Just to be clear, these are laws written by the legislature itself, rather than laws written by a private standards body and then incorporated by reference?
The de rigeur defamation charge is there, but where do "trademark infringement" and "business disparagement" fit it?
Some people have this weird idea that if you use the word "Acme" in the course of criticizing Acme Corporation, then that use of "Acme" is a trademark violation.
The whole argument about how Navasca spoliated evidence using CCleaner was a complete joke. Noting that Prenda "has offered no real support for this claim."
They did a horrible-to-non-existent job of presenting their position, but I think that their position is that if the defendant has software which is capable of spoliation then spoliation is to be assumed, full stop, regardless of any other circumstances or context, and it's then up to the defendant to prove that spoliation didn't happen.
I'm just guessing here, but I think that anonymous's point is that there isn't any law which makes it illegal to rig a college election, and instead the student jail time for computer fraud, identify theft, and so on. But at worst that's just being misleading, and the result of unskillfully summarizing, rather than intentionally trying to deceive.
Did it not occur to you that if not for how you continue to cheat and steal from content creators, John Steele would not have to create offshore companies and forge signatures
And then, OMG, each time the civil rights defenders were proven correct, and Sensenbrenner was SHOCKED and said NO ONE could have EVER foreseen those abuses of the Patriot act. No one except the people who were against it from the beginning apparently.
To play devil's advocate, perhaps he means that the people who were arguing against it from the beginning are "stopped clocks", and just because they happen to be right twice a day doesn't mean they actually foresaw anything. Or, to put it another way, they were right for the wrong reasons, and therefore their reasoning can be ignored.
Re: Re: ZZzzz... Huh? Oh. Mike working on his page rank again,
This isnt a real estate blog, fuckwad. It deals with legal and copyright issues in the tech sphere. He isnt going to follow every form of malfeasance that is present in every story.
If one where to assume that he isn't a troll, his point is either:
1) One shouldn't be focusing on "legal and copyright issues in the tech sphere" when there's so many other issues that are so much more important. (In other words, a variation on "Why are you focusing on X when there's so many starving children in Y")
2) One should follow every form of malfeasance that is present in every story.
Go start your own blog if you feel so passionately about it.
1) IANAL, but my impression is that political speech gets more protection than non-political speech. The cop's statements were political, while the teenager's statements weren't.
2) Perhaps the Obama administration exerted pressure to stop prosecution, because it didn't want to be perceived as thin-skinned.
Re: Re: Because Google vacuums up data, we must all give up privacy?
If people stopped paying attention to him he'd give up. Or, at the very least, he would change to a different identity with a different axe to grind, which would at least be a change of pace.
Venture Cap Monthly listed a number of prominent writers as "authors," including the Financial Times columnist Christopher Caldwell, Fast Company journalist Danielle Sacks, and Slate critic-at-large Stephen Metcalf.
Surely that's illegal? I mean, it must at least violate the right of publicity laws.
On the post: Georgia Claims Its Annotated Laws Are Covered By Copyright, Threatens Carl Malamud For Publishing The Law
On the post: AIDS Denialist Files Defamation Suit In Hopes Of Silencing HIV-Positive Critic
On the post: More Sanctions Issued Against Team Prenda
On the post: Head Start: College Kid Gets Prison For Rigging Student President Election
How is it a "blatant lie"?
On the post: Team Prenda Keeps Trying To Convince Judges That The Lawyers Who Exposed Them Are The Real Scammers
Re: Re: Censorship
On the post: Team Prenda Keeps Trying To Convince Judges That The Lawyers Who Exposed Them Are The Real Scammers
Re: Censorship
Bravo, sir/madam. Bravo.
On the post: Team Prenda Keeps Trying To Convince Judges That The Lawyers Who Exposed Them Are The Real Scammers
Re: Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
On the post: Author Of The Patriot Act: Congress Will Not Renew If Intelligence Agencies Don't Change Their Ways
Re: Sensenbrenner has zero credibility
On the post: Two Key Cases Involving Gatekeepers Using Copyright To Try To Kill Disruptive Startups Come To Very Different Conclusions
Re: Re: ZZzzz... Huh? Oh. Mike working on his page rank again,
1) One shouldn't be focusing on "legal and copyright issues in the tech sphere" when there's so many other issues that are so much more important. (In other words, a variation on "Why are you focusing on X when there's so many starving children in Y")
2) One should follow every form of malfeasance that is present in every story.But there'd be no one to troll if he did that.
On the post: Two Key Cases Involving Gatekeepers Using Copyright To Try To Kill Disruptive Startups Come To Very Different Conclusions
Re: Re: ZZzzz... Huh? Oh. Mike working on his page rank again,
On the post: EFF Files Massive Lawsuit Over NSA Surveillance: Gun Rights, Civil Liberties Groups, Religious Groups Team Up
Re: Just a little hint...
On the post: FISC Says It Will Declassify Ruling That Forced Yahoo Into PRISM
Re:
On the post: Either The Solicitor General Lied To The Supreme Court, Or Senator Feinstein Lied To The Public About Warrantless Wiretapping
C'mon, trolls!
Entertain me!
*cracks whip*
On the post: Prediction: Eventual Appeal In Key Prenda Case Will Be One Worth Reading
Re:
On the post: Gambia Passes Law That Gives Internet Activists 15 Year Jail Terms
Stop feeding the troll
On the post: Teen's Joke 'Threat' Lands Him In Solitary; While Cop Saying He Wants To 'Kill' The First Lady Walks Free
1) IANAL, but my impression is that political speech gets more protection than non-political speech. The cop's statements were political, while the teenager's statements weren't.
2) Perhaps the Obama administration exerted pressure to stop prosecution, because it didn't want to be perceived as thin-skinned.
On the post: Because Some People Share A Lot Of Info On Facebook, We Should Admit We've Given Up All Privacy Rights?
Re: Re: Because Google vacuums up data, we must all give up privacy?
On the post: Pandora's Fed Up With The Lies The RIAA Has Been Spreading About It: Presents Some Facts
Re: Re: So how much does Pandora pay per million plays?
"Mike is always wrong". That's his angle.
On the post: FBI Paid Off Wikileaks Insider To Be An Informant: Imagine If It Was The NY Times
Re: Re: No, imagine if it's Assange hisself!
On the post: Dear Famous People: Stop Attempting Online Reputation Scrubbing; I Don't Want To Write Streisand Stories Anymore!
Next >>