Thanks Obama! Surely this is the effect of some security standard imposed by Big Government in the previous administration. If only the FCC proceeded faster in removing regulations, as it did with net neutrality, I'm confident that telcos would fix such security issues much faster.
Also in the interest of free market, every insufficiently free telco will be seized by the government and transferred to a compliant new owner.
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: (30 in 1:17-cv-05832-AKH) Memorandum & Opinion. in favor of Getty Images (US), Inc. against Action Sports Photography, Inc., Tiyu (Beijing) Culture Media Co. Ltd., Zuma Press, Inc., Andrew Dieb, Anthony Barham, Charles Baus, Christopher Szagola, Duncan Williams, John Middlebrook, John Pyle, Louis Lopez, Manny Flores, Robert Backman. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order and Opinion dated July 1, 2019, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment is denied; Judgment is entered for Defendant, with costs to be taxed by the Clerk; accordingly, the case is closed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:16-cv-06110-AKH, 1:17-cv-05832-AKH(dt) (Main Document 269 replaced on 7/8/2019) (dt). (Entered: 07/03/2019)
There are a few others like that but I finally found a "serious" victory: a whopping 750 $ (without attorney's fees) in Otto v. Hearst Communications
GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: On December 10, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of Defendant’s liability. Dkt. No. 85. A bench trial on damages was held on July 15, 2019. The Court held a teleconference on July 19, 2019, during which it orally delivered its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Dkt. No. 130. For the reasons stated on the record during that conference, the Court will enter judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $750.00. On January 23, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees.
ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to show cause in writing, by May 9, 2019, why sanctions should not be imposed - pursuant to Rules 11 and 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Court's inherent authority - for filing a meritless lawsuit; for continuing to prosecute that lawsuit even after being presented with evidence of its lack of merit; for failure to comply with this Court's orders; and for failure to appear as directed at the conference earlier today. Defendant shall file any response, including any and all billing records and evidence of costs incurred as a result of this litigation, by May 16, 2019. SO ORDERED. Show Cause Response due by 5/16/2019. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/2/2019) (ne) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The complaint was filed in this action on December 2, 2018. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 6(a), service was to be made by March 4, 2019. More than two months after this deadline, the docket still does not reflect service on defendant. Consequently, on or before May 23, 2019, plaintiff shall either file proof of timely service on the docket or show cause for his failure to effect timely service of the summons and complaint. If plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this action, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff's counsel is directed to provide a copy of this order to his client and to defendant. Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 5/16/2019. (Siegel, Max)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE that on or before January 16, 2019, Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed based on the Plaintiff's failure to diligently pursue this suit and to comply with this Court's orders. Failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation to Senior United States District Court Judge Laurie Smith Camp that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson. (LAC) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
O RDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than June 19, 2019, Mr. Liebowitz shall show cause (a) why the $500 sanction imposed in 18-CV-9416 should not become immediately payable and (b) why, in addition to that $500 sanction, he should not be sanctioned pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), 28 U.S.C. ยง 1927, and/or the inherent powers of the Court for failing to comply with the Court's order of May 21, 2019, see Dkt. 9. Such showing shall be made by affidavit and a memorandum of law compliant with Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(2). Courtesy copies of any papers filed shall be sent to the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/7/2019) (ks) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
ORDER - Attorney Liebowitz is DISQUALIFIED as counsel for plaintiff in the instant Masi matter. This order shall be entered also in the Sands matter, but no further action is necessary in that matter now closed. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 1/14/2020. (Collins, S.) (Entered: 01/14/2020)
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), that Plaintiff Anthony Ayiomamitis shall show cause in writing, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant National Space Society for lack of timely service. Show Cause Response due by 8/10/2020.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 07/27/2020. (AAT) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
Co unsel for Defendant filed a notice of appearance on May 21, 2020. (Dkt. 6). Local Rule CV-16(c) requires the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order to the Court no later than 60 days after any appearance of any defendant. (See also 2d. Am. Emergency Order, Dkt. 11, at 1 (noting that emergency procedures supplement the Local Rules, to which parties are still subject)). On July 21, 2020, the Court ordered the parties to file their overdue proposed scheduling order by July 28, 2020. (Order, Dkt. 13, at 1). To date, the parties have not done so. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall each show cause, in writing, by August 5, 2020, as to why the Court should not impose sanctions against them or their counsel for failure to comply with the Court’s orders.
ORDER. By order dated January 30, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and directed Plaintiff to file his amended complaint no later than February 1, 2017. Dkt. No. 31. The Court observes that Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 3, 2017, two days late. Dkt. No. 32. Despite Plaintiffs untimely filing, the Court will accept Plaintiffs amended complaint, but sua sponte extends the deadline for Defendants to file their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint until February 7, 2017. Accordingly, the deadline for Defendants to file their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint is extended to February 7, 2017. Plaintiff is reminded to show cause by letter and supporting affidavit why the Court should not order Plaintiff to pay Defendants fees and costs incurred as a result of Plaintiffs untimely filing of his amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). Dkt. No. 31. Plaintiff is directed to respond to the Courts order to show cause no later than February 8, 2017. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Gregory H. Woods on February 3, 2017) (Text Only Order)(Woods, Gregory) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The plaintiff should submit an order to show cause for a default judgment by July 3, 2020 or the case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. SO ORDERED.
The Court ORDERS Richard Liebowitz to SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later than October 22, 2019 why he should not be sanctioned by the Court for continuing to appear in the Northern District of California after the Court ordered that he no longer is a member of the bar in the Northern District of California.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than October 3, 2018 why the undersigned should not issue a Report and Recommendation recommending that this matter be dismissed with prejudice for failure to post the bond required by my Order dated July 11, 2018 (Docket Item 18). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 9/27/2018) Copies Transmitted By Chambers. (ne) (Entered: 09/27/2018)
ORDER: An Opinion issued February 28, 2018 imposed a monetary sanction in the amount of $10,000 on Richard Liebowitz. On March 9, Mr. Liebowitz paid that amount to the Clerk of Court and moved for reconsideration. The Court granted reconsideration in part on March 14 in an Opinion that reduced the amount of monetary sanctions to $2,000 and imposed an educational sanction of four continuing legal education (CLE) credit hours in ethics and professionalism, to be completed by July 31, 2018. The Court ordered Mr. Liebowitz to file certificate(s) of attendance with the Court attesting to his participation by August 14, 2018. He has failed to do so. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that a show cause hearing will take place August 24 at 12:00 p.m. in Courtroom 18B, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007, at which Mr. Liebowitz shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to this Courts inherent powers, for failure to file the certificates of CLE attendance on or before August 14. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 8/15/2018) (gr) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
ORDE R: A pretrial conference was held on March 1, 2019. As set forth at the conference, counsel for plaintiff was ordered to post a bond with the Clerk of Court in the amount of $10,000 on or before March 4, 2019. The Clerk of Court has no record of the bond being posted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs counsel shall post a bond with the Clerk of Court in the amount of $10,000 by March 8, 2019 at 12:00 p.m. or show cause by March 8 at 5:00 p.m. why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., for failure to comply with court orders. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/7/2019) (gr) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
OR DER: Plaintiff filed this action on October 09, 2017 but has failed to serve defendant within 90 days of filing violation Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(m). For failure to prosecute, the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is given an additional thirty (30) days to show cause why the case should be reopened (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/22/2018) (js) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
ORDER: Plaintiffs commenced this action on November 20, 2017 by filing a complaint. More than 90 days have elapsed since the action was commenced, and Plaintiffs have failed to provide any proof that the complaint has been served. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice unless Plaintiffs, within two weeks of the date of this order - that is, on or before March 7, 2018 - either (1) file proof that the complaint was timely served on Defendant or (2) show cause in writing why an extension of the time limit for service is warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 2/21/2018) (ras) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
ORDER:On March 5, 2018, the Court granted defendants motion for a bond. Reynolds v. Hearst, 17cv56270 (DLC), 2018 WL 1229840 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2018) (March 5 Opinion). The March 5 opinion required the plaintiff to file a bond with the Clerk of Court in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) by Friday, March 16. On March 20, the action was stayed. On March 29, the Court denied plaintiffs March 12 motion for reconsideration of the March 5 Opinion. 17cv56270 (DLC), 2018 WL 1602867 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2018). To date, the plaintiff has not paid the bond. Local Civil Rule 54.2 provides: (See Order).....Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff show cause before this Court, at Courtroom 18B, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, on June 8, 2018 at 9:30 a.m., why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 5/24/2018) (gr) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Mr. Liebowitz shall be prepared to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be required to associate with an experienced Colorado federal practitioner as a condition of continuing to prosecute this case on 5/7/2020 11:00 AM in Courtroom C203 before Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter, by Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter on 5/05/2020. (slibi, ) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
ADVISORY NOTICE TO ATTORNEY AND COURT: Under D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3(a), RICHARD LIEBOWITZ was administratively removed from the court's attorney roll and barred from filing electronically under CM/ECF for failing to pay the 2018 Biennial Fee. Counsel must complete a Bar/ECF application through counsel's Attorney Services Portal account and pay the full application fee to be restored to the attorney roll and CM/ECF. Upon reinstatement, counsel must file a Notice of Entry of Appearance in this case. (Text Only Entry) (mfred) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
However, if it has one strength it is in buying up companies and integrating them into its cashflow generation machine.
Really? Recently I've only heard of billions spent for nothing.
Six acquisitions reportedly totaling at least $3 billion since 2014 helped make the database company a big name in the field of advertising software. [...] Investment bank Stifel Nicolaus & Co. estimates that Data Cloud delivered only about $500 million of Oracle’s $40 billion in sales last year.
Te ams that had worked on an older version of Oracle’s infrastructure cloud and employees who came to the company through cloud acquisitions were also affected by the effort to trim expenses and boost profit margin in the face of criticism about stagnant sales growth.
There are many ways to crosspost already. I use https://moa.party/ to crosspost between Mastodon and Twitter/Instagram accounts of some entities. If Gab is still using Mastodon, you can use such a crossposting software as well.
Twitter is rather open to crossposting, although it's less open since it shut down RSS. Facebook is more of a mess and Instagram is very aggressive in forcing people to use only their proprietary software to post there (no open APIs to publish), although you can get some stuff out.
IFTTT is or used to be a popular mainstream way to crosspost across various social media.
The argument actually makes sense, if only you remember that copyright is censorship. S.O. wants stronger censorship, assumes censorship will side with his preferred speech.
Originally copyright was a publishing privilege: the King didn't want any ideas to be printed unless He liked them, so He outsourced the job of censorship to a cartel of publishers (the Stationers' company). S.O. wants to go back to that. If the King has more money and power, the "good" people will get to distribute their ideas and the others not. S.O. sides with the King, "cancel culture" is whoever opposes the King. Of course nowadays the King is just the sum of the rich and powerful corporations which control the levers of copyright.
An example of this extreme permission culture is article 17 of the 2019 copyright directive. The basic original objective was to make sure that only works licensed by the copyright cartels can be distributed on the (mainstream) Internet; that was a bit watered down in the end, but this is what "upload filters" are. If everything is blocked unless pre-authorised by a central authority, the Internet can finally be turned into broadcast TV, only regulated more tightly and controlled by even less corporations. If you're rich and can spend years in court paying a fortune to lawyers, you can still distribute your ideas outside the preauthorised channels.
Re: Restrictions on government, not the corporations
Notice that the ruling eliminates restrictions on government debt collection. It's possible that corporate middlemen were pocketing most of that money, but I doubt that was the Court's worry.
If you're cynical you might think that this is a way to reduce taxation income (and therefore enlist the Treasury's support to eliminate TCPA at all), or to make it harder in the future for the government to send important communications to consumers and citizens.
From a democratic perspective, however, it is equally important that courts not use the First Amendment in a way that would threaten the workings of ordinary regulatory programs posing little threat to the free marketplace of ideas enacted as result of that public discourse. As a general matter, the strictest scrutiny should not apply indiscriminately to the very “political and social changes desired by the people”—that is, to those government programs which the “unfettered interchange of ideas” has sought to achieve. Meyer, 486 U. S., at 421 (internal quotation marks omitted). Otherwise, our democratic system would fail, not through the inability of the people to speak or to transmit their views to government, but because of an elected government’s inability to translate those views into action.
Or if you lack ideas on what could be next:
Consider, for example, the regulation of securities sales, drug labeling, food labeling, false advertising, workplace safety warnings, automobile airbag instructions, consumer electronic labels, tax forms, debt collection, and so on. All of those regulations necessarily involve content-based speech distinctions. What are the differences between regulatory programs themselves other than differences based on content? After all, the regulatory spheres in which the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Federal Trade Commission operate are defined by content. Put simply, treating all content-based distinctions on speech as presumptively unconstitutional is unworkable and would obstruct the ordinary workings of democratic governance. That conclusion is true here notwithstanding the plural-
But in a surprise ruling on Monday, Judge Katherine Failla refused to dismiss McGucken's lawsuit at a preliminary stage. She held that there wasn't enough evidence in the record to decide whether Instagram's terms of service provided a copyright license for embedded photos.
In a judgment issued yesterday, US District Judge Katherine B Forrest held that "when defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield them from this result."
T he ruling is also interesting in relation to the practice of certain websites (including newspapers) that directly host third-party video content in respect of which they neither own the rights nor do they have a licence, in lieu of displaying such videos by means of embedded links. While the latter might be lawful (depending on whether the requirements set in Svensson and GS Media are fulfilled), the former might pave the way to a finding of liability. This may be something that we knew already, but that now the CJEU has confirmed.
iii. It is not open to the claimant to contend that there has been an infringement by communication to the public that is in breach of section 169(1)(d). The doctrine laid down by the ECJ in Case-466/12, Svensson, EU:C:2014:76, [24]-[28] and Case 160/15, GS Media BV, EU:C:2016:644, in [41][44] that where photographs have been made freely available with the consent of the right holder, the copyright owner cannot later complain that third parties have linked to or embedded those works from their own websites.
Sci-Hub works (at least in the short term) because it bypasses the collective action dilemmas. If "all authors" could be brought to do something, we'd have solved open access decades ago.
On the post: Secret Service Latest To Use Data Brokers To Dodge Warrant Requirements For Cell Site Location Data
Re: What about the MONEY?
Ah yes, good old article 1(9)(7)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clauses_4%E2%80 %937:_Apportionment_of_direct_taxes
I've not checked, does it still exist?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19a60.html
On the post: VoLTE Flaw Lets A Hacker Spy On Encrypted Communications For A Measly $7,000
Deregulation
Thanks Obama! Surely this is the effect of some security standard imposed by Big Government in the previous administration. If only the FCC proceeded faster in removing regulations, as it did with net neutrality, I'm confident that telcos would fix such security issues much faster.
Also in the interest of free market, every insufficiently free telco will be seized by the government and transferred to a compliant new owner.
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Reveals His Retainer Agreement: He Gets Most Of The Money
Getty victory being appealed
I had missed this was appealed a few months ago:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4524132/zuma-press-inc-v-getty-images-us-inc/?page =2
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Reveals His Retainer Agreement: He Gets Most Of The Money
Re: Re: Liebowitz victories
There are a few others like that but I finally found a "serious" victory: a whopping 750 $ (without attorney's fees) in Otto v. Hearst Communications
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6078947/otto-v-hearst-communications-inc/
Is that even enough to cover filing fees?
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Reveals His Retainer Agreement: He Gets Most Of The Money
Re: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
So much winning!
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14674449/rice-v-nbcuniversal-media-llc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8346845/harbus-v-franco-belli-plumbing-and-heating-and-so ns-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7718016/sadowski-v-the-huse-publishing-company/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14881649/walsh-v-nylon-media-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16030414/sands-v-epicstream-llc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17084901/ayiomamitis-v-national-space-society/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17130428/mustard-v-infowars-llc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4524466/martinka-v-time-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17154508/trinkhaus-v-afar-media-llc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16249344/masi-v-the-young-turks-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6915266/leibowitz-v-galore-media-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6173320/steeger-v-jms-cleaning-services-llc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8183592/mango-v-democracy-now-productions-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6167051/mango-v-urbanlinx-media-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6625753/masi-v-turtleback-books-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6147607/reynolds-v-hearst-communications-inc/
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Reveals His Retainer Agreement: He Gets Most Of The Money
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Another one freshly on RECAP:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15658455/mondragon-v-nosrak-llc/
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Reveals His Retainer Agreement: He Gets Most Of The Money
Going after the Denver Green Party
The copyright litigation we need:
Apparently it's about:
https://denvergreenparty.org/2018/10/21/denver-green-party-recommendations-for-the-2018-munic ipal-ballot-questions/
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Reveals His Retainer Agreement: He Gets Most Of The Money
Re: Liebowitz victories
Let's see... I find one "victory", a default judgment for ~30 k$ in Bee Creek Photography v. Proact World LLC. The target seems a zombie, if not formally bankrupt for a few years already.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17466444/bee-creek-photography-v-proact-world-llc/
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Reveals His Retainer Agreement: He Gets Most Of The Money
Liebowitz failing to pay the 2018 Biennial Fee
Also funny (I just uploaded it to RECAP):
ADVISORY NOTICE TO ATTORNEY AND COURT: Under D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3(a), RICHARD LIEBOWITZ was administratively removed from the court's attorney roll and barred from filing electronically under CM/ECF for failing to pay the 2018 Biennial Fee. Counsel must complete a Bar/ECF application through counsel's Attorney Services Portal account and pay the full application fee to be restored to the attorney roll and CM/ECF. Upon reinstatement, counsel must file a Notice of Entry of Appearance in this case. (Text Only Entry) (mfred) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14573517/adlife-marketing-communications-company-in c-v-albertsons-companies/
On the post: If Oracle Buys TikTok, Would It Suddenly Change Its Tune On Section 230?
Re: Lawsuits
Hmm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation
On the post: If Oracle Buys TikTok, Would It Suddenly Change Its Tune On Section 230?
One strength
Really? Recently I've only heard of billions spent for nothing.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-06/oracle-didn-t-see-the-data-reckoning-coming
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/oracle-is-no-longer-dreaming-of-cloud-do minance
On the post: Why Are There Currently No Ads On Techdirt? Apparently Google Thinks We're Dangerous
Re: Re: Maybe you could just cut that middleman
Sadly true of nearly every advertiser out there, but there are exceptions.
I'm not sure they qualify as "sites like ours", but some of the advertisers mentioned by https://blog.readthedocs.com/ethical-advertising-works/ might be relevant
They were (in 2018): Twilio; Sentry; Rollbar; Stream; Intel; Data Dog; Mongo; Hosted Graphite; Level 12; Pyup; Triplebyte; Linode; Digital Impact Alliance; Digital Ocean; Exoscale; Nginx; Odoo; CircleCI; Cherry Servers; Uniregistry; OSCON.
At least some of these don't seem to be covered by Techdirt at all, in case that's a factor.
On the post: After 100 Years As A Bullying Gatekeeper, AT&T Pivots To Whining Unironically About Bullying Gatekeepers
Re: Re: what goes around....
You'd probably have better luck just mailing a check to the producers (as such a payment method still exists in USA).
On the post: Trumpian Loudmouths Apparently Losing Interest In Parler With No One To Play Victim To
Re: Crossposting and Twitter
There are many ways to crosspost already. I use https://moa.party/ to crosspost between Mastodon and Twitter/Instagram accounts of some entities. If Gab is still using Mastodon, you can use such a crossposting software as well.
Twitter is rather open to crossposting, although it's less open since it shut down RSS. Facebook is more of a mess and Instagram is very aggressive in forcing people to use only their proprietary software to post there (no open APIs to publish), although you can get some stuff out.
IFTTT is or used to be a popular mainstream way to crosspost across various social media.
On the post: How Absolutely Desperate Must You Be To Try To Claim That The Answer To 'Cancel Culture' Is Stronger Copyright?
Copyright is censorship
The argument actually makes sense, if only you remember that copyright is censorship. S.O. wants stronger censorship, assumes censorship will side with his preferred speech.
Originally copyright was a publishing privilege: the King didn't want any ideas to be printed unless He liked them, so He outsourced the job of censorship to a cartel of publishers (the Stationers' company). S.O. wants to go back to that. If the King has more money and power, the "good" people will get to distribute their ideas and the others not. S.O. sides with the King, "cancel culture" is whoever opposes the King. Of course nowadays the King is just the sum of the rich and powerful corporations which control the levers of copyright.
An example of this extreme permission culture is article 17 of the 2019 copyright directive. The basic original objective was to make sure that only works licensed by the copyright cartels can be distributed on the (mainstream) Internet; that was a bit watered down in the end, but this is what "upload filters" are. If everything is blocked unless pre-authorised by a central authority, the Internet can finally be turned into broadcast TV, only regulated more tightly and controlled by even less corporations. If you're rich and can spend years in court paying a fortune to lawyers, you can still distribute your ideas outside the preauthorised channels.
On the post: Supreme Court Makes Debt Collection Robocalling Illegal (Again)
Re: Re: Re: Restrictions on government, not the corporations
Yes sorry, that should have been reintroduces restrictions. (Hence Breyer's dissent.)
On the post: Supreme Court Makes Debt Collection Robocalling Illegal (Again)
Re: Restrictions on government, not the corporations
Notice that the ruling eliminates restrictions on government debt collection. It's possible that corporate middlemen were pocketing most of that money, but I doubt that was the Court's worry.
If you're cynical you might think that this is a way to reduce taxation income (and therefore enlist the Treasury's support to eliminate TCPA at all), or to make it harder in the future for the government to send important communications to consumers and citizens.
Or as Breyer wrote:
Or if you lack ideas on what could be next:
On the post: News Company's 'Digital Audience Director' Fails To Understand Embedding, Issues Bogus DMCA Takedown Notices
Embedding is legally precarious
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/instagram-just-threw-users-of-its-embedding-api -under-the-bus/
https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/02/can-you-fix-it-tension-between-right-to.html
https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2018/08/cjeu-rules-that-unauthorized-re-posting.html
But also:
https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/02/google-does-not-communicate-to-public.html
An older discussion:
https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2013/08/does-embedding-require-permission.html
The situation is not clear at all...
On the post: Sci-Hub Downloads Boost Article Citations -- And Help Academic Publishers
Re: Submitting your own article
The author can just use https://dissem.in/ or directly an open access repository like Zenodo or arxiv and bypass publishers entirely.
https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/How_to_make_your_own_work_open_access
Sci-Hub works (at least in the short term) because it bypasses the collective action dilemmas. If "all authors" could be brought to do something, we'd have solved open access decades ago.
On the post: Research Libraries Tell Publishers To Drop Their Awful Lawsuit Against The Internet Archive
Re: Grabbing a library before they burn Alexandria
Sounds like it's time for a change on your machine!
https://www.getgnulinux.org/en/switch_to_linux/from_windows_to_linux
Indexing can be quite taxing on a 9 years old hard drive. Some distributions have more flexible search indexing options than others.
Next >>