Article: Many platforms make it clear (correctly) that filing a counternotice can lead to you being sued in federal court, where you may face statutory damages awards up to $150,000 per work infringed. But the folks at ITIF are apparently so out of touch that they don't even realize that this might scare off the vast, vast, vast majority of people who are the receiving end of bogus takedown notices.
"But, but, but, that threat wouldn't scare our $50 billion corporate clients and their 500-member Ivy League law firms. Why should it scare anyone else?"
Sorry, not surprised: it was no-brain that this would happen.
Did they publish it within the "statute of limitations"? Yep. The law says "published" and no matter how much the defendant would like "re-published" to not actually be considered "published", well the law doesn't distinguish.
Is there a question that needs to be decided by a jury? Well, I might think the question of whether the image is of Lohan is stupid, but even I can see it is something that needs to be decided by a jury.
That is, after all, why we have a right to jury trials in this country (Seventh Amendment, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,...") The bottom line on this is that there are things the judge is not permitted to decide--that a jury must decide--if the plaintiff or defendant (it takes only one) wants a jury trial.
It's profitable to sell security theater. It's profitable to sell people things that make them sick (cigarettes, junk food). It's profitable to sell dying people things to extend their life (drugs, healthcare, insurance). It's profitable to sell war. It's loss to build greater safety into consumer products. It's loss to keep soldiers alive with armor.
So this is a great idea, and please don't take me as unkind, but I think you can expect to receive a gift from entrenched power interests tonight--a horse head in your bed.
Sure, but I don't get why it was so hard for SmartCar to resolve this bill. I would have thought a lawsuit for breach of contract and fraud would have done the job.
Well, Mr. Anonymous Coward, I hate to disillusion you, but if you think Mike is exposing some big secret, I have a revelation for you.
I just did a search on Google main for "Syed Farook" and got 445,000 hits. The same search on Google News yields 54,700 hits.
A few examples, taken just from the first page of the Google News search:
CBS News: "... to help the FBI gain access to the phone used by Syed Farook, one of the two attackers in the December 2 shootings that killed 14 people."
Counterpunch: "A college graduate, “quiet, polite” Chicago-born Syed Farook who masterminded the San Bernardino massacre, was religiously devout and ..."
New York Daily News: "Slain California gunman Syed Farook grew up a home so tense that his mother divorced his father whom she accused of being an abusive ..."
Forbes: "... is fighting a court order requiring them to assist the FBI in opening the encrypted iPhone belonging to San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook."
Next time, you might want to check your opinions against reality before telling others how to do their jobs.
It has been observed that one of the tools that are used by government in promoting war is dehumanization of the enemy, because by making the enemy less than human a government makes inhumane treatment of the enemy acceptable. We can kill the enemy, because they are not human; we can torture the enemy, use inhumane weapons against the enemy, commit genocide. Because they are not human.
Bigotry is a term we apply to a form of dehumanization. By its very nature, bigotry makes the victim less than human; for example ascribing animal intelligence or animal motives. The resulting effects are broad: in the case of blacks, n****rs were not only viewed as non-humans on a personal basis, but in many respects by law.
The person who asserts that he is "entitled to his bigoted beliefs", is the problem. The same problem as war, only on a smaller scale.
There is a problem in our society; we have competing requirements. On the one hand, there is the First Amendment; on the other a definite need to eliminate bigotry and its ilk at all scales. How shall these be reconciled? Because until we can eliminate bigotry, intolerance (a broader form), and dehumanization (their bastard stepchild) we cannot solve the problems of humanity.
Shall humanity continue in this form, forever, because there is a First Amendment? The hard answer to that question is that, if humanity is to improve, to some extent bigotry, intolerance, dehumanization and war must be removed from the domain of protected speech.
"Come on, NSA, hold off on sharing data with the FBI until we can discuss it, or else...or else...or else...we swear to you, we will get very choked up. Honestly, there could be tears."
So… move the target. Instead of being deep inside the airport, it will be closer to the entrance. As Gawker's Alex Pareene notes, at some point you can't push the envelope back any further.
True, strictly speaking. But you can push it back quite a ways from where it is right now. For example, TSA could send a team of 20 jackbooted and trigger happy agents to your house at 4 AM before your flight. Inspect your car, inspect your bags, inspect your house...and then they could push the proctoscopes they brought along, quite a ways up your a$$ just ensure you're really, truly not hiding anything. Then they could load you and your family into straight-jackets and then into a paddy wagon for your trip to the airport.
That would probably keep everyone safe.
I think we can all be sure this is what Michael Chertoff has in mind as he enthuses about pushing back the boundaries.
"When I asked Jackson how that wasn't simply legitimate business competition, he said that claiming one's product is better than a competitor's, "without proof," is false advertising." [Jackson said.]
Boy is this disingenuous. If "our product is better than theirs" advertisements were illegal, every single ad agency writer would be in jail.
"...'open source by default' approach that required all new Federal custom code to be released as OSS, subject to exceptions for things like national security..."
Yes, the IRS tax program source is a matter of national security! Yes, the EPA superfund manager source is a matter of national security! Yes, the National Park Service land management source is a matter of national security! Yes, the National Forest Service park toilet maintenance scheduler source is a matter of national security!
Re: Re: Way too much entitlement in this thread - making content takes time and money
In principle, I agree with the need for sites to finance their work. They deserve to be paid, simply put.
But the ads at the top, around the edges, those are okay. If I'm interested, I can look, but I don't have to. They still get paid.
But that wasn't good enough; they saw that I might not pay attention (which is actually my right). So they invented pop-out ads.
And I was still ignoring them, so they invented pop over ads. Ads that you had to watch to enter the site.
And I still might be stubborn and not actually pay attention so: Motion ads, inline ads that move the text, and video ads that auto-play at top volume, and sound ads that play at top volume that you can't even find.
And malware, to enslave your system.
They started out bumping your shoulder with ads; I had no problem with that. Now they're hitting you in the side of the head with a three-foot elephant-leather glove, with a twelve-pound lead brick in the business end.
After you pick your bleeding, beaten carcass out of the dirt and complain, they say, "What the fuck do you mean, annoying?"
I think there should be a browser-plugin link-rating system that can be used to preview any link off of the current site.
1. Hover to pop up the rating display. 2. Snap bit.ly and similar links to determine the real target. 3. Consult a crowd-sourced rating system and display ratings. 4. Profile settings to mark unwanted features of the target site. 5. Mark links with a warning symbol when the site has features the user has indicated in the profile are unwanted. 6. Easy vote-rating system to register reviews of a site.
A quick search didn't show anything obvious in this space.
Rating features include:
1. Pop-over ads 2. Automatic video/sound ads and, secondarily, automatic video content 3. Ad malware 4. Pop-out ads 5. Pop-over ads 6. Inline ads that disturb text positioning 7. More?
Free speech is their watchword. Therfore they should have no problem with us using our free speech to rate their sites and share those ratings with others via such a system.
I agree. But we should come up with some kind of marker that everyone understands to be that type of site, that is easily understood. Perhaps something like:
hyperlink (AdForcer)
It shouldn't just be us that does this either. Google should add this marker to its links. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech; they want to force people to watch ads, the people should be allowed to identify them openly as such.
At one point, the prosecutor cross-examined me by asking if I thought the agents handling Princess [the informant] were plotting to kill Princess by exposing her to one deadly situation after the other until she was killed. I testified (paraphrased according to my memory) that with more than $20 million missing and unaccounted for, and in consideration of the way they were handling her, it was a reasonable possibility.
Re: Re: Re: Those who do not use Tor, have no rights
There may be a point about the 'openly visible' doctrine with respect to Tor. I didn't think about that.
But in houses, the openly visible doctrine applies only to those things that can be seen through windows or doors, which the officer may not open; and indoors only if the officer has a legal right to be indoors. Established law is that the officer cannot open a door to enter unless certain reasonable causes are in effect. If the doors are closed (but unlocked) the officer would have no grounds to enter and view anything.
On the post: DMCA's Notice And Takedown Procedure Is A Total Mess, And It's Mainly Because Of Bogus Automated Takedowns
Makes no sense to us
"But, but, but, that threat wouldn't scare our $50 billion corporate clients and their 500-member Ivy League law firms. Why should it scare anyone else?"
On the post: Chicago's New Era Of Transparency Looks Pretty Much Identical To Its Old Era Of Opacity
Russian Openness
Just as easy as when the Russians did it: "Glasnost! Glasnost!"
Turns out the results are about the same, too.
On the post: Surprise: Court Allows Lindsay Lohan's Suit Against Take-Two Interactive To Go Forward
Not suprising
Did they publish it within the "statute of limitations"? Yep. The law says "published" and no matter how much the defendant would like "re-published" to not actually be considered "published", well the law doesn't distinguish.
Is there a question that needs to be decided by a jury? Well, I might think the question of whether the image is of Lohan is stupid, but even I can see it is something that needs to be decided by a jury.
That is, after all, why we have a right to jury trials in this country (Seventh Amendment, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,...") The bottom line on this is that there are things the judge is not permitted to decide--that a jury must decide--if the plaintiff or defendant (it takes only one) wants a jury trial.
On the post: In the Wake Of The Latest Terrorist Attacks, Here's A Rational Approach To Saving Lives
Horse head
It's profitable to sell security theater.
It's profitable to sell people things that make them sick (cigarettes, junk food).
It's profitable to sell dying people things to extend their life (drugs, healthcare, insurance).
It's profitable to sell war.
It's loss to build greater safety into consumer products.
It's loss to keep soldiers alive with armor.
So this is a great idea, and please don't take me as unkind, but I think you can expect to receive a gift from entrenched power interests tonight--a horse head in your bed.
On the post: Comcast Fails To Connect SmartCar's Silicon Valley Office For 10 Months, Wants $60,000 Anyway
Re:
On the post: Rep. Speier Wants To Register Every Prepaid Phone Purchase, In Case Someone Bad Uses One As A Burner Phone
Sauce for the gander
On the post: iPhone Forensics Experts Demonstrate Basic Proof Of Concept That The iPhone Hack The FBI Says 'Doesn't Work' Actually Does Work
Re:
I just did a search on Google main for "Syed Farook" and got 445,000 hits. The same search on Google News yields 54,700 hits.
A few examples, taken just from the first page of the Google News search:
CBS News: "... to help the FBI gain access to the phone used by Syed Farook, one of the two attackers in the December 2 shootings that killed 14 people."
Counterpunch: "A college graduate, “quiet, polite” Chicago-born Syed Farook who masterminded the San Bernardino massacre, was religiously devout and ..."
New York Daily News: "Slain California gunman Syed Farook grew up a home so tense that his mother divorced his father whom she accused of being an abusive ..."
Forbes: "... is fighting a court order requiring them to assist the FBI in opening the encrypted iPhone belonging to San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook."
Next time, you might want to check your opinions against reality before telling others how to do their jobs.
On the post: Ignorant Bigot Arrested In UK For Tweeting About Being An Obnoxious Ignorant Bigot
Bigotry, intolerance, dehumanization, war
Bigotry is a term we apply to a form of dehumanization. By its very nature, bigotry makes the victim less than human; for example ascribing animal intelligence or animal motives. The resulting effects are broad: in the case of blacks, n****rs were not only viewed as non-humans on a personal basis, but in many respects by law.
The person who asserts that he is "entitled to his bigoted beliefs", is the problem. The same problem as war, only on a smaller scale.
There is a problem in our society; we have competing requirements. On the one hand, there is the First Amendment; on the other a definite need to eliminate bigotry and its ilk at all scales. How shall these be reconciled? Because until we can eliminate bigotry, intolerance (a broader form), and dehumanization (their bastard stepchild) we cannot solve the problems of humanity.
Shall humanity continue in this form, forever, because there is a First Amendment? The hard answer to that question is that, if humanity is to improve, to some extent bigotry, intolerance, dehumanization and war must be removed from the domain of protected speech.
On the post: French Politicians Want To Create Ancillary Copyright In Thumbnail Images
Real reason
On the post: Congressional Reps Tell NSA To Cease Sharing Unminimized Data With Domestic Law Enforcement Agencies
Boy that'll scare NSA and FBI
On the post: Former DHS Secretary Says We Can Make Airports Safer From Terrorists By Rearranging Security Checkpoints
Can push it quite a ways...
True, strictly speaking. But you can push it back quite a ways from where it is right now. For example, TSA could send a team of 20 jackbooted and trigger happy agents to your house at 4 AM before your flight. Inspect your car, inspect your bags, inspect your house...and then they could push the proctoscopes they brought along, quite a ways up your a$$ just ensure you're really, truly not hiding anything. Then they could load you and your family into straight-jackets and then into a paddy wagon for your trip to the airport.
That would probably keep everyone safe.
I think we can all be sure this is what Michael Chertoff has in mind as he enthuses about pushing back the boundaries.
On the post: Company Cries Patent/Trademark Infringement After LARPer Guy Sells Some Foam Arrows He Didn't Make
Disingenious
Boy is this disingenuous. If "our product is better than theirs" advertisements were illegal, every single ad agency writer would be in jail.
On the post: San Francisco Legislators Dodging Public Records Requests With Self-Destructing Text Messages
My FOIA
Then some chap with reddish skin, horns and a tail suddenly appeared and informed me that I had now received a hell of a response for my FOIA request.
Then he confiscated the ashes and disappeared.
On the post: Administration Grants FBI More Raw Access To NSA Data Just As FBI Claims To Be Implementing New Minimization Procedures
What could they possibly be?
On the post: White House Further Embraces Open Source For Government... But Tell It To Do Even More
Yes, the IRS tax program source is a matter of national security!
Yes, the EPA superfund manager source is a matter of national security!
Yes, the National Park Service land management source is a matter of national security!
Yes, the National Forest Service park toilet maintenance scheduler source is a matter of national security!
On the post: What Should We Do About Linking To Sites That Block People Using Ad Blockers?
Re: Re: Way too much entitlement in this thread - making content takes time and money
But the ads at the top, around the edges, those are okay. If I'm interested, I can look, but I don't have to. They still get paid.
But that wasn't good enough; they saw that I might not pay attention (which is actually my right). So they invented pop-out ads.
And I was still ignoring them, so they invented pop over ads. Ads that you had to watch to enter the site.
And I still might be stubborn and not actually pay attention so: Motion ads, inline ads that move the text, and video ads that auto-play at top volume, and sound ads that play at top volume that you can't even find.
And malware, to enslave your system.
They started out bumping your shoulder with ads; I had no problem with that. Now they're hitting you in the side of the head with a three-foot elephant-leather glove, with a twelve-pound lead brick in the business end.
After you pick your bleeding, beaten carcass out of the dirt and complain, they say, "What the fuck do you mean, annoying?"
That's the whole reason there's a problem.
On the post: What Should We Do About Linking To Sites That Block People Using Ad Blockers?
Browser plugin link-rating system
1. Hover to pop up the rating display.
2. Snap bit.ly and similar links to determine the real target.
3. Consult a crowd-sourced rating system and display ratings.
4. Profile settings to mark unwanted features of the target site.
5. Mark links with a warning symbol when the site has features the user has indicated in the profile are unwanted.
6. Easy vote-rating system to register reviews of a site.
A quick search didn't show anything obvious in this space.
Rating features include:
1. Pop-over ads
2. Automatic video/sound ads and, secondarily, automatic video content
3. Ad malware
4. Pop-out ads
5. Pop-over ads
6. Inline ads that disturb text positioning
7. More?
Free speech is their watchword. Therfore they should have no problem with us using our free speech to rate their sites and share those ratings with others via such a system.
On the post: What Should We Do About Linking To Sites That Block People Using Ad Blockers?
Re:
hyperlink (AdForcer)
It shouldn't just be us that does this either. Google should add this marker to its links. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech; they want to force people to watch ads, the people should be allowed to identify them openly as such.
On the post: Want To Report A Dangerous Drug Dealer? Just Enter Your Personal Info Into The DEA's Unsecured Webform
Re: Re: They wouldn't do that
On the post: Courts, DOJ: Using Tor Doesn't Give You A Greater Expectation Of Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Those who do not use Tor, have no rights
But in houses, the openly visible doctrine applies only to those things that can be seen through windows or doors, which the officer may not open; and indoors only if the officer has a legal right to be indoors. Established law is that the officer cannot open a door to enter unless certain reasonable causes are in effect. If the doors are closed (but unlocked) the officer would have no grounds to enter and view anything.
Next >>