I once responded to a long rambling letter from a solicitor hinting at all sorts of dire consequences
Yeah, that can happen. Back in the day when I was a computer guy, I got a letter from one of those guys objecting to some of my material criticizing his client. The response was to provide him with further material which his client may have missed.
media who receives those works should not be subject to raids and intimidation
This is indeed the law, at least as to the content of the works. Bartniki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). There, the defendants published a copy of an illegally recorded phone call. The question of original stolen information was not present; had it been an original letter stolen rather than illegal recording of an over-the-air car phone call, the result could be different.
See also NY Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971), famously known as the ``Pentagon Papers'' case.
King has, among other things, a trademark registration for their CANDY CRUSH logo that covers [ ... ]
They may indeed have registered the trademark, but are they actually selling bread, ices, sugar-coated almonds, &c., under that name? I had understood them to be offering computer games.
If they are not using the mark in such commerce, then their opposition is not well taken.
little doubt that the only thing that will get him to straighten up is if he is booted from the position
Federal judgships are lifetime appointments. Impeachment and removal happens, if I recall, every few years. OK, maybe decades. It takes a lot to get even a trial-level judge removed.
Some states are reaching that way. In Florida, for instance, appeals judges are safe until age 75. Occasionally trial judges lose an election, but it is rare.
China is willfully violating an international treaty it made with the United Kingdom about the return of Hong Kong
Nobody took that treaty seriously or expected Red China to abide by it. It was provided as a face saving method for the brits on their way out, because it was just too embarrassing to say ``Well, our 99 years is up, does the landlord want to renew the lease?''.
HOAs are often required of developers by the local governments.
Many new developments require rezoning, and these are typically done as PUDs. The governments want to avoid certain costs that would otherwise be associated with the development, such as roads, parks, stormwater, and street lighting. Developers are generally loathe to pay for things themselves.
At the same time as no one wants to pay for infrastructure, developers also want to make the sales price appear lower. That means that they need to conceal the costs which the government, in approving the PUD, would otherwise require to be bundled in.
Voila! As a part of the PUD process, the government requires creation of mandatory HOAs, and the developer puts the burden of paying for and maintaining things onto the buyers through the HOA.
Sometimes, to make the HOA appear less onerous, the developer will structure things so that they appear to cover some of the costs of the HOA for a limited time. However, once the developer finishes getting his money, or becomes defunct, the owners through the HOA are generally stuck.
None of this is meant to suggest that HOAs are not generally an evil to be avoided. It is just that if you want to avoid HOAs, in some areas you would either have to buy an older existing home or buy raw land and build.
It depends. The covenants may provide, and the statutes almost certainly do provide, for fees. So if the association sues, and loses, it may well be on the hook for the owner's fees.
Worse for them, if they threaten and the owner preemptively brings a dec action, they may well still wind up having to pay. Think of it as a ``big mouth'' tax.
We hope their state statute has a provision that the individual owner is not on the hook for his pro-rata share of fees, which are instead to be apportioned amongst the other owners who presumably tolerate the association's activity.
please keep out people who don't even have kids since, well, they have no standing.
People without kids are still affected by the education system. If it fails to teach the kids to read, everyone suffers diminished productivity in society and increased risk of rule by stupid people.
Sure, I'd be pleased not to pay taxes to the school board. I'd be even more pleased if I thought they were competent, or at least able to find their butts with both hands and a cheat sheet.
So I can't see why -anyone- would put money into a SPAC up front,
The idea is the same as getting in early on IPOs. However, with a SPAC, you presume that the folks running it will do some diligence before choosing the company with which to merge. You buy a SPAC and do not have to do much work researching up-coming IPOs because the management does the work for you. With a SPAC, you get in at the initial $10 price.
Here, the initial SPAC investors got a good bump in the price when the reverse merger occured. In this case, I think the $10 share price went up into the $40s, so anyone buying the pig-in-a-poke has a good profit opportunity.
Sure, there may be people who buy now or who hang on, expecting profits from the operations. I am not sure what the basis for their optimism might be, but there could be some sort of business plan that involves making money other than by stock manipulation.
The decision in Schenck v. U.S, 249 U.S. 47, was so bad that its author spent a considerable part of the rest of his career trying to walk it back. Not always successfully, either: Consider Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616.
The needs of a business do not outweigh the public's need for communication
You may be getting bad information. The needs of a business such as facebook, tweeter, gab, or trump.social most assuredly outweigh the public's need for communication.
The public has ample alternative paths for communication. Even without being able to phone or stand on the corner with a sign, people can communicate without any specific service you could identify.
If we do not weigh the business needs of these sites heavily enough to allow them to tailor their content to their audiences, they will not survive and will thus be unable to facilitate such communication as they currently facilitate.
It follows that your assertion of public necessity fails.
third parties who get to decide whether your audience even has the opportunity to listen
You may be confused. The problem is not third parties deciding on opportunities, but rather, authorities hoping to compel third parties to host your speech.
I am disinclined to have certain politicians' signs in my yard, even as I have others there. I would resist mandated fairness requirements that I have the unwanted signs. Indeed, I have no intention of being fair, and it is my yard.
I see no meaningful distinction when my yard is electronic.
I am not entirely sure that Linkedin has a good plan for Red China anyway. The costs of complying with governent censorship requirements have, as was inevitable, become onerous.
However, assume that they can find a path to operate there with a ``limited'' site. How do Linedin get real money, and how do they get it back to the main office in the States? The natives have, if anything, whatever is used in place of money over there.
Ultimately, the Linkedin stockholders are going to want actual US dollars. They would certainly prefer that their profits not be subject to nationalization by foreign powers, too.
Re: The real bad guys aren't going to go through security with t
I get that searches for drugs or weapons are needed
I get that you have not been paying attention.
Drug searches are more about money and suppression of the lower classes; the injury from drug laws generally exceeds the injury from the drugs. The initial reason for drug laws was to provide employment for those who would otherwise have been jobless following the end of prohibition, and later drug laws were part of Nixon's ``southern strategy'', allowing the GOP to draw the KKK voters who might otherwise have voted for Wallace.
Searches for weapons are not so much necessary as bootless. Someone needing a weapon on the plane can get it there without problem, according to the TSA search test statistics.
FBI crime stats that show a 17 percent clearance rate for property crimes
What is amazing is that no one is stealing these cameras. If they are indeed showing up in ``bad'' areas, you would think the locals would be particularly likely to take them. And, at 17% clearance, the odds of figuring out who snuck up on the back side of the camera ought to be disheartening.
On the post: MLB Removes References To Current Players On MLB.com Due To Lockout
Re: TIL - MLB
It has been in the papers, too.
On the post: Hey North Face! Our Story About You Flipping Out Over 'Hey Fuck Face' Is Not Trademark Infringement
Re: And in conclusion......
Yeah, that can happen. Back in the day when I was a computer guy, I got a letter from one of those guys objecting to some of my material criticizing his client. The response was to provide him with further material which his client may have missed.
On the post: Biden Administration Intervenes In Donald Trump's Silly Lawsuit Against Twitter To Defend Section 230
Re:
Perhaps he promises to pay them. There are some attys out there who are pretty desperate, if I may judge by the advertising promotions I see.
A Trump case may look promising to a sufficiently desperate atty.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
This is indeed the law, at least as to the content of the works. Bartniki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). There, the defendants published a copy of an illegally recorded phone call. The question of original stolen information was not present; had it been an original letter stolen rather than illegal recording of an over-the-air car phone call, the result could be different.
See also NY Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971), famously known as the ``Pentagon Papers'' case.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Awards Immunity To Cop Who Thought It Would Be A Good Idea To Jump On A Moving Car And Kill The Driver
Yeah, but this is Texas.
On the post: King.com Opposes 'Candy Crunch' Trademark Application... From Actual Fruit Varietal Maker
Re: Re: Re:
They may indeed have registered the trademark, but are they actually selling bread, ices, sugar-coated almonds, &c., under that name? I had understood them to be offering computer games.
If they are not using the mark in such commerce, then their opposition is not well taken.
On the post: Senators Tillis And Leahy Raise The Alarm About Judge Albright's Patent Forum Selling In Waco
Re: Either bring the hammer down or don't bother
Federal judgships are lifetime appointments. Impeachment and removal happens, if I recall, every few years. OK, maybe decades. It takes a lot to get even a trial-level judge removed.
Some states are reaching that way. In Florida, for instance, appeals judges are safe until age 75. Occasionally trial judges lose an election, but it is rare.
On the post: Hong Kong Government Now Directly Censoring Films In Hopes Of Shutting Down Protest-Related Documentaries
Re: Re: Whooosh....
Nobody took that treaty seriously or expected Red China to abide by it. It was provided as a face saving method for the brits on their way out, because it was just too embarrassing to say ``Well, our 99 years is up, does the landlord want to renew the lease?''.
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Re: Re:
HOAs are often required of developers by the local governments.
Many new developments require rezoning, and these are typically done as PUDs. The governments want to avoid certain costs that would otherwise be associated with the development, such as roads, parks, stormwater, and street lighting. Developers are generally loathe to pay for things themselves.
At the same time as no one wants to pay for infrastructure, developers also want to make the sales price appear lower. That means that they need to conceal the costs which the government, in approving the PUD, would otherwise require to be bundled in.
Voila! As a part of the PUD process, the government requires creation of mandatory HOAs, and the developer puts the burden of paying for and maintaining things onto the buyers through the HOA.
Sometimes, to make the HOA appear less onerous, the developer will structure things so that they appear to cover some of the costs of the HOA for a limited time. However, once the developer finishes getting his money, or becomes defunct, the owners through the HOA are generally stuck.
None of this is meant to suggest that HOAs are not generally an evil to be avoided. It is just that if you want to avoid HOAs, in some areas you would either have to buy an older existing home or buy raw land and build.
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Re: Ah if only...
It depends. The covenants may provide, and the statutes almost certainly do provide, for fees. So if the association sues, and loses, it may well be on the hook for the owner's fees.
Worse for them, if they threaten and the owner preemptively brings a dec action, they may well still wind up having to pay. Think of it as a ``big mouth'' tax.
We hope their state statute has a provision that the individual owner is not on the hook for his pro-rata share of fees, which are instead to be apportioned amongst the other owners who presumably tolerate the association's activity.
On the post: Forget 'The Kids These Days'; It's The Adults And Their Moral Panics To Worry About
Re:
People without kids are still affected by the education system. If it fails to teach the kids to read, everyone suffers diminished productivity in society and increased risk of rule by stupid people.
Sure, I'd be pleased not to pay taxes to the school board. I'd be even more pleased if I thought they were competent, or at least able to find their butts with both hands and a cheat sheet.
On the post: Because Of Course: Trump's SPAC Deal May Have Broken The Law
Re: of -course- it's a scam...
The idea is the same as getting in early on IPOs. However, with a SPAC, you presume that the folks running it will do some diligence before choosing the company with which to merge. You buy a SPAC and do not have to do much work researching up-coming IPOs because the management does the work for you. With a SPAC, you get in at the initial $10 price.
Here, the initial SPAC investors got a good bump in the price when the reverse merger occured. In this case, I think the $10 share price went up into the $40s, so anyone buying the pig-in-a-poke has a good profit opportunity.
Sure, there may be people who buy now or who hang on, expecting profits from the operations. I am not sure what the basis for their optimism might be, but there could be some sort of business plan that involves making money other than by stock manipulation.
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Re: _Schenck_
The decision in Schenck v. U.S, 249 U.S. 47, was so bad that its author spent a considerable part of the rest of his career trying to walk it back. Not always successfully, either: Consider Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616.
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may be getting bad information. The needs of a business such as facebook, tweeter, gab, or trump.social most assuredly outweigh the public's need for communication.
The public has ample alternative paths for communication. Even without being able to phone or stand on the corner with a sign, people can communicate without any specific service you could identify.
It follows that your assertion of public necessity fails.
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Re: Re: Re:
You may be confused. The problem is not third parties deciding on opportunities, but rather, authorities hoping to compel third parties to host your speech.
I am disinclined to have certain politicians' signs in my yard, even as I have others there. I would resist mandated fairness requirements that I have the unwanted signs. Indeed, I have no intention of being fair, and it is my yard.
I see no meaningful distinction when my yard is electronic.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Linkedin Blocks Access To Journalist Profiles In China (2021)
Good Luck Making Money in Red China
I am not entirely sure that Linkedin has a good plan for Red China anyway. The costs of complying with governent censorship requirements have, as was inevitable, become onerous.
However, assume that they can find a path to operate there with a ``limited'' site. How do Linedin get real money, and how do they get it back to the main office in the States? The natives have, if anything, whatever is used in place of money over there.
Ultimately, the Linkedin stockholders are going to want actual US dollars. They would certainly prefer that their profits not be subject to nationalization by foreign powers, too.
On the post: If Courts Won't Protect People's Phones At The Border, Congress Needs To Act Now
Re: The real bad guys aren't going to go through security with t
I get that you have not been paying attention.
Drug searches are more about money and suppression of the lower classes; the injury from drug laws generally exceeds the injury from the drugs. The initial reason for drug laws was to provide employment for those who would otherwise have been jobless following the end of prohibition, and later drug laws were part of Nixon's ``southern strategy'', allowing the GOP to draw the KKK voters who might otherwise have voted for Wallace.
Searches for weapons are not so much necessary as bootless. Someone needing a weapon on the plane can get it there without problem, according to the TSA search test statistics.
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops
Really Amazing
What is amazing is that no one is stealing these cameras. If they are indeed showing up in ``bad'' areas, you would think the locals would be particularly likely to take them. And, at 17% clearance, the odds of figuring out who snuck up on the back side of the camera ought to be disheartening.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by trolls on intern
The U.S. Supreme Court says otherwise. Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989).
On the post: Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue
Re: [sunset laws]
The legislature just rubber-stamps the renew-all bill each year, so the required 7-year sunset on records exemptions in Florida is purely illusory.
Next >>