support personnel, extended case time limits, you know the drill.
Next >>