There's the Minnesota bill that would allow protestors to be sued for the cost of policing their protests.
Or the South Dakota bill, already signed into law, that caps the number of people allowed to gather on public lands at 20. Designed to deal with protests over the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Arizona Senate is working on legislation that would would allow law enforcement officials to go after organizers of any protest that turns violent, even if the violence was caused by a single attendee.
Look around and you'll find plenty of other examples in other states. These methods are limited only by the imagination of some really awful politicians and the industry lobbyists who own and operate them.
Imagine if those injured at the 2017 Charlottesville rally used his reasoning. They - and the family of someone actually killed - would sue "Nazis" instead of "Black Lives Matter." Donald Trump instead of DeRay McKesson. And of course #foxnews.
And...? No-one can copyright the *concept* of boards games, just like no-one can copyright the concept of first person shooters. (Especially since FPS games had been evolving for 20 years before Doom.)
Having 100 players face off against another 100 players in a game mode is not expression...
It's not even so much an idea as an indication of current technology.
Home computers with GUIs showed up from multiple companies at the same time because the processors and other chips necessary matured and became affordable at the same for all of them. Internet-connected games showed up from multiple companies as everyone got internet connections.
And now with high-speed internet and the advent of cloud server farms handling much of the processing, hundred-user game become possible for everyone at once.
I'm planning to pay for CraveTV once I'm no longer billed for Shomi.
The question I've been unable to find an answer for, is *WHEN* is it available on CraveTV? The news reports I read said they would shown "delayed" on that service.
Delayed how long? The problem with Shomi and CraveTV was that they were set up by the cable companies specifically to NOT compete with cable. So they might delay a show a week or a season. Or in the case of Top Gear on Shomi, five years.
As for carrying HBO, when I looked for Last Week Tonight in Canada a few weeks back, CraveTV didn't have it. You have to subscribe to The Movie Network on cable, before you could stream it on HBO GO Canada. And you can't subscribe to The Movie Network without subscribing to a bunch of other channels. In other words "effectively unavailable."
Re: Re: Re: Wait, I thought piracy was a good thing?
Content providers should never charge more for content than what TechDirt editors are willing to pay (which will very often be $0)
Christ, you're dishonest.
If there's one big lesson you'll learn from the stories at Techdirt it's that when you give people a reasonable option to pay, they'll pay.
This story is about what happens when you DON'T give that option. The Netflix / Amazon Prime model works. People pay. But put each show on its own separately paid service - and don't make even THAT available everywhere - and people pirate.
Consider NAFTA: The US and Canada have different laws. Whether its food safety, labeling, hazardous goods transport, advertising, law enforcement, arms regulations or any of thousands of other things, the laws are different. The delegation of powers is different too; what might be a state law in the US might be a federal law in Canada.
So you have two choices:
a) You can harmonize all laws. The US adopts some Canadian laws and vice versa. Those would be decided by the treaty negotiators, not the normal legal/political means. And any time the US or individual US states wants to change a law or enact a new one, it must get Canadian approval first. Even if it's a campaign promise, your trade partners must sign off on it. Or...
b) You can put some rules in place to manage what happens when goods and services from one country encounter the laws of another.
We chose option b), for the best protection of sovereignty. The problem with the TPP and similar ISDS deals is that they lean heavily towards a).
I'm paying for Star Trek on cable, which includes several CBS channels. But now they've tuned that into a rip-off, moving the new shows to a separate service.
I'm paying for Star Trek on streaming. The Star Trek library was a major selling feature for Shomi, a streaming service sold by Canadian ISPs and cell phone provider. They've shut it down, but I'm still billed for it through my cell phone contract.
I'm not paying a third time. Not that there's a reasonable streaming option in Canada anyway. (It's not available here on CBS All Access OR Netflix.) I'm downloading.
They can call me a pirate, and I'll call them scammers. I'm paying for it twice. That's my limit.
Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off.
This is one case where no further citations are needed.
Snowden held a Top Secret Clearance.
In his government job. That no doubt helped him get a job at Booz. But now he was no longer at the NSA, no longer a government employee.
Sure, it seems self-evident (a concept you have trouble with above) that he should still need a security clearance. But the same equally goes for Ivanka's White House advisor role.
Did Ivanka hold one at the time?
One more time: Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off. That almost certainly gave her access to higher-level secrets than Snowden ever had access to.
You can keep deflecting from that, and I'll keep repeating it.
For that matter, you're deflecting just by focusing on Ivanka. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and advisers Jared Kushner, Gary Cohn and Stephen Miller also used email accounts for government-related emails.
Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off. That almost certainly gave her access to higher-level secrets than Snowden ever had access to.
If Snowden's private employment included government scrutiny - instead of his leak being a civil matter with his employer - then why would it not be the same for Ivanka?
If not being *officially* a government employee excuses Ivanka from any security scrutiny, then why wouldn't it for a privately employed Hillary aide?
Oh, it's worse than that. It's about *hardware* sales.
The Echo Show is a Smart TV experiment coming from the "Smart" side rather than the TV side. This incident establishes that device detection may be used to block any streaming content from a given brand of Smart TV device.
Watch for "Star Trek! Only on Siri devices in the US, only on Cortana devices outside North America, and only in Canada on a device created by the cable companies and no longer available but you'll still be billed for it."
I trust a private server running a decent OS and email server package - and only one or two administrators - more than one at Google with a large unknown number of people across an unknown number of countries with administrator access.
The same goes for AOL, the mail server of choice for Mike Pence and Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice's secure government communications.
But it's not enforceable from a legal standpoint because she wasn't an employee, which was my point.
Edward Snowden wasn't a government employee. He worked for NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, which was entrusted with government information. You know, just like Ivanka was a private citizen before March 30, while working in the White House advising the President.
By your standard, Snowden can't be prosecuted.
Hillary AND her aides were government employees.
One more time, what if she used a privately employed aide - much like Ivanka - to send the emails.
Hillary was SoS for what, 4 years? And swapped classified info? And still wasn't dealt with?
"Deal with" her, and you have to "deal with" Mike Pence, Bush II, Cheney, Rove, Powell, Rice, Jeb! and all the others in the same way and for the same reasons. And now those in the Trump administration.
Which is probably a good idea. Or simply investigate why essentially no-one in Washington was willing to use government email servers. But as long as folks like you insist on an investigations focused ONLY on Hillary - and take offense to investigating the rest doing the exact same thing - that won't happen.
One clear difference is that Ivanka Trump was a volunteer in February. She didn't actually become a federal employee until March 30 of this year.
Technically correct, but utter BS. Ivanka's presence in White House meetings and role as advisor to the President was well publicized and documented. March 30th simply made it official.
Don't take a paycheck, you're not an employee.
Utterly irrelevant, from a security standpoint.
Suppose Hillary had played the "I don't use email" card and had an aide use their private email to send the same emails. If that aide were a private non-government employee, would that have made it all peachy-keen?
On the post: Campaigners For SESTA See It As A First Step To Stomping Out Porn
Re: Obvious Truths
On the post: Court Tosses Cop's Lawsuit Against Social Movement, Twitter Hashtag
Re: Re: About those laws...
There's the Minnesota bill that would allow protestors to be sued for the cost of policing their protests.
Or the South Dakota bill, already signed into law, that caps the number of people allowed to gather on public lands at 20. Designed to deal with protests over the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Arizona Senate is working on legislation that would would allow law enforcement officials to go after organizers of any protest that turns violent, even if the violence was caused by a single attendee.
Look around and you'll find plenty of other examples in other states. These methods are limited only by the imagination of some really awful politicians and the industry lobbyists who own and operate them.
On the post: Court Tosses Cop's Lawsuit Against Social Movement, Twitter Hashtag
Re:
On the post: Court Tosses Cop's Lawsuit Against Social Movement, Twitter Hashtag
Role Reversal
On the post: How The Supreme Court's Continued Misunderstanding Of Copyright Ruined Halloween
(Sees a great many OTHER similar banana costumes from others sources)
(Wanders off mumbling angrily)
On the post: Copyright Troll Carl Crowell Ups The Ante: Now Demands Accused Pirates Hand Over Their Hard Drives
Sovereign Immunity
On the post: Copyright Troll Carl Crowell Ups The Ante: Now Demands Accused Pirates Hand Over Their Hard Drives
That's going to make the next election even more interesting.
On the post: Idea v. Expression: Game Studio Bluehole Gets Its Fur Up Over Epic Games Putting 100 Vs. 100 Player Battle Royale Into Game
Re: Re: Re: Say it with me
On the post: Idea v. Expression: Game Studio Bluehole Gets Its Fur Up Over Epic Games Putting 100 Vs. 100 Player Battle Royale Into Game
It's not even so much an idea as an indication of current technology.
Home computers with GUIs showed up from multiple companies at the same time because the processors and other chips necessary matured and became affordable at the same for all of them. Internet-connected games showed up from multiple companies as everyone got internet connections.
And now with high-speed internet and the advent of cloud server farms handling much of the processing, hundred-user game become possible for everyone at once.
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
Re: Re:
The question I've been unable to find an answer for, is *WHEN* is it available on CraveTV? The news reports I read said they would shown "delayed" on that service.
Delayed how long? The problem with Shomi and CraveTV was that they were set up by the cable companies specifically to NOT compete with cable. So they might delay a show a week or a season. Or in the case of Top Gear on Shomi, five years.
As for carrying HBO, when I looked for Last Week Tonight in Canada a few weeks back, CraveTV didn't have it. You have to subscribe to The Movie Network on cable, before you could stream it on HBO GO Canada. And you can't subscribe to The Movie Network without subscribing to a bunch of other channels. In other words "effectively unavailable."
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Wait, I thought piracy was a good thing?
Christ, you're dishonest.
If there's one big lesson you'll learn from the stories at Techdirt it's that when you give people a reasonable option to pay, they'll pay.
This story is about what happens when you DON'T give that option. The Netflix / Amazon Prime model works. People pay. But put each show on its own separately paid service - and don't make even THAT available everywhere - and people pirate.
On the post: Lawyers Gearing Up To Hit UK With Corporate Sovereignty Claims Totalling Billions Of Dollars Over Brexit
Re: Re:
Not while still having a country.
Consider NAFTA: The US and Canada have different laws. Whether its food safety, labeling, hazardous goods transport, advertising, law enforcement, arms regulations or any of thousands of other things, the laws are different. The delegation of powers is different too; what might be a state law in the US might be a federal law in Canada.
So you have two choices:
a) You can harmonize all laws. The US adopts some Canadian laws and vice versa. Those would be decided by the treaty negotiators, not the normal legal/political means. And any time the US or individual US states wants to change a law or enact a new one, it must get Canadian approval first. Even if it's a campaign promise, your trade partners must sign off on it. Or...
b) You can put some rules in place to manage what happens when goods and services from one country encounter the laws of another.
We chose option b), for the best protection of sovereignty. The problem with the TPP and similar ISDS deals is that they lean heavily towards a).
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
I'm paying for Star Trek on cable, which includes several CBS channels. But now they've tuned that into a rip-off, moving the new shows to a separate service.
I'm paying for Star Trek on streaming. The Star Trek library was a major selling feature for Shomi, a streaming service sold by Canadian ISPs and cell phone provider. They've shut it down, but I'm still billed for it through my cell phone contract.
I'm not paying a third time. Not that there's a reasonable streaming option in Canada anyway. (It's not available here on CBS All Access OR Netflix.) I'm downloading.
They can call me a pirate, and I'll call them scammers. I'm paying for it twice. That's my limit.
On the post: Members Of Trump's Admin Team Using Private Email Accounts Because Of Course They Are
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off.
This is one case where no further citations are needed.
In his government job. That no doubt helped him get a job at Booz. But now he was no longer at the NSA, no longer a government employee.
Sure, it seems self-evident (a concept you have trouble with above) that he should still need a security clearance. But the same equally goes for Ivanka's White House advisor role.
One more time: Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off. That almost certainly gave her access to higher-level secrets than Snowden ever had access to.
You can keep deflecting from that, and I'll keep repeating it.
For that matter, you're deflecting just by focusing on Ivanka. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and advisers Jared Kushner, Gary Cohn and Stephen Miller also used email accounts for government-related emails.
On the post: Members Of Trump's Admin Team Using Private Email Accounts Because Of Course They Are
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off. That almost certainly gave her access to higher-level secrets than Snowden ever had access to.
If Snowden's private employment included government scrutiny - instead of his leak being a civil matter with his employer - then why would it not be the same for Ivanka?
If not being *officially* a government employee excuses Ivanka from any security scrutiny, then why wouldn't it for a privately employed Hillary aide?
On the post: Google Pulls YouTube From Amazon Echo: All About Control Or Just More Corporation On Corporation Violence?
Re: Google vs other browsers....
The Echo Show is a Smart TV experiment coming from the "Smart" side rather than the TV side. This incident establishes that device detection may be used to block any streaming content from a given brand of Smart TV device.
Watch for "Star Trek! Only on Siri devices in the US, only on Cortana devices outside North America, and only in Canada on a device created by the cable companies and no longer available but you'll still be billed for it."
On the post: Members Of Trump's Admin Team Using Private Email Accounts Because Of Course They Are
Re: Re: Re:
The same goes for AOL, the mail server of choice for Mike Pence and Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice's secure government communications.
On the post: Members Of Trump's Admin Team Using Private Email Accounts Because Of Course They Are
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Edward Snowden wasn't a government employee. He worked for NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, which was entrusted with government information. You know, just like Ivanka was a private citizen before March 30, while working in the White House advising the President.
By your standard, Snowden can't be prosecuted.
One more time, what if she used a privately employed aide - much like Ivanka - to send the emails.
"Deal with" her, and you have to "deal with" Mike Pence, Bush II, Cheney, Rove, Powell, Rice, Jeb! and all the others in the same way and for the same reasons. And now those in the Trump administration.
Which is probably a good idea. Or simply investigate why essentially no-one in Washington was willing to use government email servers. But as long as folks like you insist on an investigations focused ONLY on Hillary - and take offense to investigating the rest doing the exact same thing - that won't happen.
On the post: Members Of Trump's Admin Team Using Private Email Accounts Because Of Course They Are
Re: Re: Re:
Technically correct, but utter BS. Ivanka's presence in White House meetings and role as advisor to the President was well publicized and documented. March 30th simply made it official.
Utterly irrelevant, from a security standpoint.
Suppose Hillary had played the "I don't use email" card and had an aide use their private email to send the same emails. If that aide were a private non-government employee, would that have made it all peachy-keen?
On the post: Members Of Trump's Admin Team Using Private Email Accounts Because Of Course They Are
Re: Re:
I forgot: Mike Pence used an AOL account while Indiana's governor to discuss homeland security matters and security.
Next >>