It's almost impossible to prove a 512(f) claim normally, but the company is practically bragging about filing not just one false claim here, but dozens.
If ever there was a 512(f) case that was open and shut, this would be it!
The problem though, is that most people can't afford their own content silo, so they have to rely on someone else to host it. Even if they have their own silo, they're usually reliant on DNS services. Even with their own DNS, they are subject to the laws of the nation their server is in (and often even to laws of nations it's not in, such as the US, EU and Canada).
Even the best intentions often down't survive the real world. Witness what happened to PINAC -- the founder got locked out of his own site by partners. All it takes is one argument and a fit of ego, and suddenly one person steals the content of dozens.
We could even help it along, by reporting it ourselves. I'm sure someone who reads this site lives in the EU, but if the reach of their laws truly is global that might not actually be required.
This. CDA 230 provides a safe harbor for them, but only if they are not the publisher. If the traffic through their network is their speech, then they are the publisher and they can be sued accordingly.
I'm posting this via Comcast -- if my content flowing through Comcast's network is Comcast's speech, then my saying something like "For a good time call Jenny at 867-5309" would make Comcast liable for sex trafficking.
Many university rules and bylaws are written with the understanding that students and faculty are both members of the university, and so are equally bound by internal regulations.
This is one of the ways state-operated universities can ban students from possessing guns on campus even though no other government agency can enact such a ban -- students are considered by the courts to be a form of employee of the school, and employers can have rules like that for employee conduct.
But if the students are merely associated with the school rather than a part of it, that sort of argument falls apart.
Yeah, but how would the manufacturer of the device decrypt the data when they don't have a key to it, never had a key to it and never will have a key to it?
At worst the manufacturer might be able to give the government the encrypted files, but they'd already have that from seizing the device itself.
How do you object to content without knowledge of it?
To trigger a FOSTA violation, a site must do two things.
It must facilitate FOSTA's definition of sex trafficking -- which is achieved simply by someone being physically capable of posting a prohibited comment or ad.
It must have knowledge that the comment/ad exists.
If it has both, then CDA 230 does not apply to the site. So, given than 230 allows sites to moderate second and third party content without being liable for it as the publisher, then 230 not applying means all that liability 230 was enacted to prevent comes rushing back.
So how do you moderate a forum to remove prohibited content without demonstrating knowledge that the content is there?
Re: So the BPD are "ganging" up on the public now?
I wonder how often an officer booking an arrested suspect is photographed 'in the company' of gang members by the security cameras? I wonder how many cops are fans of NBA teams or wear Nikes?
Google has never had a business model that is reliant on copyright infringement. Google is a searchable index that allows people to find the content they want.
For example, if I want to find news about something that interests me, Google tells me which news sites have posted a story about it, and then I can go to that media company's website to read the article.
If you think that that is copyright infringement, then I hope your house doesn't have windows, because looking out them would cause your eyes to copy the appearances of all the cars and houses and signs out there.
Well, you'd start by pointing out (truthfully) that he is a political activist billionaire, whose interventions into politics and law are no different in form from those by the Koch brothers.
What's the penalty for refusing to comply with a subpoena or warrant? Why is refusing to comply with another law that compels presentation of information any different in penalty?
Refusing more than two legitimate requests for bullshit reasons should make the relevant government agency the target of an organized crime investigation.
A freedom of information law is a statutory right.
But the agency that is in charge of investigating and prosecuting violations of those laws is the FBI, who are perpetually understaffed. And they feel they need to justify what budget they get, so they devote their limited resources to the flashy crimes, not the ones that are actually harming people.
The result is that the FBI will spend tens of thousands of man-hours on putting mentally retarded people in prison for terror plots that would never have existed without the FBI driving them forward, and then has no man-hours to devote to enforcing other laws. And since no other agency has authority in this particular area of the law...
On the post: Game Developer Admits It Filed Bogus Copyright Claims, But Says It Had No Other Way To Silence A Critic
DMCA 512(f)
If ever there was a 512(f) case that was open and shut, this would be it!
On the post: As A Final Fuck You To Free Speech On Tumblr, Verizon Blocked Archivists
Re:
Unfortunately, reality is more often the other way around.
On the post: As A Final Fuck You To Free Speech On Tumblr, Verizon Blocked Archivists
Re: Re: The problem...
Even the best intentions often down't survive the real world. Witness what happened to PINAC -- the founder got locked out of his own site by partners. All it takes is one argument and a fit of ego, and suddenly one person steals the content of dozens.
On the post: Politician Who Tried To Hijack Critic's Blog Via Trademark Applications Agrees To Never Pull This Bullshit Again
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights
On the post: Sony Released Its Playstation Classic Console In A Way That Makes It Eminently Hackable
Re: Translation
On the post: If You're Worried About Bad EU Internet Regulation, Just Wait Until You See The New Terrorist Regulation
Re: Re:
On the post: Big Telecom Claims Oversight & Accountability Violates Its First Amendment Rights
Re: Re:
I'm posting this via Comcast -- if my content flowing through Comcast's network is Comcast's speech, then my saying something like "For a good time call Jenny at 867-5309" would make Comcast liable for sex trafficking.
On the post: Iowa State Tells Students To Piss Off And Continues Its New Trademark Policy Despite Their Concerns
School rules and associates
This is one of the ways state-operated universities can ban students from possessing guns on campus even though no other government agency can enact such a ban -- students are considered by the courts to be a form of employee of the school, and employers can have rules like that for employee conduct.
But if the students are merely associated with the school rather than a part of it, that sort of argument falls apart.
On the post: Australian Government Passes Law Forcing Tech Companies To Break Encryption
Re: Re: Re: Re:
At worst the manufacturer might be able to give the government the encrypted files, but they'd already have that from seizing the device itself.
On the post: Australian Government Passes Law Forcing Tech Companies To Break Encryption
Re:
On the post: After Getting FOSTA Turned Into Law, Facebook Tells Its Users To Stop Using Naughty Words
How do you object to content without knowledge of it?
It must facilitate FOSTA's definition of sex trafficking -- which is achieved simply by someone being physically capable of posting a prohibited comment or ad.
It must have knowledge that the comment/ad exists.
If it has both, then CDA 230 does not apply to the site. So, given than 230 allows sites to moderate second and third party content without being liable for it as the publisher, then 230 not applying means all that liability 230 was enacted to prevent comes rushing back.
So how do you moderate a forum to remove prohibited content without demonstrating knowledge that the content is there?
Oops.
On the post: Cubs, Nationals Launch Another Trademark Opposition Over A 'W' Logo
Re: Re: Wait, why?!
On the post: Cubs, Nationals Launch Another Trademark Opposition Over A 'W' Logo
Re: Re: The Nationals and Cubs could care less.
On the post: Verizon Dinged Again For Privacy Violations, This Time For Slinging Personalized Ads To Kids
Re: Re:
On the post: Lawsuit: Boston PD's 'Gang Database' Says People Who Wear Nikes And Have Been Beat Up By Gang Members Are 'Gang Associates'
Re: So the BPD are "ganging" up on the public now?
Oh, but wait -- they're cops so they're special.
On the post: Latest On EU Copyright Directive: No One's Happy With Article 13, So Maybe Let's Drop It?
Re: Re:
For example, if I want to find news about something that interests me, Google tells me which news sites have posted a story about it, and then I can go to that media company's website to read the article.
If you think that that is copyright infringement, then I hope your house doesn't have windows, because looking out them would cause your eyes to copy the appearances of all the cars and houses and signs out there.
On the post: Facebook's Policy Team Steamrolled On FOSTA By Sheryl Sandberg's Personal Priorities
Re: Smearing Soros
On the post: Public Records Law Reforms Still Haven't Made Massachusetts Any Less Of A Hellhole For Records Requesters
Re:
What's the penalty for refusing to comply with a subpoena or warrant? Why is refusing to comply with another law that compels presentation of information any different in penalty?
Refusing more than two legitimate requests for bullshit reasons should make the relevant government agency the target of an organized crime investigation.
On the post: Public Records Law Reforms Still Haven't Made Massachusetts Any Less Of A Hellhole For Records Requesters
Re: States need to protect themselves
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy -against-rights
A freedom of information law is a statutory right.
But the agency that is in charge of investigating and prosecuting violations of those laws is the FBI, who are perpetually understaffed. And they feel they need to justify what budget they get, so they devote their limited resources to the flashy crimes, not the ones that are actually harming people.
The result is that the FBI will spend tens of thousands of man-hours on putting mentally retarded people in prison for terror plots that would never have existed without the FBI driving them forward, and then has no man-hours to devote to enforcing other laws. And since no other agency has authority in this particular area of the law...
On the post: Public Records Law Reforms Still Haven't Made Massachusetts Any Less Of A Hellhole For Records Requesters
It doesn't surprise me
Next >>