And any plaintiff who does this, when it's clear that the party they're targeting isn't the originator of the speech, is just after money and not a "clearing of their name." Why would I support laws that make it easier for them to carry out such behavior?
I've been referring to this as "Trolling for butthurt money as a business model," which is exactly what Jhon is advocating for here. I think he's testing the waters to see if it's worth doing. It's not. Even Prenda wouldn't be that dumb.
Nope. Actual harm or nothing doing. You failed to learn that from my documented, proven experience.
Distributor liability deals with the act of SPREADING libel, which is a separate harm from publishing it, a harm that had to be immunized by Section 230 (otherwise no need for the law). Courts in every country other than the US recognize this but "Stephen" knows better.
Nonsense! The "harm" that was "immunized" by Section 230 was from being sued for deleting content that the ISP didn't want there. Do stop lying, Jhon.
What ISPs do is enable distribution of defamation, which makes them liable as distributors in other countries, but who are currently immune under Section 230, just as they were for revenge porn that got spread.
We've had this conversation. Trolling for butthurt money from the people who appear to have it -- the only possible reason for not going after the actual perpetrators -- is not a viable business model. The defamation is done by the individual alone. You have the option to report breach of TOS to the ISP. Bear in mind -- as I told you before -- that defamation is treated differently in different countries and most of the time unless actual harm is done, there's no standing to sue. Do you just go blind when you see my name in the comments, or something? You've not learned a damn thing.
Now who caused more harm by posting revenge porn: the person who posted it, or the search engine that served it up to a woman's employer, landlord, family, and friends?
The person who posted it. Such people tend to contact the employer, etc., to make sure they see it.
This is why Mike never debates this issue anywhere else, though one could easily review his book on Amazon to properly school the public.
He's not obliged to engage with disingenuous attention-seekers like yourself.
So basically you're judging her on whether or not you fancy her. Years of faithful service and jurisprudence cast aside because you don't find her sexually attractive. Your misogynist slip is showing.
"When you immunize websites from defamation and copyright-infringement lawsuits, artists have to take matters into their own hands, by exercising their right to draw up individual contracts which serve the same purpose."
The artist who commits defamation and copyright infringement is responsible for defamation and copyright infringement and therefore the correct target for any legal action.
Serial numbers have to go into books, onto videos, etc. and NDAs will become standard.
Whatever. If they violate the First Amendment they have no legal force.
This is the patronage model that destroys mass distribution of entertainment, yet it doesn't hold any ISPs liable.
Nonsense! ISPs are only responsible for what they themselves do. Individuals are responsible for what they themselves do. Techdirt is not responsible for your ignorance, you are.
In fact, the ISPs can be used to get evidence against anyone who breaches the NDA.
NDAs that violate the Constitution have no force in law.
"...using "--ist" and "--phobic" insults toward someone, even if they're behaving badly, is wildly inappropriate.
If the hat fits, wear it. Neither "--ist" nor "--phobic" are racist or insulting per se, they're descriptive of bad behaviour. "Racist" is an epithet often used on Trump. Why? Racist policies and his past as a landlord excluding black people.
"Transphobic" is an epithet often used on Trump. Why? He wants to ban transgender personnel from the army when the army has no problem with them.
They are not bigoted, they're descriptive. Had Obama behaved like this, we'd have said the same things about him. Nobody's picking on Trump because he's white, disabled, or anything like that. We pick on him for his scandal-ridden administration (he may have set a new record for the most staff members indicted and/or jailed while working for a sitting president), bad decisions, conspiracy mongering, norm-ignoring, bad manners, abandonment of allies, and general stupidity and cruelty. You know he's bad if he makes Bush II look like a respectable elder statesman. Drop the torch, there are better people to support. Governor Weld seems like the kind of decent, gracious man you could get behind without cause or reason to defend him. If he was elected president, I doubt we'd have much to complain about.
"Caging kiddies is wrong" is not a difference of opinion or politics. It's flat out unacceptable, whoever does it. Yes, I mean when Obama did it. Wrong.
"Rape and sexual abuse, and contributing thereto or excusing sexually predatory behaviour is wrong" is not a difference of opinion or politics. It's flat out unacceptable, whoever does it. Yes, I mean when Clinton and Franken did it. Wrong.
"Abuse of position to get dirt on political rivals is wrong" is not a difference of opinion or politics. It's flat out unacceptable, whoever does it. Yes, I mean if any other party leader or activist it. Wrong.
"Robbing the poor box" as Trump did when he used his "charity" as a piggybank is not a difference of opinion or politics. It's flat out unacceptable, whoever does it. Yes, I mean when anyone else does it. Wrong.
Yeah.. let's talk about egregious, unnecessary cruelty and scandals. How does Trump fare in that area?
Bear in mind that Trump's abandonment of the Kurds and continuing involvement in the Middle East and Afghanistan, not to mention interference in South American politics is raising the body count.
Trump certainly does look better than those two, but "bad compared to the worst" isn't a metric I'd like to be using. He compares very badly with the best.
Okay, that's interesting. How well does it scale? When a storm brings the power cable down, people can be without electricity for days or even weeks, particularly if they're in rural areas. Doesn't micro-generation work better then?
Yeah, the EU federalization...i had a few beers with Falkvinge and Christian Engström, the then swedish EU MEP from the pirate party. The stories they told, at the table and on their blog, had me convinced that the EU was heading for a "let-them-eat-cake"-style revolution. The naked contempt the commission held against the people's elected was at a point where the shenanigans around ACTA, appalling as it was, just a logical continuation of status quo. Anyone still believing that is either uninformed or has a vested interest.
Yeah... they would have told you that Commissioners are appointed by Parliament, who can get rid of them if they so choose, per video conversation with Karel de Gucht when ACTA bit the dust. While you're right about some of the Commissioners, remember that, also per Rick Falkvinge, they and MEPs are constantly being hammered by lobbyists and We the People don't engage much unless we want something.
**Then read up on thorium-based molten salt reactors.
We should never had three mile island, chernobyl, or fukushima if we had gone for nuclear power from the perspective of NOT primarily using it for producing WMD's.**
I'd get behind Thorium.
50 damn years with hundreds and thousands of power plants springing up running supercritical uranium-based reactions when the proper solution from the get-go could have not only provided safe and cheap power, but also completely removed fossil fuels from the industrial power equation as far back as the 60's.
That is imfuriating.
**The proper choice back then would have seen us without a radioactive waste problem (which we have in spades today), without thousands of ticking bombs in the form of uranium reactors, or most of global warming. We'd have had plenty of time to cover north africa in solar power panels, the north sea in wind turbines, and actual, realistic options of power generation.
Instead of the current status where we now have to close one nuclear plant after another over safety reasons with the only realistic replacement being coal and gas burned in some CO2-factory plant in Poland.**
Renewables are increasing their % of power production, so it's not that bleak. However, they need to increase in number before they can fully overtake fossil fuels for power production. One of my pet concerns is for the increase in micro-generation. I really do believe it's the future. Stop "Go big or go home" and think about how much better it would be if each household were able to contribute to the power grid.
What, compared to Andrew Jackson? The man is boorish, sucks up to the Russians and invites them to intervene in American politics by investigating his political rivals, not his own staff who are busily stuffing their faces at the Ukraine trough.
Why is it that it's only "ageist, sexist, whatver-ist and knuckledragging" when a liberal/leftist politician is called derogatory names? Trump and other conservative pols are regularly called all manner of vile and bigoted names on this site by commenters and I don't remember you ever running in to chide them for it as you've done here.
It's reasonable to call out bad behaviour. Remember how I pointed out that Trump actually kept his promise to donate his salary? When he gets stuff right I do say so. And Trump does behave badly. It's not bigoted to call out bad behavior. If liberal/leftist politicians behave badly, we call them out for it. Remember "Spy-stein?" We don't let them get away with it. Now, since you want to discuss this, tell me what bad behavior Ruth Bader Ginsburg indulged in, and why you opted to denigrate her age and sexual attractiveness instead of having a go at the actual things she did.
Yes, I called Trump the Mango Mussolini but he does act like a dictator and he's fake all the way through. Can you say the same for a certain Supreme Court judge?
Given how it's been stacked towards the right lately, that seems likely to continue. Oh, for a SCOTUS fully and completely wedded to the Constitution! They'd have killed this crap off years ago. Is anyone likely to file suit for misrepresentation to get the legal ball rolling on this?
On the post: Want To See Pete Davidson Do Standup? There's An NDA You Have To Sign First...
Re: Re: Re:
And any plaintiff who does this, when it's clear that the party they're targeting isn't the originator of the speech, is just after money and not a "clearing of their name." Why would I support laws that make it easier for them to carry out such behavior?
I've been referring to this as "Trolling for butthurt money as a business model," which is exactly what Jhon is advocating for here. I think he's testing the waters to see if it's worth doing. It's not. Even Prenda wouldn't be that dumb.
On the post: Want To See Pete Davidson Do Standup? There's An NDA You Have To Sign First...
Re: Re:
For foreseeable harm they could be sued.
Nope. Actual harm or nothing doing. You failed to learn that from my documented, proven experience.
Distributor liability deals with the act of SPREADING libel, which is a separate harm from publishing it, a harm that had to be immunized by Section 230 (otherwise no need for the law). Courts in every country other than the US recognize this but "Stephen" knows better.
Nonsense! The "harm" that was "immunized" by Section 230 was from being sued for deleting content that the ISP didn't want there. Do stop lying, Jhon.
On the post: Want To See Pete Davidson Do Standup? There's An NDA You Have To Sign First...
Re: Re: Re:
These NDAs do not violate the constitution since it's essentially a private event.
They breach the First Amendment on the first attempt to enforce them.
On the post: Want To See Pete Davidson Do Standup? There's An NDA You Have To Sign First...
Re: Re: Re:
What ISPs do is enable distribution of defamation, which makes them liable as distributors in other countries, but who are currently immune under Section 230, just as they were for revenge porn that got spread.
We've had this conversation. Trolling for butthurt money from the people who appear to have it -- the only possible reason for not going after the actual perpetrators -- is not a viable business model. The defamation is done by the individual alone. You have the option to report breach of TOS to the ISP. Bear in mind -- as I told you before -- that defamation is treated differently in different countries and most of the time unless actual harm is done, there's no standing to sue. Do you just go blind when you see my name in the comments, or something? You've not learned a damn thing.
Now who caused more harm by posting revenge porn: the person who posted it, or the search engine that served it up to a woman's employer, landlord, family, and friends?
The person who posted it. Such people tend to contact the employer, etc., to make sure they see it.
This is why Mike never debates this issue anywhere else, though one could easily review his book on Amazon to properly school the public.
He's not obliged to engage with disingenuous attention-seekers like yourself.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm tubby. Okay, you get that one.
Old crone, however, is pretty much the same thing as what Silvio Berlusconi called Angela Merkel in 2011.
So basically you're judging her on whether or not you fancy her. Years of faithful service and jurisprudence cast aside because you don't find her sexually attractive. Your misogynist slip is showing.
On the post: Want To See Pete Davidson Do Standup? There's An NDA You Have To Sign First...
Re:
"When you immunize websites from defamation and copyright-infringement lawsuits, artists have to take matters into their own hands, by exercising their right to draw up individual contracts which serve the same purpose."
The artist who commits defamation and copyright infringement is responsible for defamation and copyright infringement and therefore the correct target for any legal action.
Serial numbers have to go into books, onto videos, etc. and NDAs will become standard.
Whatever. If they violate the First Amendment they have no legal force.
This is the patronage model that destroys mass distribution of entertainment, yet it doesn't hold any ISPs liable.
Nonsense! ISPs are only responsible for what they themselves do. Individuals are responsible for what they themselves do. Techdirt is not responsible for your ignorance, you are.
In fact, the ISPs can be used to get evidence against anyone who breaches the NDA.
NDAs that violate the Constitution have no force in law.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...using "--ist" and "--phobic" insults toward someone, even if they're behaving badly, is wildly inappropriate.
If the hat fits, wear it. Neither "--ist" nor "--phobic" are racist or insulting per se, they're descriptive of bad behaviour. "Racist" is an epithet often used on Trump. Why? Racist policies and his past as a landlord excluding black people.
"Transphobic" is an epithet often used on Trump. Why? He wants to ban transgender personnel from the army when the army has no problem with them.
They are not bigoted, they're descriptive. Had Obama behaved like this, we'd have said the same things about him. Nobody's picking on Trump because he's white, disabled, or anything like that. We pick on him for his scandal-ridden administration (he may have set a new record for the most staff members indicted and/or jailed while working for a sitting president), bad decisions, conspiracy mongering, norm-ignoring, bad manners, abandonment of allies, and general stupidity and cruelty. You know he's bad if he makes Bush II look like a respectable elder statesman. Drop the torch, there are better people to support. Governor Weld seems like the kind of decent, gracious man you could get behind without cause or reason to defend him. If he was elected president, I doubt we'd have much to complain about.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tiny babies? Stop it! Just stop. This is psychological torture as a deterrent.
On the post: Copyright Troll Threatens Criminal Charges In Germany Against Domain Registrar
Re: think outside your box
If they do, they're taught by Jaana Woiceshyn
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Caging kiddies is wrong" is not a difference of opinion or politics. It's flat out unacceptable, whoever does it. Yes, I mean when Obama did it. Wrong.
"Rape and sexual abuse, and contributing thereto or excusing sexually predatory behaviour is wrong" is not a difference of opinion or politics. It's flat out unacceptable, whoever does it. Yes, I mean when Clinton and Franken did it. Wrong.
"Abuse of position to get dirt on political rivals is wrong" is not a difference of opinion or politics. It's flat out unacceptable, whoever does it. Yes, I mean if any other party leader or activist it. Wrong.
"Robbing the poor box" as Trump did when he used his "charity" as a piggybank is not a difference of opinion or politics. It's flat out unacceptable, whoever does it. Yes, I mean when anyone else does it. Wrong.
Shall I continue? I've got all day.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah.. let's talk about egregious, unnecessary cruelty and scandals. How does Trump fare in that area?
Bear in mind that Trump's abandonment of the Kurds and continuing involvement in the Middle East and Afghanistan, not to mention interference in South American politics is raising the body count.
On the post: Germany's CDU, Angela Merkel's Party Of Fuddy-Duddies, Decides To Join The Cool Kids: Backs Open Standards, Open Source, Open Data, Open APIs -- Open Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pretty u
Do you think there's a place for micro-generation at all, then?
On the post: Prison Telecom Monopolies Bring Their 'Innovation' To Prison Ebooks
Re:
[Sad but True]
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trump certainly does look better than those two, but "bad compared to the worst" isn't a metric I'd like to be using. He compares very badly with the best.
On the post: Germany's CDU, Angela Merkel's Party Of Fuddy-Duddies, Decides To Join The Cool Kids: Backs Open Standards, Open Source, Open Data, Open APIs -- Open Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pretty usual lie
Okay, that's interesting. How well does it scale? When a storm brings the power cable down, people can be without electricity for days or even weeks, particularly if they're in rural areas. Doesn't micro-generation work better then?
On the post: Germany's CDU, Angela Merkel's Party Of Fuddy-Duddies, Decides To Join The Cool Kids: Backs Open Standards, Open Source, Open Data, Open APIs -- Open Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pretty usual lies
Yeah, the EU federalization...i had a few beers with Falkvinge and Christian Engström, the then swedish EU MEP from the pirate party. The stories they told, at the table and on their blog, had me convinced that the EU was heading for a "let-them-eat-cake"-style revolution. The naked contempt the commission held against the people's elected was at a point where the shenanigans around ACTA, appalling as it was, just a logical continuation of status quo. Anyone still believing that is either uninformed or has a vested interest.
Yeah... they would have told you that Commissioners are appointed by Parliament, who can get rid of them if they so choose, per video conversation with Karel de Gucht when ACTA bit the dust. While you're right about some of the Commissioners, remember that, also per Rick Falkvinge, they and MEPs are constantly being hammered by lobbyists and We the People don't engage much unless we want something.
**Then read up on thorium-based molten salt reactors.
We should never had three mile island, chernobyl, or fukushima if we had gone for nuclear power from the perspective of NOT primarily using it for producing WMD's.**
I'd get behind Thorium.
50 damn years with hundreds and thousands of power plants springing up running supercritical uranium-based reactions when the proper solution from the get-go could have not only provided safe and cheap power, but also completely removed fossil fuels from the industrial power equation as far back as the 60's.
That is imfuriating.
**The proper choice back then would have seen us without a radioactive waste problem (which we have in spades today), without thousands of ticking bombs in the form of uranium reactors, or most of global warming. We'd have had plenty of time to cover north africa in solar power panels, the north sea in wind turbines, and actual, realistic options of power generation.
Instead of the current status where we now have to close one nuclear plant after another over safety reasons with the only realistic replacement being coal and gas burned in some CO2-factory plant in Poland.**
Renewables are increasing their % of power production, so it's not that bleak. However, they need to increase in number before they can fully overtake fossil fuels for power production. One of my pet concerns is for the increase in micro-generation. I really do believe it's the future. Stop "Go big or go home" and think about how much better it would be if each household were able to contribute to the power grid.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What, compared to Andrew Jackson? The man is boorish, sucks up to the Russians and invites them to intervene in American politics by investigating his political rivals, not his own staff who are busily stuffing their faces at the Ukraine trough.
Domestically, he is awful.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is it that it's only "ageist, sexist, whatver-ist and knuckledragging" when a liberal/leftist politician is called derogatory names? Trump and other conservative pols are regularly called all manner of vile and bigoted names on this site by commenters and I don't remember you ever running in to chide them for it as you've done here.
It's reasonable to call out bad behaviour. Remember how I pointed out that Trump actually kept his promise to donate his salary? When he gets stuff right I do say so. And Trump does behave badly. It's not bigoted to call out bad behavior. If liberal/leftist politicians behave badly, we call them out for it. Remember "Spy-stein?" We don't let them get away with it. Now, since you want to discuss this, tell me what bad behavior Ruth Bader Ginsburg indulged in, and why you opted to denigrate her age and sexual attractiveness instead of having a go at the actual things she did.
Yes, I called Trump the Mango Mussolini but he does act like a dictator and he's fake all the way through. Can you say the same for a certain Supreme Court judge?
On the post: The End Of Ownership, Military Edition: Even The US Military Can't Fix Its Own Equipment Without Right To Repair Laws
Re: Re: Boondoggles R' US
Because if the military ever suffers actual cutback in materials purchase the US economy will tank.
Alas, it's the same story over here in the UK.
On the post: The End Of Ownership, Military Edition: Even The US Military Can't Fix Its Own Equipment Without Right To Repair Laws
Re: Re: Re:
Given how it's been stacked towards the right lately, that seems likely to continue. Oh, for a SCOTUS fully and completely wedded to the Constitution! They'd have killed this crap off years ago. Is anyone likely to file suit for misrepresentation to get the legal ball rolling on this?
Next >>