But we're not talking about journalists here; we're talking about paparazzi.
This case is. But it's established a precedent about taking photographs which isn't limited to paparazzi.
Don't be so quick to cheer for judgements just because you don't like the defendants.
Russia being our super-best bud last time I checked?
“I do have a relationship and I can tell you that he’s very interested in what we’re doing here today,” he said on MSNBC. “He’s probably very interested in what you and I are saying today, and I’m sure he’s going to be seeing it in some form, but I do have a relationship with him and I think it’s very interesting to see what’s happened.” https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-timeline/
Obviously social media causes depression and we don't need studies for that.
Also, video games cause violence. Marijuana causes heroin, and homosexuality causes flooding.
Re: Now, WHO here is always for surveillance capitalism
Now, WHO here is always for surveillance capitalism
That is a very good question, thanks for asking!
I'd say it is the Pro-Copyright folks (Blueballs, John, others) that are always screaming about how they want corporations to monitor (and moderate!) all user activities.
Obviously they both want corporations to see everything we do to stop copyright violations. Surveillance Capitalism needs needs strong copyright law to justify the oversight.
They literally laughed and pranced and danced in public on the edge of a legal knife with their disgusting and ridiculous arguments that they were in the right.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Take your meds, write some self-help books and for the love of whatever petty god you worship stop fucking goats.
Copyright is supposed to be a balance between public and corporate interests.
Creators create, corporations monetize.
But the public doesn't hire lobbying teams to change the laws, letting corporate interests dominate the process.
Can't really monetize the public domain to fund a special interest group - so how do we limit the special interest groups? Campaign finance reform, capping donations, eliminating dark money seems to be the way to go.
Or we could just keep giving corporations everything they want, extending copyright to cover tractors and cars and printer ink...
On the post: Unsurprisingly, Ajit Pai's FCC Thinks The T-Mobile Sprint Merger Will Be Wonderful
Re: Re: Re:
It effectively gives those people a greater voice than someone who doesn't work for a corporation. And, I argue, it's wrong.
How do you revoke a corporations speech without blocking the speech of the people who make up that corporation?
On the post: Unsurprisingly, Ajit Pai's FCC Thinks The T-Mobile Sprint Merger Will Be Wonderful
Re: Re:
So, what do they think the phrase "free market" means?
It means "Absolutely no government interference."
So no trustbreaking, no taxes, no anti-monopoly regulations.
Still means government welfare to corporations of course. Telcos execs can't afford that fourth mansion without big government handouts you know!
Robber Barons and Mergers are the natural end result of unregulated capitalism. Enjoy.
On the post: Huge New Study Finds Almost No Evidence That Social Media Makes Kids Unhappy
Re:
OK I can see the pattern here
Yes, a pattern of peer-reviewed papers, work for well established and respected school, and studies about mental health.
Checks out.
On the post: Prince Harry Uses GDPR To Obtain Payout From Photographer Who Shot Photos Of His Rental Home
Re:
But we're not talking about journalists here; we're talking about paparazzi.
This case is. But it's established a precedent about taking photographs which isn't limited to paparazzi.
Don't be so quick to cheer for judgements just because you don't like the defendants.
On the post: Kazakhstan Cops Protect Citizens' Free Speech Rights By Arresting A Protester Holding A Blank Sign
Re: Re:
Russia being the glaring exception
Russia being our super-best bud last time I checked?
“I do have a relationship and I can tell you that he’s very interested in what we’re doing here today,” he said on MSNBC. “He’s probably very interested in what you and I are saying today, and I’m sure he’s going to be seeing it in some form, but I do have a relationship with him and I think it’s very interesting to see what’s happened.”
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-timeline/
On the post: Huge New Study Finds Almost No Evidence That Social Media Makes Kids Unhappy
This study is depressing
Obviously social media causes depression and we don't need studies for that.
Also, video games cause violence. Marijuana causes heroin, and homosexuality causes flooding.
Who needs science when you have opinions?
On the post: Flip Side To 'Stopping' Terrorist Content Online: Facebook Is Deleting Evidence Of War Crimes
Re:
i think you mean: Creating Reliable Antiterrorist Program
On the post: Flip Side To 'Stopping' Terrorist Content Online: Facebook Is Deleting Evidence Of War Crimes
Re: Why Facebook has censorship.
I do not often read RT news
Hey - and actual Russian Troll! And I thought trying to cite Infowars was bad. This shit is amazeballs.
A very stabile genius said that Putin is our bestie - so we'd better take heed of RT News.
On the post: Flip Side To 'Stopping' Terrorist Content Online: Facebook Is Deleting Evidence Of War Crimes
Re: Now, WHO here is always for surveillance capitalism
Now, WHO here is always for surveillance capitalism
That is a very good question, thanks for asking!
I'd say it is the Pro-Copyright folks (Blueballs, John, others) that are always screaming about how they want corporations to monitor (and moderate!) all user activities.
Obviously they both want corporations to see everything we do to stop copyright violations. Surveillance Capitalism needs needs strong copyright law to justify the oversight.
On the post: Forget Huawei, The Internet Of Things Is The Real Security Threat
Re: Re: Re:
Considering Google has pulled the plug on Huawei it seems likely they may fold.
So the Internet of (Shitty) Things is a bigger threat to safety.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 12th - 18th
Literal
They literally laughed and pranced and danced in public on the edge of a legal knife with their disgusting and ridiculous arguments that they were in the right.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Take your meds, write some self-help books and for the love of whatever petty god you worship stop fucking goats.
And try to stay on topic.
On the post: Foxconn Still Trying To Tap Dance Around Its Ever-Shrinking Wisconsin Promises
Re:
Foxcon isn't China per se, and Foxcon has backed out of similar deals before El Cheetos started the trade war.
On the post: Our Legal Dispute With Shiva Ayyadurai Is Now Over
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except you're watching your own hallucinations, which I suppose you would find appealing, as your brain created them.
Sounds like someone is practicing medicine without a license. That is something a self-help scammer would do to sell worthless ebooks.
On the post: Canadian Committee Publishes Ludicrous Fantasy Pretending To Be Copyright Reform Analysis
Re: Re: Oh Copyright!
Such as Masnick's assertion that "platforms" should be able to arbitrarily control even over 1st Amendment Right
Oh Blue Balls! Thank you for being so attentive.
Your analysis of this "right" is not backed up by statutory or common law. Without moderation, posting boards are quickly overwhelmed by spam.
Copyright enforces censorship, and is an actual violation of the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law." Remember that part?
On the post: Our Legal Dispute With Shiva Ayyadurai Is Now Over
Re:
Just reading about this guy makes me think he’s one of those “I am vengeance beware” types
Kinda like that buffoon Van Dyke, of White Power fame:
https://www.popehat.com/2017/07/09/texas-attorney-jason-l-van-dyke-fraudulent-buffoon-violence -threatening-online-tough-guy-vexatious-litigant-proud-bigot-and-all-around-human-dumpster-fire/
Tha t makes for an entertaining read as Van dyke looses his shit.
On the post: Canadian Committee Publishes Ludicrous Fantasy Pretending To Be Copyright Reform Analysis
Oh Copyright!
Copyright is supposed to be a balance between public and corporate interests.
Creators create, corporations monetize.
But the public doesn't hire lobbying teams to change the laws, letting corporate interests dominate the process.
Can't really monetize the public domain to fund a special interest group - so how do we limit the special interest groups? Campaign finance reform, capping donations, eliminating dark money seems to be the way to go.
Or we could just keep giving corporations everything they want, extending copyright to cover tractors and cars and printer ink...
On the post: The Subtle Economics Of Private World Of Warcraft Servers: Anarchy, Order And Who Gets The Loot
Re: Interesting, but...
Economists love studying the finance in these things.
On the post: Our Legal Dispute With Shiva Ayyadurai Is Now Over
Congrats on closing that out Mike.
On the post: Disney Wins 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' Copyright Suit As Court Declares You Cannot Copyright Pirate Life
Re:
That would be like copyright jazz, or music inspired by Marvin Gaye...
On the post: And Now The Prime Minister Of Canada Is Threatening To Fine Social Media Companies Over 'Fake News'
Re:
Too big to moderate is the online
Good content moderations is impossible at any scale.
Next >>