What does the court mean by "The chromatic scale is one of two principal scales in Western music" -- what is the other principal scale: major? natural minor? harmonic minor? blues?
Here's what's well-documented: people in Russia posted fake and misleading online information which attracted attention and interest. What isn't well-documented: this was directed by the Russian government; this was intended to influence the election. What it looks like to me: commercial Russian clickfarms took advantage of most interesting and controversial topics to make plenty of money, just like clickfarms do all the time with whatever topics are hot.
I still haven't seen any evidence -- including in the indictment of Russian trolls -- indicating that their motivation was to influence the election. A good case can be made that their single-minded intention was to do what all successful trolls do: Choose the most controversial hot-button issues to generate the most clicks and make the most money possible.
The judge's foolish order may be unconstitutional for lots of reasons, but I don't get why it's called "prior restraint" -- doesn't that usually mean preventing someone from taking an action in the future? Here, the order is saying to take down materials that already have been published.
I uploaded a song to YouTube Music. ContentID told me that a dozen videos use my song, and I get a few pennies every time someone views one of the videos. I've looked at all of the videos, and there is NO PART of my song in them. I don't even know whom to report this to, so I'll continue collecting my pennies thanks to ContentID.
Sounds good to me: Less speech (since so much "speech" is garbage) and less innovation (so that we can get only developments that are really useful and beneficial and eliminate overhyped nonsense "innovations"). All right, I admit that less security sounds troubling.
I always admire when someone uses the Streisand Effect to garner huge publicity while pretending they're trying to avoid it. Well played, Lucha Underground!
I know these theories are foolish, but I believe them: (1) Wiseau's litigiousness is based solely on his finely-honed instinct for generating publicity; and (2) Wiseau is the comedian Andy Kaufman, who faked his death not long before Wiseau first appeared on the scene.
I hope you don't get hassled by the holder of the Whac-a-Mole trademark. I think the conventional hassle from trademark holders to journalists and writers is that they strongly urge the use of capital letters so that readers will know it's a trademark (in addition to urging writers not to use the trademark as if it's a generic term for the product or service).
Because I write under a pseudonym, my proposed solution is entirely hypocritical -- but I believe that non-anonymous accounts, which are verified to use the correct name of the real person, would solve 99% of this problem.
Don't you hate it when a spell-checking program allows the wrong (correctly spelled) word through? Attorney White's letter should say "but to identify Titan" and not "but to identity Titan"
I understand that word meaning can change, but is it really "crowdfunding" when Crowdflare "is also crowdfunding up to $50,0000 for prior art discoveries"? Isn't this the opposite of crowdfunding (at least in its traditional meaning) -- Crowdflare is giving away money for what it seeks, not trying to raise money -- or is this a new thing to be called "reverse crowdfunding"?
There are so many trademark registrations for "The Big Game" that I'm surprised there don't seem to be any lawsuits about advertisers infringing that trademark yet.
This is a perfect example of why the fuss over "fake news" is so laughable. Here is an op-ed piece in the New York Times by an apparently respected pundit, as full of garbage as the worst "fake news" clickbait.
Victims of plagiarism can sue based on legal theories other than copyright infringement. In a recent Connecticut plagiarism case, the lawsuit was based on conversion and civil theft. Coster v. Duquette, No. UWYCV075005297S, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3082 (Super. Ct. Dec. 3, 2008)
If Citibank wins over "THANKYOU", then I can see an end to the controversy over saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" -- Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly should just register a trademark for "Happy Holidays" and then everyone will have to stop saying it.
Surprising to see the MPAA's take on this, in the StarTribune article linked within the post: "Even after senators curtailed the proposal's reach, objections remained among some powerful interests. Elizabeth Mottur, a lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America, said it could expose filmmakers to lawsuits if they portray historical characters or even use historical footage in movies. She used 'Forrest Gump' as an example. 'You can say, yes, that movies are protected by the First Amendment,' Mottur said. 'Yes, but now the burden is being shifted to the company to go to court and fight the charge and prove their First Amendment right.'"
Finally, here is The State Bar of California's response to my complaint about Marta Thoma Hall (see my earlier comments in this thread for history):
"The State Bar of California is in receipt of your letter regarding Marta Thoma Hall. Although the State Bar can take certain limited action against non-lawyers under section 6126 of the Businesss and Professions Code, our primary jurisdictional authority is over California attorneys.
"We contacted Velodyne regarding your complaint that Ms. Hall was issuing legal notices to third-party resellers on Amazon.com and eBay.com from Sock and Bruster Internet Policing Services Inc. LPC, Legal Prosecution and Collection Agency, a fictitious agency. It is the State Bar's understanding that Ms. Hall is no longer in her former position at Velodyne; therefore, it is unlikely that Ms. Hall will continue to send these legal notices.
"We are interested in the information provided and we will keep your complaint on file; however, we are closing your matter at this time without prejudice. Should we require additional information in the future, we will contact you.
"Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Very truly yours, Kevin Kim Law Clerk"
Why is this in Techdirt?
A heartbreaking store -- and I hope justice is done -- but how is this related to Techdirt's areas of interest?
Two Principal Scales in Western Music
What does the court mean by "The chromatic scale is one of two principal scales in Western music" -- what is the other principal scale: major? natural minor? harmonic minor? blues?
"Well Documented Attempts to Influence the Election"
Here's what's well-documented: people in Russia posted fake and misleading online information which attracted attention and interest. What isn't well-documented: this was directed by the Russian government; this was intended to influence the election. What it looks like to me: commercial Russian clickfarms took advantage of most interesting and controversial topics to make plenty of money, just like clickfarms do all the time with whatever topics are hot.
She didn't quite "defeat" Viacom at the Trademark Office
Unfortunately, she didn't quite "defeat" Viacom at the Trademark Office -- mostly in the court of public relations, I think: Viacom withdrew its opposition to her trademark. See https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12225594
Influencing the Election or Just Making Money?
I still haven't seen any evidence -- including in the indictment of Russian trolls -- indicating that their motivation was to influence the election. A good case can be made that their single-minded intention was to do what all successful trolls do: Choose the most controversial hot-button issues to generate the most clicks and make the most money possible.
What "Prior Restraint" Means
The judge's foolish order may be unconstitutional for lots of reasons, but I don't get why it's called "prior restraint" -- doesn't that usually mean preventing someone from taking an action in the future? Here, the order is saying to take down materials that already have been published.
I love ContentID because I get free money
Less Speech, Less Security, Less Innovation: 2 outta 3 ain't bad
Nice Reverse Streisand Play by Lucha
Crazy theories about Wiseau that I believe
Whac-a-Mole
My Hypocritical Solution: Verified Non-Anonymous Accounts Only
Stupid spell-checking programs
Is reverse crowdfunding a new thing?
"The Big Game" is a registered trademark too
All News is Fake
Re: Use the tools you are given
End of the "War on Christmas"?
Great to see MPAA and Techdirt on the same side
Re: Unauthorized Practice of Law
"The State Bar of California is in receipt of your letter regarding Marta Thoma Hall. Although the State Bar can take certain limited action against non-lawyers under section 6126 of the Businesss and Professions Code, our primary jurisdictional authority is over California attorneys.
"We contacted Velodyne regarding your complaint that Ms. Hall was issuing legal notices to third-party resellers on Amazon.com and eBay.com from Sock and Bruster Internet Policing Services Inc. LPC, Legal Prosecution and Collection Agency, a fictitious agency. It is the State Bar's understanding that Ms. Hall is no longer in her former position at Velodyne; therefore, it is unlikely that Ms. Hall will continue to send these legal notices.
"We are interested in the information provided and we will keep your complaint on file; however, we are closing your matter at this time without prejudice. Should we require additional information in the future, we will contact you.
"Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Very truly yours,
Kevin Kim
Law Clerk"
More comments from CharlesGrossman >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by CharlesGrossman.
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