AirBnB does a lot more than, say, Craigslist. AirBnB has an entire booking engine vs. just a listing platform. I'd say that that you could make an argument that that (especially the part where they process the money) puts them past the category of a "publisher or speaker", since they are actively involved in operation of the business.
Yes, compared to what the "real thing" looks like, a decal on the window isn't very close.
But how many people really know what a Google Maps car looks like? I doubt many folks give much thought to what sort of equipment is needed to produce the Street View pictures.
I'm not saying the disguise was a good idea, but if it were, I don't see that decal as a pointless and insulting one.
The 5th amendment says, and I quote: "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
In layman's terms, you cannot be compelled to utter a single word that will ever be heard in a courtroom.
What DOESN'T it say? It doesn't say that you cannot be forced to do something that might eventually lead to somebody else testifying against you.
The password itself would be inadmissible, but it is certainly plausible to argue that that protection does not extend to what the password is protecting. Certainly the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue (contrary to the statements in the article... the whole "Combination to a safe cannot be compelled" thing has been mentioned in SCOTUS dicta (most notably in a dissent), but not actually been part of a majority opinion.)
Different Federal courts have ruled differently on the issue, so eventually SCOTUS will have to settle this, but that has not yet happened.
Now, arguing you have forgotten the password would certainly be a defense, but it may or may not be a compelling one, depending on circumstances.
Does anybody seriously expect that the FBI wouldn't want to have a way to eavesdrop/de-anonymize/etc. Tor users? While I am going to conveniently ignore whether or not this ability is being put to worthy ends or being requested in the right ways, this general technical concept is kind of exactly what we pay law enforcement and intelligence agencies to do and is not particularly controversial.
What did you expect them to do? "Oh, darn. Tor makes it hard to figure out who is saying what to whom. I guess we'll just let anything that happens there slide."
To be fair to the agencies, the DHS and FBI internal employee telephone and e-mail directory is not exactly on the level of our most precious national secrets here... I suspect you could get the same information for an individual employee by just calling the switchboard and asking.
What does Disney have to do with anything? Fox owns the rights to Deadpool, and there hasn't even been a whisper about Disney trying to spirit them away from Fox in some sort of underhanded fashion.
Another X-Men: Origins, would not have been an issue
Since Fox would have been the one ALREADY holding Reynolds's contract for another X-Men: Origins, tearing it up so Reynolds could do the Deadpool movie instead presented no difficulty at all, unless, of course, Reynolds didn't want to do the Deadpool movie.
Yes, Fox had difficulty before, but Fox has held the rights The Whole Time. That means that whatever the issues were in a good portrayal of the character, who owned the rights simply wasn't one of them.
And I agree that the idea of Deadpool in particular getting stuffed into the MCU is unlikely, but that has to do with how he's been portrayed in this movie (and the comics), and has nothing to do with licensing rights. Even if Marvel (or Fox) owned the whole shebang, anything beyond a cameo in an MCU movie would have been pretty far-fetched. (Thought it'd be appropriate if he showed up in maybe the next season of Jessica Jones or something!)
Copyright introduces all sorts of fascinating (and often unreasonable) impediments to movie production, but it is not the cause of all ills, despite TechDirt's predilection to blaming so many different things on IP law.
I agree with most of this article but not the first few paragraphs.
I do not see how the licensing was a "nightmare". There were no conflicting claims of ownership to the character; everybody involved (Disney/Marvel included) knew Fox owned the rights to Deadpool. As long as Fox didn't toss in an appearance by an Avenger (or Spider-Man, risking Sony's wrath), there's no conflict.
Also, there was nothing stopping Fox from including X-Men, since they own most of those rights too. Whatever the reasons we don't see some X-Men in the Deadpool movie, licensing rights aren't on the list.
And cross-overs from other companies are certainly NOT impossible; Spider-Man is totally being incorporated into the MCU, due to an agreement struck with Sony. I'm sure this was not easy, but neither is it some sort of far-fetched dream.
Apart from all it's "Internet of Things" frippery, it's not actually a very good thermostat.
It won't work at all with many HVAC systems (and won't use all the features of many others), the temperature control has too wide of a range, and of course it's overpriced for what it does.
(Most people are perfectly aware of what time they wake up, go to work, come home, go to bed, etc... setting up a programmable thermostat isn't THAT hard.)
Honeywell, on the other hand, knows how to make a quality thermostat. Even the low end electronic models keep a VERY tight grip on the correct temperature, unlike the Nest.
A permanent injunction for statements that have been proven (via a trial verdict) to be defamatory seems reasonable. Such an injunction should be narrowly tailored to the specific statements found to be defamatory. I could totally see a demented losing defamation defendant continuing to repeat what a court has determined was false.
While recovery from defamation may be defamatory, that doesn't mean the damage defamatory statements do confines itself to neat dollar signs; forbidding the false statements from being repeated seems to be a reasonable remedy.
I wonder if there's any self-awareness that his web-pages about himself are almost a parity of pure, unadulterated bro-ness. I mean, you could use those pictures as part of a collage of stereotypical bros, but they are all of Just Him.
I live in the RDU area. While Google Fiber has yet to hook up a single house, TWC suddenly felt inspired to triple (or more) the speeds for anybody not running the absolute cheapest internet plans. They upgraded me from "Standard" to "Extreme" for the same $50 (all-in; I own my modem) and not even a phone call, and my speeds went from 15/1 to 50/6.
Google at $70 for 1Gb would be awful tempting, but because of the miracle of competition, my 50/6 for $20 less is more than adequate for my needs.
Roca is only in "big trouble" if you consider "big trouble" to be the threat of an FTC "settlement" to promise to Go Forth and Sin No More and give up whatever loose change under the couch is left after most of the profits have been shipped off-shore.
There will be no significant consequences for their past activity, I can just about 100% guarantee, and they will certainly keep virtually all of the profits.
And, should they choose to keep violating the law, the only additional consequence will be the need to pinky-swear to stop selling diet products entirely.
Well, that actually clarifies things a bit. They probably chose that color for the background because it's the blue used on Oreo bags, and this is the Cookies 'n Cream flavor.
Nevertheless, it DOES look similar enough to the Nestle Crunch trade dress that it still needs changing. It was likely not a malicious choice to ape the Nestle Crunch trade dress, but that doesn't mean it's not too similar.
But it's more than just the coloring that is identical... the new product is also called a "Crunch" bar, along with the angle of the name.
If Budweiser released a beer called Bud (in small letters) RED STRIPE (in big letters written on top of a red stripe, but maybe a wider one in a different font), you can bet the Diageo would be suing A-B InBev in about thirty seconds.
A consumer won't confuse it with an actual Crunch Bar, but they certainly could think that these people obtained a license from Nestle for the Crunch name so they could sell a "healthier" version.
That one's easy. Manufacturers that want to not go bankrupt try to avoid suing their own distributors (i.e. grocery stores) if they can at all help it.
In any case, as long as the store brand is quite prominent, most people understand that BillyBob's Grocery "Crispy Rice" is not endorsed by Kellogg's, even if they chose to package it in a light-blue box.
If Kellogg's made an issue about it, you can be sure that BillyBob's (while they might comply with the request) is never going to put a Kellogg's product on an end-cap, feature it in a sale ad, or put it on a shelf other than the tippy-top one ever again.
In this case, it's NOT a store brand, it's an outright competitor that a consumer could easily think had gotten a "Crunch" license from Nestle due to the package similarities.
They used the same shades of blue and red, the word "crunch" is at a similar angle, and of course it features the "Crunch" name most prominently.
A "Trade Dress" claim does not mean that the two are so close that if you aren't paying attention you'll grab the wrong one; it's an attempt to trade off the reputation of a brand you don't own by selling something that a reasonable consumer thinks is the same brand.
If they'd called it a "FitCrunch", used a lighter shade of red and a darker shade of blue, you could have an argument, but this seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Unless the latest revisions/extensions to the Patriot Act explicitly stated that the expiration would result in a reversion to the pre-Patriot USC (vs. the expired provisions just being no longer effective), I don't think any court is going to read the law like that, especially since congressional intent in this case could not be any more clear.
Except for a few scattered societies with little access to plant-based foods, and relatively recent times with access to cheap meat and dairy, THE staple food for EVERY society since the Dawn of Agriculture thousands of years ago has been a cultivated starch. Corn, potatoes, wheat, rice, yams, yuca, most legumes, barley, millet, oats, plantains, teff, soybeans, etc. While each has different properties and nutritional profiles, every single one is primarily a carb.
Yet, for some bizarre reason, they are only making us fat and killing us NOW, even though we, as a species, have been rather successfully eating them as a primary source of caloric intake for thousands of years. Even the idea that an agricultural society could possibly shift caloric intake to primarily fats and proteins is quite new, as it's quite expensive to do so. (Not to mention eating primarily protein is environmentally unsustainable.)
The answer, of course, is that there is a lot more to the story of carbs besides their very existence in our diet. Dispensing blanket advice of "carbs have proven negative health effects" is irresponsible, at best. Yes, there are ways you can consume carbs and have them help hasten your demise, just like the same could be said for protein, fat, or just about any macro or micro nutrient consumed to excess.
On the post: Cities Rushing To Restrict Airbnb Are About To Discover That They're Violating Key Internet Law
There are some differences
On the post: Philly Cops Tried To Disguise An SUV With License Plate Readers As A Google Maps Vehicle
It's not that bad of a disguise
But how many people really know what a Google Maps car looks like? I doubt many folks give much thought to what sort of equipment is needed to produce the Street View pictures.
I'm not saying the disguise was a good idea, but if it were, I don't see that decal as a pointless and insulting one.
On the post: So Much For The Fifth Amendment: Man Jailed For Seven Months For Not Turning Over Password
Read the 5th, and get back to me...
In layman's terms, you cannot be compelled to utter a single word that will ever be heard in a courtroom.
What DOESN'T it say? It doesn't say that you cannot be forced to do something that might eventually lead to somebody else testifying against you.
The password itself would be inadmissible, but it is certainly plausible to argue that that protection does not extend to what the password is protecting. Certainly the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue (contrary to the statements in the article... the whole "Combination to a safe cannot be compelled" thing has been mentioned in SCOTUS dicta (most notably in a dissent), but not actually been part of a majority opinion.)
Different Federal courts have ruled differently on the issue, so eventually SCOTUS will have to settle this, but that has not yet happened.
Now, arguing you have forgotten the password would certainly be a defense, but it may or may not be a compelling one, depending on circumstances.
On the post: Silk Road 2.0 Court Docs Show US Government Paid Carnegie Mellon Researchers To Unmask Tor Users
Errr... Duh.
What did you expect them to do? "Oh, darn. Tor makes it hard to figure out who is saying what to whom. I guess we'll just let anything that happens there slide."
On the post: 'Trust Us With More Data,' Say Government Agencies Hacked By A 16-Year-Old
To be fair to the agencies...
On the post: Without Copyright Infringement, Deadpool Doesn't Get Made
Huh?
What does Disney have to do with anything? Fox owns the rights to Deadpool, and there hasn't even been a whisper about Disney trying to spirit them away from Fox in some sort of underhanded fashion.
On the post: Without Copyright Infringement, Deadpool Doesn't Get Made
Another X-Men: Origins, would not have been an issue
Yes, Fox had difficulty before, but Fox has held the rights The Whole Time. That means that whatever the issues were in a good portrayal of the character, who owned the rights simply wasn't one of them.
And I agree that the idea of Deadpool in particular getting stuffed into the MCU is unlikely, but that has to do with how he's been portrayed in this movie (and the comics), and has nothing to do with licensing rights. Even if Marvel (or Fox) owned the whole shebang, anything beyond a cameo in an MCU movie would have been pretty far-fetched. (Thought it'd be appropriate if he showed up in maybe the next season of Jessica Jones or something!)
Copyright introduces all sorts of fascinating (and often unreasonable) impediments to movie production, but it is not the cause of all ills, despite TechDirt's predilection to blaming so many different things on IP law.
On the post: Without Copyright Infringement, Deadpool Doesn't Get Made
The licensing was not a "nightmare"
I do not see how the licensing was a "nightmare". There were no conflicting claims of ownership to the character; everybody involved (Disney/Marvel included) knew Fox owned the rights to Deadpool. As long as Fox didn't toss in an appearance by an Avenger (or Spider-Man, risking Sony's wrath), there's no conflict.
Also, there was nothing stopping Fox from including X-Men, since they own most of those rights too. Whatever the reasons we don't see some X-Men in the Deadpool movie, licensing rights aren't on the list.
And cross-overs from other companies are certainly NOT impossible; Spider-Man is totally being incorporated into the MCU, due to an agreement struck with Sony. I'm sure this was not easy, but neither is it some sort of far-fetched dream.
On the post: Nest Thermostat Goes From 'Internet Of Things' Darling To Cautionary Tale
It's not even a very good thermostat
It won't work at all with many HVAC systems (and won't use all the features of many others), the temperature control has too wide of a range, and of course it's overpriced for what it does.
(Most people are perfectly aware of what time they wake up, go to work, come home, go to bed, etc... setting up a programmable thermostat isn't THAT hard.)
Honeywell, on the other hand, knows how to make a quality thermostat. Even the low end electronic models keep a VERY tight grip on the correct temperature, unlike the Nest.
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Prior Restraint In Defamation Case; Could Have Gone Further
Re: Injunctions for proven defamation seem reasonable
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Prior Restraint In Defamation Case; Could Have Gone Further
Injunctions for proven defamation seem reasonable
While recovery from defamation may be defamatory, that doesn't mean the damage defamatory statements do confines itself to neat dollar signs; forbidding the false statements from being repeated seems to be a reasonable remedy.
On the post: Florida Bar Laughs Off Nonsensical 'Bar Complaint' By Reputation Management Bro Patrick Zarrelli
The man's a parody of himself
On the post: With Another Major Expansion, Google Fiber's Looking Less Like An Adorable Experiment And More Like A Disruptive Broadband Revolution
It's worked great here
Google at $70 for 1Gb would be awful tempting, but because of the miracle of competition, my 50/6 for $20 less is more than adequate for my needs.
On the post: FTC Finally Goes After Roca Labs For Its Sketchy 'Weight Loss' Scheme & Misleading Promotions
There will be no significant consequences for their past activity, I can just about 100% guarantee, and they will certainly keep virtually all of the profits.
And, should they choose to keep violating the law, the only additional consequence will be the need to pinky-swear to stop selling diet products entirely.
On the post: Nestle Sues Fit Crunch Over Identical Trade Dress That Isn't Remotely Identical
Re:
Nevertheless, it DOES look similar enough to the Nestle Crunch trade dress that it still needs changing. It was likely not a malicious choice to ape the Nestle Crunch trade dress, but that doesn't mean it's not too similar.
On the post: Nestle Sues Fit Crunch Over Identical Trade Dress That Isn't Remotely Identical
Re: Re: I buy it
If Budweiser released a beer called Bud (in small letters) RED STRIPE (in big letters written on top of a red stripe, but maybe a wider one in a different font), you can bet the Diageo would be suing A-B InBev in about thirty seconds.
A consumer won't confuse it with an actual Crunch Bar, but they certainly could think that these people obtained a license from Nestle for the Crunch name so they could sell a "healthier" version.
On the post: Nestle Sues Fit Crunch Over Identical Trade Dress That Isn't Remotely Identical
Re: Look at store brands
In any case, as long as the store brand is quite prominent, most people understand that BillyBob's Grocery "Crispy Rice" is not endorsed by Kellogg's, even if they chose to package it in a light-blue box.
If Kellogg's made an issue about it, you can be sure that BillyBob's (while they might comply with the request) is never going to put a Kellogg's product on an end-cap, feature it in a sale ad, or put it on a shelf other than the tippy-top one ever again.
In this case, it's NOT a store brand, it's an outright competitor that a consumer could easily think had gotten a "Crunch" license from Nestle due to the package similarities.
On the post: Nestle Sues Fit Crunch Over Identical Trade Dress That Isn't Remotely Identical
I'd have sued too
A "Trade Dress" claim does not mean that the two are so close that if you aren't paying attention you'll grab the wrong one; it's an attempt to trade off the reputation of a brand you don't own by selling something that a reasonable consumer thinks is the same brand.
If they'd called it a "FitCrunch", used a lighter shade of red and a darker shade of blue, you could have an argument, but this seems pretty clear-cut to me.
On the post: Did Letting Section 215 Expire Completely Change USA Freedom Without Anyone Noticing?
Did the expiration result in a reversion?
On the post: DailyDirt: Eat This, Don't Eat That...
On thing gets lost in the War Against Carbs
Yet, for some bizarre reason, they are only making us fat and killing us NOW, even though we, as a species, have been rather successfully eating them as a primary source of caloric intake for thousands of years. Even the idea that an agricultural society could possibly shift caloric intake to primarily fats and proteins is quite new, as it's quite expensive to do so. (Not to mention eating primarily protein is environmentally unsustainable.)
The answer, of course, is that there is a lot more to the story of carbs besides their very existence in our diet. Dispensing blanket advice of "carbs have proven negative health effects" is irresponsible, at best. Yes, there are ways you can consume carbs and have them help hasten your demise, just like the same could be said for protein, fat, or just about any macro or micro nutrient consumed to excess.
Next >>