No, Lackman called the police, and the copyright gang just followed them in, and told the police to leave. And apparently, the police just take orders from them.
Yep i will just go lay my own fiber network to every peering point in the world. Why had i not thought of this before? And surely no one would attempt to stop me...
I don't see how it matters by what method any government official uses something other than the email servers and transport provided by the relevant government entity. They are all trying to avoid public records requests. Every last one of them.
Sure, Clinton and about every pol ever since email was a thing should go to prison for this or something else office-related. Plenty should be held accountable for non-office-related deeds as well.
Yeah, innovative. Offer HBO or whatever free for x amount of time. Then when that time is up, tell people they have to pay for it (even when they never watched it at all), because the cableco _has eliminated the lower tier you would drop back to without HBO or whatever._ Totes innovative. No, that's not the word i was thinking of. Ah! Invasive. That's the one.
And yeah, this seems reasonable, except maybe to a government which seems to be trying to remove laws and regulations which cover problems with externalities wholesale.
Because the sheriff went after Wayne, but Jennifer was actually the one writing the blog.
Actually it is surprising they even had the correct house, given the blog was anonymous. I am still curious as to how the anonymity was stripped enough to find them. (I might guess that it was local gossip rather than a service provider which gave them away.)
I wonder how often people looking for the Mets' "online, non-downloadable content" end up at an opera or art museum site. I bet there are major business losses involved.
Yeah, that "transparent" like in some developer and UX -speak, as in "transparent to the end user". Meaning what happens is totally opaque, don't worry about what is happening, you don't need to be "distracted" by it. Also, you have no way to identify or fix problems, at least not natively (and you may be lucky to identify the problem using other tools). Suck it, customer.
This is what an argumentum ad hominem is, even if the hominem is actually a corporation. The fact that The Daily Mail is a ball of crap does not have any bearing on undisputed quotations. If they are in dispute, Slater could have taken a far more profitable course of suing the paper for libel, in the land of easy libel suits, no less. Perhaps you could point out where his original story has any bearing on this.
why did Techdirt believe the quotes and story in it back in 2011?
Why, are they disputed? What's your point?
Looks like Techdirt are trying to wriggle from guilt.
Your general intent here is obvious, but makes as little sense as the string of words you used in attempt to convey it.
As a site claiming some expertise on copyright, you are provably fraudulaent,
[Aforementioned proof required]
and if anyone ever believes this site again, or worse, steals Slater's images because of this, is possibly going to regret it.
Excepting that Slater's monkey selfie pics are in the public domain by definition. Awesome he set up the camera and all, but he had no control over the actual subject of the photograph(s).
The sad thing here is he could have converted interest in this photo into lots of well-paying work and sales instead of trying to exert control over one image. Here's the guy who goes to some interesting places, and not without effort or hardship, and seems to have done pretty good work. And any of his work would have a measure of recognition as "from the man who brought us the monkey selfie". Now he's the guy who sent wack legal threats then got sued by a non-profit organization of loons. I rather imagine one bit of recognition, and not losing interest in one's calling, is better than the other form of recognition and being too upset to continue as a photographer. It's the result of poor decision making and an unreasonable will to control influenced by a horrifically bad climate of copyright trolling.
We must balance their role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in our intelligence community, the armed forces, and all law abiding Americans.
This. Yes, the problem seems to be what they think is balanced. Only they keep shifting the point of the fulcrum to keep the balance pan on their end from sinking to the center of the earth.
It's sort of like what passes for "compromise" anymore, where a compromised issue is continually revisited for more compromise in one direction.
On the post: Canadian Telcos Lose Their Goddamn Minds Over TVAddons
Re: Re: Castle Doctorine
No, Lackman called the police, and the copyright gang just followed them in, and told the police to leave. And apparently, the police just take orders from them.
On the post: Congress Gives The FCC An Earful On Its Despised Plan To Kill Net Neutrality
Re:
On the post: Congress Gives The FCC An Earful On Its Despised Plan To Kill Net Neutrality
Re:
(Unless you want to count colonialist invaders as "immigrants". They were some ass-biters right there.)
On the post: Congress Gives The FCC An Earful On Its Despised Plan To Kill Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Congress Gives The FCC An Earful On Its Despised Plan To Kill Net Neutrality
Re:
On the post: Months Later, VP Mike Pence Ready To Turn Over Private Emails, Explain What An AOL Account Is
Re: Re: Not quite...
Lol. And yes, that is a valid point of difference.
On the post: Months Later, VP Mike Pence Ready To Turn Over Private Emails, Explain What An AOL Account Is
Re: Not quite...
Sure, Clinton and about every pol ever since email was a thing should go to prison for this or something else office-related. Plenty should be held accountable for non-office-related deeds as well.
On the post: Cable's New Brilliant Idea: Charging You More Money To Skip Ads
Re:
On the post: US Senators Unveil Their Attempt To Secure The Internet Of Very Broken Things
Re: An idea
tirademark
This typo is so full of win.
And yeah, this seems reasonable, except maybe to a government which seems to be trying to remove laws and regulations which cover problems with externalities wholesale.
On the post: Federal Court Strips Immunity From Sheriff Who Tried To Silence A Critic By Having Him Arrested
Re: Was it Wayne or Jennifer Anderson?
Actually it is surprising they even had the correct house, given the blog was anonymous. I am still curious as to how the anonymity was stripped enough to find them. (I might guess that it was local gossip rather than a service provider which gave them away.)
On the post: NY Mets Oppose Trademark For Medical Exam Tracking System (METS) Claiming Potential Customer Confusion
On the post: NY Mets Oppose Trademark For Medical Exam Tracking System (METS) Claiming Potential Customer Confusion
Re:
Now I'm confused, as given this as true, said fans would not be making any use of the other service.
On the post: Film Director's Op-Ed Ignores Reality To Push Hollywood Lobbying Talking Points
Re:
On the post: Film Director's Op-Ed Ignores Reality To Push Hollywood Lobbying Talking Points
...the odds of convincing a major film company to take a risk...
You have identified the sole source of your problem, so you can publish this not-even-complete sentence and be done with it.
On the post: Comcast Tries, Fails To Kill Lawsuit Over Its Hidden, Bogus Fees
On the post: Comcast Tries, Fails To Kill Lawsuit Over Its Hidden, Bogus Fees
Re: Just wait for it.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
This is what an argumentum ad hominem is, even if the hominem is actually a corporation. The fact that The Daily Mail is a ball of crap does not have any bearing on undisputed quotations. If they are in dispute, Slater could have taken a far more profitable course of suing the paper for libel, in the land of easy libel suits, no less. Perhaps you could point out where his original story has any bearing on this.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
Re: Daily Mail
why did Techdirt believe the quotes and story in it back in 2011?
Why, are they disputed? What's your point?
Looks like Techdirt are trying to wriggle from guilt.
Your general intent here is obvious, but makes as little sense as the string of words you used in attempt to convey it.
As a site claiming some expertise on copyright, you are provably fraudulaent,
[Aforementioned proof required]
and if anyone ever believes this site again, or worse, steals Slater's images because of this, is possibly going to regret it.
Excepting that Slater's monkey selfie pics are in the public domain by definition. Awesome he set up the camera and all, but he had no control over the actual subject of the photograph(s).
The sad thing here is he could have converted interest in this photo into lots of well-paying work and sales instead of trying to exert control over one image. Here's the guy who goes to some interesting places, and not without effort or hardship, and seems to have done pretty good work. And any of his work would have a measure of recognition as "from the man who brought us the monkey selfie". Now he's the guy who sent wack legal threats then got sued by a non-profit organization of loons. I rather imagine one bit of recognition, and not losing interest in one's calling, is better than the other form of recognition and being too upset to continue as a photographer. It's the result of poor decision making and an unreasonable will to control influenced by a horrifically bad climate of copyright trolling.
On the post: Deputy Attorney General Walks Back Attorney General's Threat To Journalists
Re:
We must balance their role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in our intelligence community, the armed forces, and all law abiding Americans.
This. Yes, the problem seems to be what they think is balanced. Only they keep shifting the point of the fulcrum to keep the balance pan on their end from sinking to the center of the earth.
It's sort of like what passes for "compromise" anymore, where a compromised issue is continually revisited for more compromise in one direction.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: July 30th - August 5th
Next >>