This is very tangential, but I'm curious as to what you think of the legality of the enforcement of the GPL. (That is, I'm not asking about your opinion of the motivations/goals of those who use or support the GPL)
If this actually happens, what new vistas of legal jackassery will be opened up to the Olympic Committee's legal department? Make a deal with the publishers of the involved games which the Committee would interpret as giving them the legal authority to prevent any non-Olympic tournaments involving those games? Cut streaming deals with Twitch and YouTube which would require them to prohibit anyone else from streaming or posting videos of those games?
First, a low number of seizure challenges should not be viewed as a general indicator of the "rightfulness" of the majority of seizures. Challenging forfeitures is expensive and time-consuming. In many cases, the amount of money needed to challenge a forfeiture outweighs the value of the property seized. This is why a large majority of seizures nationwide weigh in at less than $1,000.
Maybe Terwilliger would (or thinks he would) fight for his property, no matter how small, because of the principle of the thing. If it took him $1,000 for him to get back $100 worth of property he'd do it, because it's his property and he's not going to let anyone take it away from him! If he thinks that way, he might very well view not spending $1,000 to get back $100 as an implicit admission that the $100 worth of property was in some way illegal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Tell my wife I love her very much -- she knows -- Ground Control to Major Tom, Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong -- Can you hear me, Major Tom?
I'd also be happy with a common law can be citation. I just want some specifics.
Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
To be more precise: I see nothing in the constitution that would make "public space" apply to something like Techdirt. Case law might have something that makes it apply, but you have yet to present evidence of any such case law.
Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
Statute? Ah, I don't need no stinking statute!
Do you know what the US Constitution is?
I searched through the Constitution and amendments and couldn't find anything about public forums. So far as I'm aware, the idea of public forums as the apply to the Constitution arise from case law. Could you cite any case law which says that Techdirt is legally counts as a forum?
Also, you said earlier that when the U.S. was founded that the founders intended it for it to not be a democracy, even indirectly. But when the U.S. was founded there was presumably a higher voting rate and less gerrymandering, meaning they would have to have set things up so that even with high voting rates and in the absence of gerrymandering the voting public still wouldn't have any indirect influence on the government. Meaning that, if you're correct, that low voting rates and gerrymandering are irrelevant.
Or did the founders intend for there to be low voting rates and gerrymandering?
All our U.S. elected officials take office with only a minority vote from the electorate. politicians don't have to please the majority.
The "Electorate" is the total body of citizens eligible to vote. But in typical U.S. elections a third to half the electorate does not vote.
Alright, fine, I'll be more precise in my phrasing. Politicians have to please the set of likely voters in order to be re-elected, thus giving those likely voters an indirect control over the government.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not punish these Judges
I was asking about why republics in general are mutually exclusive with democracy, not why North Korea in specific or dictatorships in general are mutually exclusive with democracy.
We neither directly or indirectly control what laws are established or how they are created.
1) If the elected official want to be re-elected, they have to please their electorate. That's a form of indirect control (except for when the official can't be re-elected due to term limits).
2) In the choice between two different candidates running for the same office, the different candidates will act differently if they get into office. The electorate choosing one over the other is a form of indirect control.
We vote the people in, they can do whatever they want after.
When a particular public office is up for election, if two opposing people run for that office, each one will act differently that the other in office if he wins. Since they'll act differently, which one wins makes a difference, meaning which one wins will have some influence on the government. And since which one wins depends upon citizens voting, their votes will indirectly influence the government.
We do NOT directly or indirectly exercise any form of power through our elected officials.
We vote the people in, they can do whatever they want after.
So for a government to count as a "representative democracy", the representatives have to be legally bound to do the will of the electorate? Which governments do legally bind elected representatives that way?
All we can do is not vote for them again.
That's a pretty strong incentive for them to do what their constituency wants (except when they're on the last term of a term limit), meaning that the electorate does have indirect control.
What sort of information could Agbareia use in his defense that would not only be classified, but could be redacted? A possible defense claim might be that on date XX/YY/2016, when he accused of scamming someone in Los Angeles, he was hundreds of miles away doing a sting on terrorist recruits. Could he just say
On XX/YY/2016, I was off somewhere else helping the FBI. I can't say exactly where or exactly what, but the FBI can back me up
On the post: Court Says CFAA Isn't Meant To Prevent Access To Public Data, Orders LinkedIn To Drop Anti-Scraper Efforts
Re: Re: Re: Why an Injunction?
I don't think robots.txt has any legal weight to it. Anyone wanting to do scraping could just ignore it.
On the post: Lawyer: Yahoo Lost Sec. 230 Immunity Because It Didn't Hand Over Personal Info; Court: GTFO
Re: Re: The GPL...
Well then, to be specific, you don't consider the use of the GPL to be copyright misuse, illegal price fixing, or in violation of any antitrust laws?
On the post: Lawyer: Yahoo Lost Sec. 230 Immunity Because It Didn't Hand Over Personal Info; Court: GTFO
The GPL...
This is very tangential, but I'm curious as to what you think of the legality of the enforcement of the GPL. (That is, I'm not asking about your opinion of the motivations/goals of those who use or support the GPL)
On the post: Lawyer: Yahoo Lost Sec. 230 Immunity Because It Didn't Hand Over Personal Info; Court: GTFO
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's an awfully odd hypothetical. Why would Google care about Shiva?
On the post: Paris Olympic Committee To Consider eSports For 2024
The Olympic Committee's legal department
If this actually happens, what new vistas of legal jackassery will be opened up to the Olympic Committee's legal department? Make a deal with the publishers of the involved games which the Committee would interpret as giving them the legal authority to prevent any non-Olympic tournaments involving those games? Cut streaming deals with Twitch and YouTube which would require them to prohibit anyone else from streaming or posting videos of those games?
On the post: Bob Murray To Court: The ACLU Is Too Biased To File Its 'Eat Shit, Bob' Brief
Maybe Murray reads the paperwork they file, and they have to include stuff like this in order to keep him happy.
On the post: Former DOJ Prosecutor Steps Up To Defend DOJ's New Asset Forfeiture Rules
The principle of the matter
Maybe Terwilliger would (or thinks he would) fight for his property, no matter how small, because of the principle of the thing. If it took him $1,000 for him to get back $100 worth of property he'd do it, because it's his property and he's not going to let anyone take it away from him! If he thinks that way, he might very well view not spending $1,000 to get back $100 as an implicit admission that the $100 worth of property was in some way illegal.
On the post: Court Rules Temporary Ban Of Facebook Commenter By Gov't Official Violates The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Tell my wife I love her very much -- she knows -- Ground Control to Major Tom, Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong -- Can you hear me, Major Tom?
I'd also be happy with a common law can be citation. I just want some specifics.
On the post: Court Rules Temporary Ban Of Facebook Commenter By Gov't Official Violates The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
To be more precise: I see nothing in the constitution that would make "public space" apply to something like Techdirt. Case law might have something that makes it apply, but you have yet to present evidence of any such case law.
On the post: Court Rules Temporary Ban Of Facebook Commenter By Gov't Official Violates The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
I searched through the Constitution and amendments and couldn't find anything about public forums. So far as I'm aware, the idea of public forums as the apply to the Constitution arise from case law. Could you cite any case law which says that Techdirt is legally counts as a forum?
On the post: First Playpen FBI Spyware Warrant Hits The Appeals Court Level; Is Upheld On 'Good Faith'
Re: Re: electorate
Also, you said earlier that when the U.S. was founded that the founders intended it for it to not be a democracy, even indirectly. But when the U.S. was founded there was presumably a higher voting rate and less gerrymandering, meaning they would have to have set things up so that even with high voting rates and in the absence of gerrymandering the voting public still wouldn't have any indirect influence on the government. Meaning that, if you're correct, that low voting rates and gerrymandering are irrelevant.
Or did the founders intend for there to be low voting rates and gerrymandering?
On the post: First Playpen FBI Spyware Warrant Hits The Appeals Court Level; Is Upheld On 'Good Faith'
Re: Re: electorate
Alright, fine, I'll be more precise in my phrasing. Politicians have to please the set of likely voters in order to be re-elected, thus giving those likely voters an indirect control over the government.
On the post: First Playpen FBI Spyware Warrant Hits The Appeals Court Level; Is Upheld On 'Good Faith'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not punish these Judges
I was asking about why republics in general are mutually exclusive with democracy, not why North Korea in specific or dictatorships in general are mutually exclusive with democracy.
On the post: First Playpen FBI Spyware Warrant Hits The Appeals Court Level; Is Upheld On 'Good Faith'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not punish these Judges
Exactly how are a republic and a democracy mutually exclusive? Or is it something so blindingly obvious you don't need to put it into words?
On the post: First Playpen FBI Spyware Warrant Hits The Appeals Court Level; Is Upheld On 'Good Faith'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not punish these Judges
"Republic" and "democracy" aren't mutually exclusive.
On the post: First Playpen FBI Spyware Warrant Hits The Appeals Court Level; Is Upheld On 'Good Faith'
Re: Re: Why not punish these Judges
1) If the elected official want to be re-elected, they have to please their electorate. That's a form of indirect control (except for when the official can't be re-elected due to term limits).
2) In the choice between two different candidates running for the same office, the different candidates will act differently if they get into office. The electorate choosing one over the other is a form of indirect control.
On the post: Judge Tosses Vexatious Litigant Brett Kimberlin's Lawsuit Against Conservative Blogger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: America
When a particular public office is up for election, if two opposing people run for that office, each one will act differently that the other in office if he wins. Since they'll act differently, which one wins makes a difference, meaning which one wins will have some influence on the government. And since which one wins depends upon citizens voting, their votes will indirectly influence the government.
On the post: Judge Tosses Vexatious Litigant Brett Kimberlin's Lawsuit Against Conservative Blogger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: America
So for a government to count as a "representative democracy", the representatives have to be legally bound to do the will of the electorate? Which governments do legally bind elected representatives that way?
That's a pretty strong incentive for them to do what their constituency wants (except when they're on the last term of a term limit), meaning that the electorate does have indirect control.
On the post: FBI Informant Helped Out In Terrorism Stings While Running A 'Stranded Traveler' Scam
What sort of information could Agbareia use in his defense that would not only be classified, but could be redacted? A possible defense claim might be that on date XX/YY/2016, when he accused of scamming someone in Los Angeles, he was hundreds of miles away doing a sting on terrorist recruits. Could he just say
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Sells Out His Creation: Officially Supports DRM In HTML
Research exemtpions
Also, I'm morbidly curious as to your thoughts on there being no exemption for security researchers which would ensure that they won't get sued.
Next >>