The way the courts have justified this is by effectively saying the copyright is on the framing of the shot -- the "creative" choices is where to point the camera to frame the image or video...
Just to be clear, nothing in this laughable word salad has anything to do with how anything in the law actually works. And, I have never worked for GoFundMe, and I don't advise companies on legal issues, and I personally think GoFundMe's original plan was clear wire fraud and have no idea why they would do that.
But, really, you're incredibly ignorant of basically everything. And you should maybe stop.
Neither of those claims are true. Both are blatantly false. Google has sponsored projects we've done over the years, but so have dozens of companies.
And we were never sued over anything related to any of this. Nor would we (because we have never been "on Google's payroll" nor even particularly supportive of the company). You're very, very confused.
You have no first amendment right to make posts on social media websites.
That is correct. But this bill is not about that.
A website, however, DOES have a 1st Amendment right to determine how to moderate its own content. And that's where this bill creates a problem, by forcing websites to moderate how the government sees fit, rather than how they see fit.
I could go on and on and on. But, at some point you have to think that, if I'm a "Google shill," then I'm clearly not a particularly good one.
But, of course, you weren't serious. You can't respond to the actual points so you need to spread some misinformation since that's the best you can do.
If you remember reading the first decision Mike the only thing required to obtain a protective order is a reasonable belief that a party to the case acquired the evidence through means outside of the normal means.
The issue is not the rules for a protective order, but rather the rules for prior restraint, which are controlled by the 1st Amendment. You don't get to avoid the 1st Amendment here.
The difference is I dont get paid for legal advice.
Nor do I
I think that with the coming criminal investigations of GoFundMe and all the "expert advisors" who are now facing criminal investigation for conspiracy to commit fraud, yourself and those like you AKA Generation X talking heads who got their foot in the tech door early really need to take a step back and think.
Lol, wut?
Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money.
Whatever drugs you've been taking, you should stop.
Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money.
1) None of that has anything to do with his attempt to silence the paper with a SLAPP threat, even if he disagrees with the characterization.
2) The court records literally note that -- contrary to your claim -- Shawe did not deny the bed incident.
3) As noted above, even if this was mostly a business dispute, from the court ruling, it was Shawe who filed domestic incident reports, that brought the former relationship into the business dispute...
It is utter nonsense. Nothing in the book is problematic. Anyone who thinks it has problems is too dumb to respond to.
So, yes, my views are exceptionally clear: Maus is a valuable contribution to literature and it is not at all problematic for middle school kids to read. Teachers should decide curriculum -- not schools boards, not parents. And copyright should not be used to stop libraries from lending books. I don't think what the school board here was a "ban," but dictating books teachers can't use is still a horrible act of censorship by a governing board.
Step 2: Have the FBI raid their offices so you can get all of their attorney-client documents outside of normal discovery
If this happened, then there are all sorts of remedies for it. The problem is that, so far, no evidence of this has been provided. If, at some future point, it is, then there are plenty of serious remedies that can be brought forth.
This post claims that being exposed to an opposing viewpoint is an affront to my very existence? That's a weird thing to say, since nothing in this post takes any view one way or the other on being exposed to viewpoints. It's literally just about the question of whether or not Section 230 matters here.
I honestly don't mind that people listen to Rogan. I think everyone here has free speech rights, but I think the people making a big deal out of Rogan aren't doing themselves any favors either, and playing into a silly martyrdom.
Honestly, my only complaint with Spotify is their nonsense desire to lock up open podcasts into their proprietary audio format. If Rogan had stayed as a regular podcast none of this would matter.
You are a mid-wit.
I mean, fuck, you're the guy who can't read the fucking post. So if I'm a mid-wit, what the fuck does that make you?
Well the good news was that Earn it didn’t get the time to be marked up yesterday,
Nah, that's just standard practice. The bill is announced one week and "held over" for markup the next week. Happens with nearly every bill that gets a markup, so there was no delay... just standard practice.
But, yes, people need to speak up LOUDLY to get this stopped. This has serious traction.
There are a growing number of people, both in the U.S. and the western world, who are increasingly intolerant of any speech with which they disagree.
You are confusing "more speech" with intolerance. Neil Young engaged in speech to protest decisions he disagreed with. Spotify engaged in its speech determining who it wished to align with.
It's the marketplace of ideas Koby.
They view themselves ever being exposed to an opposing viewpoint as an affront to their very existence.
I have seen no one doing this.
And they even view it as unconscionable that anyone else would be permitted to listen to these opposing viewpoints, even if those others actively sought out the material.
I see no one doing this.
These Individuals are facists.
Expressing their views makes them fascists? No. But people -- such as yourself -- who claim to have the right to force private companies to host speech they disagree with, sure seem to toe the line.
The "both sides fallacy" is when you attempt to minimize one group's actions by saying others do it too. I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out, accurately, that there are both Democrats and Republicans shitting on the 1st Amendment. Because there are.
As another commenter noted above, it appears that there are different kinds of WeChat accounts, and they chose one that required registration by a Chinese citizen because it appeared to enable them to do more push notifications. Silly politicians...
has never been enforced against left wing advocates from what I've seen
Lol. Dude. Just because you live in your own chamber of stupidity, don't think that things don't happen outside of that world.
Fact is that it happens way more to marginalized individuals and groups -- it's just that they don't have a large enough megaphone to play victim like the poseurs you follow do.
On the post: No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet
Re:
The way the courts have justified this is by effectively saying the copyright is on the framing of the shot -- the "creative" choices is where to point the camera to frame the image or video...
On the post: Thankfully, Jay Inslee's Unconstitutional Bill To Criminalize Political Speech Dies In The Washington Senate
Re: Larry Tribe
During the Trump era, he fell in with a weird bunch, and seemed to have lost the plot: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/larry-tribe-why
On the post: Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents
Re:
Just to be clear, nothing in this laughable word salad has anything to do with how anything in the law actually works. And, I have never worked for GoFundMe, and I don't advise companies on legal issues, and I personally think GoFundMe's original plan was clear wire fraud and have no idea why they would do that.
But, really, you're incredibly ignorant of basically everything. And you should maybe stop.
On the post: Senator Klobuchar's Next Unconstitutional Speech Control Bill: The NUDGE Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh
Neither of those claims are true. Both are blatantly false. Google has sponsored projects we've done over the years, but so have dozens of companies.
And we were never sued over anything related to any of this. Nor would we (because we have never been "on Google's payroll" nor even particularly supportive of the company). You're very, very confused.
On the post: Senator Klobuchar's Next Unconstitutional Speech Control Bill: The NUDGE Act
Re: Uh
You have no first amendment right to make posts on social media websites.
That is correct. But this bill is not about that.
A website, however, DOES have a 1st Amendment right to determine how to moderate its own content. And that's where this bill creates a problem, by forcing websites to moderate how the government sees fit, rather than how they see fit.
On the post: Senator Klobuchar's Next Unconstitutional Speech Control Bill: The NUDGE Act
Re: Re: Uh
I must be the worst Google shill ever.
Here's where I noted that their advertising scheme almost certainly violates antitrust laws:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20220114/22313448287/states-3rd-amended-antitrust-complaint- against-google-looks-lot-more-damning.shtml
Here's where I talk about ditching all Google tracking from our website:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210726/09441047251/techdirt-is-now-entirely-without-any -google-ads-tracking-code.shtml
Here we are calling out Google's ridiculous net neutrality position:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150820/10454632018/google-lobbied-against-real-net-neu trality-india-just-like-it-did-states.shtml
Here we are calling out Google's obnoxious trade position:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160610/15124434685/google-comes-down-wrong-side-tpp.sh tml
I could go on and on and on. But, at some point you have to think that, if I'm a "Google shill," then I'm clearly not a particularly good one.
But, of course, you weren't serious. You can't respond to the actual points so you need to spread some misinformation since that's the best you can do.
On the post: Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents
Re: Re: Re:
If you remember reading the first decision Mike the only thing required to obtain a protective order is a reasonable belief that a party to the case acquired the evidence through means outside of the normal means.
The issue is not the rules for a protective order, but rather the rules for prior restraint, which are controlled by the 1st Amendment. You don't get to avoid the 1st Amendment here.
The difference is I dont get paid for legal advice.
Nor do I
I think that with the coming criminal investigations of GoFundMe and all the "expert advisors" who are now facing criminal investigation for conspiracy to commit fraud, yourself and those like you AKA Generation X talking heads who got their foot in the tech door early really need to take a step back and think.
Lol, wut?
Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money.
Whatever drugs you've been taking, you should stop.
Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money.
You are really, really, high.
On the post: The Intersection Of Section 230, SLAPP Threats, The Streisand Effect And Sex Discrimination In Corporate Structures
Re: Clarifying and Offering insight
1) None of that has anything to do with his attempt to silence the paper with a SLAPP threat, even if he disagrees with the characterization.
2) The court records literally note that -- contrary to your claim -- Shawe did not deny the bed incident.
3) As noted above, even if this was mostly a business dispute, from the court ruling, it was Shawe who filed domestic incident reports, that brought the former relationship into the business dispute...
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
Re: Re: Re: Maus
It is utter nonsense. Nothing in the book is problematic. Anyone who thinks it has problems is too dumb to respond to.
So, yes, my views are exceptionally clear: Maus is a valuable contribution to literature and it is not at all problematic for middle school kids to read. Teachers should decide curriculum -- not schools boards, not parents. And copyright should not be used to stop libraries from lending books. I don't think what the school board here was a "ban," but dictating books teachers can't use is still a horrible act of censorship by a governing board.
No weasel words.
On the post: Unknown American VC Firm Apparently Looking To Acquire NSO Group, Limit It To Selling To Five Eyes Countries
Re:
That may be true of certain private equity firms, but not VC.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
Re: Maus
I literally said in the article that not everyone considers it a ban. Did you even read the article before commenting?
On the post: Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents
Re:
Step 2: Have the FBI raid their offices so you can get all of their attorney-client documents outside of normal discovery
If this happened, then there are all sorts of remedies for it. The problem is that, so far, no evidence of this has been provided. If, at some future point, it is, then there are plenty of serious remedies that can be brought forth.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Disallowed
Masnick, your entire post was this very thing.
This post claims that being exposed to an opposing viewpoint is an affront to my very existence? That's a weird thing to say, since nothing in this post takes any view one way or the other on being exposed to viewpoints. It's literally just about the question of whether or not Section 230 matters here.
I honestly don't mind that people listen to Rogan. I think everyone here has free speech rights, but I think the people making a big deal out of Rogan aren't doing themselves any favors either, and playing into a silly martyrdom.
Honestly, my only complaint with Spotify is their nonsense desire to lock up open podcasts into their proprietary audio format. If Rogan had stayed as a regular podcast none of this would matter.
You are a mid-wit.
I mean, fuck, you're the guy who can't read the fucking post. So if I'm a mid-wit, what the fuck does that make you?
On the post: How The EARN IT Act Is Significantly More Dangerous Than FOSTA
Re:
Well the good news was that Earn it didn’t get the time to be marked up yesterday,
Nah, that's just standard practice. The bill is announced one week and "held over" for markup the next week. Happens with nearly every bill that gets a markup, so there was no delay... just standard practice.
But, yes, people need to speak up LOUDLY to get this stopped. This has serious traction.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re: Disallowed
There are a growing number of people, both in the U.S. and the western world, who are increasingly intolerant of any speech with which they disagree.
You are confusing "more speech" with intolerance. Neil Young engaged in speech to protest decisions he disagreed with. Spotify engaged in its speech determining who it wished to align with.
It's the marketplace of ideas Koby.
They view themselves ever being exposed to an opposing viewpoint as an affront to their very existence.
I have seen no one doing this.
And they even view it as unconscionable that anyone else would be permitted to listen to these opposing viewpoints, even if those others actively sought out the material.
I see no one doing this.
These Individuals are facists.
Expressing their views makes them fascists? No. But people -- such as yourself -- who claim to have the right to force private companies to host speech they disagree with, sure seem to toe the line.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re:
No, the paid part doesn't change the calculus. It's still 3rd party content. See the Drudge case I pointed to...
On the post: Senate's New EARN IT Bill Will Make Child Exploitation Problem Worse, Not Better, And Still Attacks Encryption
Re:
Much, much, much more likely.
On the post: Governor Inslee Wants To Jail Politicians Who Lie? What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Re: The both sides fallacy
The "both sides fallacy" is when you attempt to minimize one group's actions by saying others do it too. I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out, accurately, that there are both Democrats and Republicans shitting on the 1st Amendment. Because there are.
On the post: Australian Prime Minister, After Registering For A WeChat Account Using Unnamed Chinese Citizen, Finds His Account Sold To Someone Else
Re: Huh?
As another commenter noted above, it appears that there are different kinds of WeChat accounts, and they chose one that required registration by a Chinese citizen because it appeared to enable them to do more push notifications. Silly politicians...
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Re: Re: Re: Non Interference
has never been enforced against left wing advocates from what I've seen
Lol. Dude. Just because you live in your own chamber of stupidity, don't think that things don't happen outside of that world.
Fact is that it happens way more to marginalized individuals and groups -- it's just that they don't have a large enough megaphone to play victim like the poseurs you follow do.
Next >>