We all know that Lessig is scared of these threats. Lessig will take out a full page advertisement apologizing for the lobbyist reference and beg Brown not to bring any legal action against him.
I would say more, but I have to run out for popcorn.
I saw the historical documents about the prisoners of war in Stalag 13 who despite being prisoners, went out and committed acts of sabotage. If prisoners of war can go out and commit sabotage, why can't someone in prison commit crimes?
The source site location may not be in the EU. If the site is in the USA and the people running the site does not have business in the EU, they don't really have to deal with that directive.
In California (and probably many other jurisdictions) there is provisions in the law which allows a party to establish a negative inference when evidence is destroyed or concealed.
Also, the ACLU has produced a PoliceTape application which automatically uploads the video to the ACLU server.
A settlement agreement is a settlement agreement. Unless, there is fraud in the inducement of the agreement, then it is over.
Typically in a settlement agreement, there are recitations that both side believe they are correct, but they are settling to avoid additional costs, AND that they waive all claims, known and unknown against each other.
A way for the TSA to cut down on pat down complaints.
Contact Hooters, Playboy, Penthouse, Playgirl for the applications of men/women who did not quite make it. Give them the same training that the TSA agents currently have (an hour?). Let them do the pat downs.
Never mind, the complaints might increase because the pad downs where not thorough enough.
If you are not doing something illegal, then you should have nothing to hide from the police! Why not allow the recording without a warrant? What are you trying to hide from the police you criminal?
Oh, it was the police making arrest because of the recording. Ah, you must be a terrorist because you are taking pictures or making recordings without permission from the government. He should have been arrested, yeah.
I listened to the oral arguments in e360insight v. Spamhaus and his questions/comments did comport with the ruling. I had one friend who practices in the 1st circuit and does quite a bit of appeal work find that sometimes the winning party gets the harder questioning. So, you can't tell.
In reading the comments about Posner, I was thinking that Posner might have been a bit of tongue in cheek about the argument of if they are allowed to do it, then they might do it.
Day 3: Depose God.
Day 21: Court orders Vatican to produce God for deposition.
Day 30: Court dismisses case, as sanction for failing to produce God for deposition.
You can block IP addresses, but IP addresses can be changed.
You can even set up a robots.txt, but then when the robots.txt get ignored what do you do?
For e360 to sue is attorney, they would have to show that but for their attorney's action, that they would have won more money, and two given the circumstances, that their attorneys breached the duty of care owed.
If e360 sued, how many milliseconds would it take for Synergy to blame e360 for the bad responses?
There is no "negligence standard." Negligence is, 1. there is a duty, 2. there is a breach of that duty, 3. there is harm that resulted in the breach of that duty. This reaches the employee or contractor when acting within scope of the employment. Telling the employee, don't break traffic laws or don't get into an accident does not insulate from that liability.
CAN-SPAM liability, for an ISP, is either knew or consciously avoided knowing which is a very difficult standard. Defendants in my case claim to enforce their program. However, when asked to produce documents of such Emmanuel Gurtler and David Szpak said, "We don't keep such records." Not only that, they had programmed their web sites to rewrite the URL so that their spam victims cannot identify the affiliate who sent the spam (unless they watch http headers.)
There are two rules when dealing with spammers and their attorneys: 1. Spammers lie, 2. when a spammer says something see rule one. Or in other words, when do you believe a liar?
Ah, it was the anti-spammer trying to make them look bad defense
Or was it space aliens?
Valueclick did not deny that it was their affiliates that were responsible.
Most o the time, spammers blame others, anti-spammers, terminated affiliates, or competitor trying to make them look bad.
Years ago, the lawyer for Scott Bradley claimed it was an anti-spammer trying to make him look bad. He is in prison for another year for illegal spamming.
The Junk fax law did not cause the sun to explode.
The TCPA in regards to junk faxes is also a strict liability statute. See Park Univ. Enters., Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 1103 (D. Kan. 2004) (“The TCPA is essentially a strict liability statute” where liability can be found for erroneous unsolicited faxes).
The law is well known and has been around since the 90s that if you hire someone who sends junk faxes, you are liable. I can also spoof faxes, but I have not heard much of that.
On the post: Former Senator Scott Brown's Staff Sends Larry Lessig A Letter Demanding He Stop Referring To Brown As A 'Lobbyist'
Lessig is running scared.
I would say more, but I have to run out for popcorn.
On the post: The Miraculous Works Of The Criminal Justice System
I saw the historical documents
On the post: KlearGear Told To Pay $306,750 For Bogus Attempt To Shakedown Customer For Bad Review
Source site location.
Earlier this month, an EU citizen demanded that references to him be removed from this web site. That did not work too well, as you can read at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140617/06515127602/techdirt-receives-its-first-right-to-be-forgo tten-request.shtml
On the post: KlearGear Told To Pay $306,750 For Bogus Attempt To Shakedown Customer For Bad Review
Re: Re: Re: track them identify them
Contact me via my web site for more information.
On the post: Police Use HIPAA To Justify Charging Citizen For Recording Them
The police deleting the video may help
Also, the ACLU has produced a PoliceTape application which automatically uploads the video to the ACLU server.
On the post: Wikileaks Truck Owner Arrested For Photographing Police; Told It Was Because He Was 'A Dick'
What about computer crimes?
On the post: The Web Is Saved: East Texas Jury Says Eolas Patents Are Invalid
Re: Sue Them To Death!
A settlement agreement is a settlement agreement. Unless, there is fraud in the inducement of the agreement, then it is over.
Typically in a settlement agreement, there are recitations that both side believe they are correct, but they are settling to avoid additional costs, AND that they waive all claims, known and unknown against each other.
On the post: TSA Force Breast Cancer Patient To Submit To Patdown, Refuse To Let Her Show ID Card About Implants
A way for the TSA to cut down on pat down complaints.
Never mind, the complaints might increase because the pad downs where not thorough enough.
On the post: Guy Arrested, Threatened With 15 Years For Recording Traffic Stop In Illinois
Only those with something to hide.
Oh, it was the police making arrest because of the recording. Ah, you must be a terrorist because you are taking pictures or making recordings without permission from the government. He should have been arrested, yeah.
On the post: Righthaven Desperately Trying To Avoid Paying Legal Fees
No mention of a bond?
I
On the post: Rhode Island Teen Facing 'Domestic Violence' Charges For 'Inappropriate' Facebook Message Sent To A Girl He Met
Call the police
On the post: IL Court: Eavesdropping Law Violates First Amendment When Used Against People Recording The Police
The ruling and oral argument
I listened to the oral arguments in e360insight v. Spamhaus and his questions/comments did comport with the ruling. I had one friend who practices in the 1st circuit and does quite a bit of appeal work find that sometimes the winning party gets the harder questioning. So, you can't tell.
In reading the comments about Posner, I was thinking that Posner might have been a bit of tongue in cheek about the argument of if they are allowed to do it, then they might do it.
On the post: Portlandia: We Satirize Portland, But If You Satirize Us, We'll Go Legal On You [Updated]
Re: Ignorant as usual.
On the post: Accused Of Copyright Infringement For Reprinting Images Produced In 630 A.D.
Day 3
Day 21: Court orders Vatican to produce God for deposition.
Day 30: Court dismisses case, as sanction for failing to produce God for deposition.
On the post: Craigslist Continues To Be A Legal Bully When It Comes To Aggregators
Technical measures don't work.
You can even set up a robots.txt, but then when the robots.txt get ignored what do you do?
On the post: e360's $11 Million Win Against Spamhaus... Now Reduced To Just $3 (Not $3 Million, But Just $3)
For e360 to sue its attorney
If e360 sued, how many milliseconds would it take for Synergy to blame e360 for the bad responses?
On the post: California Appeals Court Says Company Can Be Held Liable For Spam It Didn't Write Or Know About
Re: Re: Extreme Hyperbole
CAN-SPAM liability, for an ISP, is either knew or consciously avoided knowing which is a very difficult standard. Defendants in my case claim to enforce their program. However, when asked to produce documents of such Emmanuel Gurtler and David Szpak said, "We don't keep such records." Not only that, they had programmed their web sites to rewrite the URL so that their spam victims cannot identify the affiliate who sent the spam (unless they watch http headers.)
There are two rules when dealing with spammers and their attorneys: 1. Spammers lie, 2. when a spammer says something see rule one. Or in other words, when do you believe a liar?
On the post: California Appeals Court Says Company Can Be Held Liable For Spam It Didn't Write Or Know About
Re: Re: The Junk fax law did not cause the sun to explode.
There is a simple solution, track down a few, haul them into court for $1,500 each.
On the post: California Appeals Court Says Company Can Be Held Liable For Spam It Didn't Write Or Know About
Ah, it was the anti-spammer trying to make them look bad defense
Valueclick did not deny that it was their affiliates that were responsible.
Most o the time, spammers blame others, anti-spammers, terminated affiliates, or competitor trying to make them look bad.
Years ago, the lawyer for Scott Bradley claimed it was an anti-spammer trying to make him look bad. He is in prison for another year for illegal spamming.
On the post: California Appeals Court Says Company Can Be Held Liable For Spam It Didn't Write Or Know About
The Junk fax law did not cause the sun to explode.
The law is well known and has been around since the 90s that if you hire someone who sends junk faxes, you are liable. I can also spoof faxes, but I have not heard much of that.
Next >>