So they'd come and help right after they get done quarantining the Democratic Party for the rampant outbreak they've been dealing with for over three years now?
You do realize this isn't just one lawsuit, Theil had his lawyers go out and find people with viable claims against the company and offered to take their case against Gawker with Theil funding everything. So in a way, he did go around filing lawsuits to bankrupt the company. He's even said as much in interviews. So while there may not be anything illegal, though I would still lay money on RICO violations, it is definitely shady/questionable.
Looked at in a tech way, it's like a DDoS attack on gawker's legal team. You have to wonder if there isn't a chance at a RICO violation for the collusion and conspiracy to take down Gawker in this way.
It was an unsubstantial use of music clips for educational purposes, presented in a clearly educational manner; the use is obvious fair use as defined by the law itself.
My BS indicator is reading in the red. Only thing that would make sense is that they really didn't unlock the phone and this has been a tactical retreat from their precedent fight with a colorful narrative to fill in the details; because why would anyone question the details of a relatively closed-case investigation?
While a great tool, Jury Nullification has been mostly nerfed over the decades. Most people don't know about it. Defense teams aren't usually allowed to let the jury know such a tool exists or even mutter the name and any jurors who might know themselves are usually weeded out at pretrial.
Because it's Monday and feeding trolls is sometimes as numbing/relaxing as feeding pigeons:
What did he steal? To be an "obvious" thief, you'd think you'd have to obviously have stolen something first. And to be more pointed, from who was anything stolen? The only "obvious" _victim_ with a quantifiable loss is the game creator who must now hide his work, something forged on his own time and merit, because... copyright.
All works are derivative of something before it, that's just how culture works. Under copyright law, we are simply to ignore this natural fact and set an imaginary/arbitrary goal of derivation for a work to be considered "original."
You did get one thing right and that is the implied sense of this is how the system is supposed to work. Copyright has ALWAYS been about censorship, the working model was forged in Britain centuries ago to allow the monarch to control what got mass printed and what didn't, and so the result isn't even an "abuse of copyright" but more simply the intent.
It seems strange to me that such a law would exist, one where the leaders of an organization are held responsible if they should have known about egregious acts, for the private sector, but nothing similar for the public sector. Consider the somewhat recent case of Brennan denying knowledge of the CIA hacking senate staffers' computers. Any reasonable person would agree the director of an agency should reasonably have knowledge of such actions and you'd think, or hope rather, that knowledge or not, he would be held responsible for those actions.
I know the cynics will echo "duh! and... ?" and the one in me would agree, but it's still disheartening to see such an unabashed display of the dichotomy between government and private executives.
Copyright has ALWAYS been about censorship. It's not a new use for an old hammer; it's what the hammer was originally designed to do. A really great article about the history: http://questioncopyright.org/promise
Re:
Re:
Re:
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Re:
(untitled comment)
Re: "Fair Use" is a defense against infringement, not a right
Discovery
Re: Jury Nullifcation
Re:
Re: Turtles All The Way Down
Re: Not even redacted documents...these are fake
Re: Not even redacted documents...these are fake
Re: Re: Re: DDoS or ToS
As a floridian, I would be perfectly okay with that.
Re: A bit confused.
What did he steal? To be an "obvious" thief, you'd think you'd have to obviously have stolen something first. And to be more pointed, from who was anything stolen? The only "obvious" _victim_ with a quantifiable loss is the game creator who must now hide his work, something forged on his own time and merit, because... copyright.
All works are derivative of something before it, that's just how culture works. Under copyright law, we are simply to ignore this natural fact and set an imaginary/arbitrary goal of derivation for a work to be considered "original."
You did get one thing right and that is the implied sense of this is how the system is supposed to work. Copyright has ALWAYS been about censorship, the working model was forged in Britain centuries ago to allow the monarch to control what got mass printed and what didn't, and so the result isn't even an "abuse of copyright" but more simply the intent.
double standard?
I know the cynics will echo "duh! and... ?" and the one in me would agree, but it's still disheartening to see such an unabashed display of the dichotomy between government and private executives.
Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
Re: Remember: ed-style diffs are evil
Re: Your total evidence is trusting those who FAKED up the Iraq war.
More comments from Daniel >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Daniel.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt