Let's see - more tax dolllars out of my pocket, or more drug dollars out of the pockets of Criminals. I vote for the Criminals to pay my tax
Except that with asset seizure there's no requirement that the people seized from be found guilty in a court of law. You're okay with the police acting as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to seizing assets from those they view to be criminals?
Tim Cushing (not Masnick) was talking about FBI and police getting data off of smart phones. You're talking about... what? HTTP traffic protected by encryption?
Same goes for your "industrial secrets", if you don't want it photographed, put a building around it.
I think he's trying to say that if our position was right, then using the same logic that if an industrial spy who snuck into a room and took a photo of an industrial secret, then industrial secret laws wouldn't apply to that photo an information gained from it. This ignores the fact that the objects in question are public domain (and hence copyright no longer applies), but industrial secret laws do apply to industrial secrets that are kept, well, secret.
Then again, perhaps he holds to an interpretation of common law copyright where copyrights are perpetual, and hence artwork never falls into the public domain.
Re: 1) Just because you're on or near my property and have a camera doesn't mean you've a right to image anything and everything I own. -- If so, industrial secrets are included, right?
Common law is so diffuse that it's difficult to state
So you can't cite which parts of common law back up your assertion, but we're just supposed to believe you, an anonymous figure, because... ?
Techdirt insults and derides sites that disable comments.
They insult and deride sites which disable comments and then make up stupid justifications for why they did so, like "we disabled comments because we value discussion". I don't recall them deriding sites which disabled comments and admitted they did so because they didn't want to spend the effort to properly moderate the comments section.
Techdirt fights against censorship and for free speech.
Techdirt rails against prior restraint.
That's when the government is doing it, or it's done using the government like with SLAPP suits and bogus DMCA notices.
For example, maybe the plaintiff is obsessed with his software, and his perceived rights, or his ego (feelings) is driving this whole thing. One could argue that the expense of the court, and the attorneys, and everyone else's time will not COME CLOSE to the actual damages this guy suffered. He gives away his stuff for free, for crying out loud. How much could it be worth? Is it even POSSIBLE that this is a deluded individual that is wasting everyone's time for no good reason?
Hmmm. So how would you feel about a law making it so that copyright holders of open source software can't sue over copyright violations?
This is just a guess, but I think that the view of the NSA/CIA/etc is that it's merely ordinary criminals that use exploits against civilians, while the government agencies use those exploits against terrorists and especially bad criminals, so the "greater good" is served by acting the way they do.
Imagine that during multiple sales meetings with high profile customers, those in attendance Googled the name of the presenting company, and at the top of the results was a TechDirt article falsely labeling them as a "patent troll".
I'd imagine that anyone who could be called a "high profile customer" would do more research, and wouldn't let a single article sway them that much. I'd also imagine that if they might become a customer what they'd care about would be if the alleged troll would sue customers, which isn't something that patent trolls are known for. The alleged troll would have to have such a bad reputation that no one would want to be associated with them, SCOG type bad reputation, and a TechDirt article isn't going to do that.
If they aren't patent trolls and they suffered damages, sure. Though I'm not sure how much economic damages any company would suffer from TechDirt calling them "patent troll".
Is it the truth that you are paid by multi-national corporations specifically to try to weaken or destroy rights given by the US Constitution to American Inventors?
I'm curious:
1) Which other organizations do you think are being funded by these multinational corporations?
2) Which multi-national corporations do you think are doing so?
I would just like to point out, without trying to be too personal or offensive, that anyone who uses the word "troll" sounds like a leftist activist idiot.
Do you mean that "patent troll" in specific is used by "leftist activists", or that "troll" in general is used by leftists?
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Sells Out His Creation: Officially Supports DRM In HTML
Re: "Any person having a gadget which can copy IS an enemy of those who produce content"
Wait, not "anyone who copies copyrighted works", but "anyone who has a device which could copy"?
On the post: Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed
"Lesbian separatists"?
What makes you think that lesbian separatists make up a significant fraction of the readers/commenters here?
On the post: South Carolina Sheriffs Less Interested In Enforcing Laws Than Taking Stuff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm upset about the seizure of money (and other things which aren't in-and-of-themselves illegal) without any guilty verdict.
On the post: South Carolina Sheriffs Less Interested In Enforcing Laws Than Taking Stuff
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that with asset seizure there's no requirement that the people seized from be found guilty in a court of law. You're okay with the police acting as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to seizing assets from those they view to be criminals?
On the post: There Is No 'Going Dark' Problem
Re:
Tim Cushing (not Masnick) was talking about FBI and police getting data off of smart phones. You're talking about... what? HTTP traffic protected by encryption?
On the post: Multiple German Courts Rule Photos Of Public Domain Works Are Not In The Public Domain
Re: Re:
I think he's trying to say that if our position was right, then using the same logic that if an industrial spy who snuck into a room and took a photo of an industrial secret, then industrial secret laws wouldn't apply to that photo an information gained from it. This ignores the fact that the objects in question are public domain (and hence copyright no longer applies), but industrial secret laws do apply to industrial secrets that are kept, well, secret.
Then again, perhaps he holds to an interpretation of common law copyright where copyrights are perpetual, and hence artwork never falls into the public domain.
On the post: Multiple German Courts Rule Photos Of Public Domain Works Are Not In The Public Domain
Re: 1) Just because you're on or near my property and have a camera doesn't mean you've a right to image anything and everything I own. -- If so, industrial secrets are included, right?
So you can't cite which parts of common law back up your assertion, but we're just supposed to believe you, an anonymous figure, because... ?
On the post: Judge: Sure, These Bloggers Are A Bunch Of Jerks, But They're Not Engaged In Defamation
Re:
For a moment I thought you wrote "Uncyclopedia" and was prepared to be endlessly entertained.
On the post: The Importance Of Defending Section 230 Even When It's Hard
Re: Re: False identities?
What gives you that impression?
On the post: The Importance Of Defending Section 230 Even When It's Hard
Hidden agenda?
To the extent that Techdirt has an agenda, it seems pretty obvious and out in the open to me.
On the post: The Importance Of Defending Section 230 Even When It's Hard
False identities?
Are you claiming that multiple handles are being run by a single person? If so, what leads you to believe that? If not, what do you mean?
On the post: The Importance Of Defending Section 230 Even When It's Hard
Re: Re: Re:
They insult and deride sites which disable comments and then make up stupid justifications for why they did so, like "we disabled comments because we value discussion". I don't recall them deriding sites which disabled comments and admitted they did so because they didn't want to spend the effort to properly moderate the comments section.
That's when the government is doing it, or it's done using the government like with SLAPP suits and bogus DMCA notices.
On the post: The Importance Of Defending Section 230 Even When It's Hard
Common law
So, how would common law apply to platforms like Twitter and Google blocking or not blocking certain messages and/or users?
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re: Re:
Hmmm. So how would you feel about a law making it so that copyright holders of open source software can't sue over copyright violations?
On the post: Microsoft Is PISSED OFF At The NSA Over WannaCry Attack
Re: Whose side are they on, anyway?
This is just a guess, but I think that the view of the NSA/CIA/etc is that it's merely ordinary criminals that use exploits against civilians, while the government agencies use those exploits against terrorists and especially bad criminals, so the "greater good" is served by acting the way they do.
On the post: Story About Ex-Sony Pictures Boss Magically Disappears From Gawker; His Lawyer Tells Reporters Not To Talk About It
Devil's advocate
To play devil's advocate, couldn't the publishing of hacked emails be considered a violation of privacy, which could be sued over?
On the post: Patent Trolling Lawyers May Have Picked With The Wrong Company To Shake Down: Cloudflare Hits Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd imagine that anyone who could be called a "high profile customer" would do more research, and wouldn't let a single article sway them that much. I'd also imagine that if they might become a customer what they'd care about would be if the alleged troll would sue customers, which isn't something that patent trolls are known for. The alleged troll would have to have such a bad reputation that no one would want to be associated with them, SCOG type bad reputation, and a TechDirt article isn't going to do that.
On the post: Patent Trolling Lawyers May Have Picked With The Wrong Company To Shake Down: Cloudflare Hits Back
Re: Re: Re:
If they aren't patent trolls and they suffered damages, sure. Though I'm not sure how much economic damages any company would suffer from TechDirt calling them "patent troll".
On the post: Patent Trolling Lawyers May Have Picked With The Wrong Company To Shake Down: Cloudflare Hits Back
Re: Re: Re:
I'm curious:
1) Which other organizations do you think are being funded by these multinational corporations?
2) Which multi-national corporations do you think are doing so?
On the post: Patent Trolling Lawyers May Have Picked With The Wrong Company To Shake Down: Cloudflare Hits Back
Re:
Do you mean that "patent troll" in specific is used by "leftist activists", or that "troll" in general is used by leftists?
Next >>