I'm still trying to figure out if the phrase "show me strong white" is some kind of veiled racist message.
The website could have done a much better job of separating the phrase "show me strong" from "white coffee mug". Actually, they didn't need to include the word "white" and just let customers select a color.
I wonder if the rise in physical media is the start of a digital backlash. Maybe enough people are learning that they don't actually own the songs and movies they download (from legal sites, that is), and that their content can be removed at any time.
How many songs or e-books or movies have disappeared simply because a publisher doesn't want to sell it on a specific service?
So instead, people are buying the physical version so they can keep it forever.
If the sex offender registry is designed to inform people about a person's bad behavior, why is there no murderer registry?
I find it beyond ridiculous that someone can get on the sex registry and stigmatized for life for peeing in public, but the guy who murders 3 people, serves 50 years in jail, and is then released for "serving his time" does NOT have to go on any list.
So, oh, no- your next door neighbor peed in public! Avoid him at all costs! But your other neighbor killed 3 people, served 50 years in jail, and no one knows about it.
If Apple makes Apple TV and Apple Computers, and they're opposing "Apple Man", then can we assume this means their next big electronics announcement will actually be an Apple Man? Maybe it's an AI, but better than Siri, or maybe it's a new robot like Data from Star Trek.
How many times have we read stories about laws that are thousands and thousands of pages long? And it's only later that we realize there is a small claws on page 2000 that gives such-and-such exemption to such and such company.
So it's a little surprising that Disney actually got caught trying to slip a clause into this bill, when other companies are slipping clauses into federal laws all the time.
Let's say I go to Walt Disney World, which is on private land, owned by a company, but open the public.
Can I rave about how great Universal Studios is? Okay, probably, since that's tame.
But can I rant about how Disney is a soul sucking intuition that stomps on the public domain and is creatively bankrupt? No- I'd rightfully get tossed out for spoiling other people's experiences.
But whenever I read about how politicians want to "block censorship", I'd like to ask them to publicly post the comments they want "un-censored". Will these politicians really stand behind the hateful and racist comments they post?
Would it be considered a lie if Trump said "I heard that someone reported that someone read that Obama was born in Kenya. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, I'm just asking the question of whether it's true or not."
Obviously, it's a lie, but the way politicians phrase things could make it very easy for them to lie and get away with it.
Plus, if politicians write the law then they'll write in exceptions.
You may not be able to copyright a number, but you can scare people into thinking you can.
Years ago, I used to sell digital models on TurboSquid. One of models had a description that said "includes a table model with 1,747 polygons". Their system flagged and said I couldn't use "747" because it was a Boeing copyright. Yes, human would see that I'm selling a furniture model, not an airplane, but their automated system was set up to flag and avoid possible complaints from companies like Boeing.
This rule also applied to numbers like 350 (BMW), 356 (Porsche), 250 (Ferrari), and so on.
I once uploaded an F-14 aircraft model and my description includes a little history about how the aircraft served on the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier. Their system flagged it and said "Enterprise" was copyrighted by CBS/ Viacom.
(Yet there are plenty of Star Trek models for sale at TurboSquid, so it's not like this flagging is stopping anyone from selling Star Trek models.)
Can someone copyright the word "Enterprise" in every single usage? Probably not, but if a company can scare people into believing they own it, then that's good enough.
First, I'm sure the executives at ONN know their days are numbered, but they need to "do something" to show their base that they're going something to get back at those nasty liberals trying to silence them. In their minds, they're being "patriots" standing up for their right to free speech.
Second, some people have commented about how it's not a good idea to openly talk about committing crimes. No offense, but where have you been for the last few years?
The right-wing playbook goes something like this: first, they say it's not a crime, then they say that if it was a crime, they should be able to get away with it, but then if they're arresed, then Trump will pardon them.
I say the same thing every time one of these stories comes up: the courts need to disbar the lawyers who start these cases.
Either the lawyer doesn't know the law, so he shouldn't be practicing.
Or he does know the law and he's taking money from the client, which is an ethics violation and he shouldn't be practicing.
Hasn't this site shown over and over, and with plenty of studies, how to turn piracy into profit?
People pirate songs and movies for various reasons.
A large majority of them are impressed with the quality and BUY, whether that's a CD or a movie theater ticket.
We can debate whether piracy is wrong, but blindly sending out takedown notices to review sites will not turn anyone into customers.
In fact, I'd bet news of this issue will spread further than any negative book review, assuming that review site even had any bad reviews.
If there were 3.6 billion robo calls made December and the telecom companies charged 5 cents per call as a connection fee, that's $180 million just to connect the call.
Then the telecom companies could charge their customers $4.95 a month for a cal screening service. Des anyone know how many people have purchased subscriptions to AT&T's screening app?
Then the telecom companies could charge companies another fee to let their calls get past customers' screening apps.
So why in the world would any telecom company do anything to stop this flow of money?
I've used the idea of "pick it up and put it on mute" for years. I like to think the same as you- that putting it on mute tells the robo call that it reached a dead number. Hopefully their computer will remove my phone number from their system.
However, some scammers like the "support our police" use real people who say hello, which causes me to say hello, so then start in on their sales pitch.
But at least putting it on mute may stop the robo callers.
"They send a pointless letter that makes the client happy, bills them more hours, and then never file a case"
Doesn't it violate legal ethics to take money from a client to file a lawsuit that the lawyer should know has no merit?
I've said this over and over: shouldn't judges start disbarring lawyers for doing this? Maybe some disbarments will send a message that lawyers need to stop sending letters or filing cases like this.
If everyone here on this site knows this idea is performative and stupid, why aren't more people going on the offensive and pushing back? Where's the media calling out these AG's for their dumb idea? Why aren't we seeing Democratic politicians calling out this stupid idea? I would think Democrats would get a lot of mileage out of blasting the "party of personal responsibility" for their claims of censorship.
And as a bonus, the Democrats could post examples of the posts that are getting Republicans "censored".
If this law suit is actually frivolous then the judge needs to throw the book at Trump and his law team. Though I'm sure Trump will figure out a way to not pay any fines (or even pay his own legal team).
But what will happen to the lawyers if they're looking at thousands or millions in legal costs and punitive court fines? Or do they not care about fines since they'll get tons of attention from the right-wing conservative media sphere? Sure, they'll have to sell off all their assets to pay the court fines, but look how many conservative followers they now have on Twitter!
I know this has been said before, but all say it again. Whenever conservatives accuse websites of censoring thier posts, ask them what they were trying to post.
If they're trying to talk about fiscal responsibility and a smaller government and they're getting banned, then there might be an issue. But I somehow doubt this is what they mean by "censorship".
If they're trying to post racist comments or if they start discussions about killing Democrats or even overthrowing the legitimately elected president, then yes, those kinds of comments should be removed.
Basically, if the average person thinks the comment is racist or hateful, then the site has every right to remove it. But it seems like their "right" to post crap is more important than a community's right not to deal with crap posts.
I don't remember where I saw it, but Rupert Murdoch said he'd switch to left-leaning news if it got more attention than right-leaning news. But it doesn't, so he keeps FOX spouting information that appeals to right-wing people and gets left-wing people upset.
Either way, he gets more attention.
Is this is a risk taken by anyone who bases their creation off of someone else's IP? Maybe he should consider himself lucky Square Enix didn't object and send him a cease and desist order before now.
I know people are fans of things, but the only way to keep copyright maximalists from suing is to not use anything of theirs in any other form.
I wonder if lawyers will argue over the term "indefinitely" as it applies to digital files.
When you buy a physical good, like a CD or DVD, you literally have it forever: you can give it to your kids and they can give it to their kids, for hundreds of years, or until the DVD falls apart. Though whether you can play the DVD is another story.
But what about digital files? Should Apple keep an iTunes server up for 25 years or 50 years or 100 years? What happens when Apple is bought by Disney? Should Disney keep the iTunes server up and running?
And even if the server is still running in 25 years, does Apple (or their new owner) have an obligation to convert the file to other formats as technology changes?
Or would this fall under the idea that the media is there, but the maker isn't responsible for providing a player?
Show me strong white
I'm still trying to figure out if the phrase "show me strong white" is some kind of veiled racist message.
The website could have done a much better job of separating the phrase "show me strong" from "white coffee mug". Actually, they didn't need to include the word "white" and just let customers select a color.
Is this the start of a digital backlash
I wonder if the rise in physical media is the start of a digital backlash. Maybe enough people are learning that they don't actually own the songs and movies they download (from legal sites, that is), and that their content can be removed at any time.
How many songs or e-books or movies have disappeared simply because a publisher doesn't want to sell it on a specific service?
So instead, people are buying the physical version so they can keep it forever.
Re: Outlawing someone's existence
If the sex offender registry is designed to inform people about a person's bad behavior, why is there no murderer registry?
I find it beyond ridiculous that someone can get on the sex registry and stigmatized for life for peeing in public, but the guy who murders 3 people, serves 50 years in jail, and is then released for "serving his time" does NOT have to go on any list.
So, oh, no- your next door neighbor peed in public! Avoid him at all costs! But your other neighbor killed 3 people, served 50 years in jail, and no one knows about it.
Let's think about this
If Apple makes Apple TV and Apple Computers, and they're opposing "Apple Man", then can we assume this means their next big electronics announcement will actually be an Apple Man? Maybe it's an AI, but better than Siri, or maybe it's a new robot like Data from Star Trek.
I'm surprised Disney got caught
How many times have we read stories about laws that are thousands and thousands of pages long? And it's only later that we realize there is a small claws on page 2000 that gives such-and-such exemption to such and such company.
So it's a little surprising that Disney actually got caught trying to slip a clause into this bill, when other companies are slipping clauses into federal laws all the time.
Theme park analogy
Let's say I go to Walt Disney World, which is on private land, owned by a company, but open the public.
Can I rave about how great Universal Studios is? Okay, probably, since that's tame.
But can I rant about how Disney is a soul sucking intuition that stomps on the public domain and is creatively bankrupt? No- I'd rightfully get tossed out for spoiling other people's experiences.
But whenever I read about how politicians want to "block censorship", I'd like to ask them to publicly post the comments they want "un-censored". Will these politicians really stand behind the hateful and racist comments they post?
What about "just asking questions"
Would it be considered a lie if Trump said "I heard that someone reported that someone read that Obama was born in Kenya. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, I'm just asking the question of whether it's true or not."
Obviously, it's a lie, but the way politicians phrase things could make it very easy for them to lie and get away with it.
Plus, if politicians write the law then they'll write in exceptions.
Re: Some musings
You may not be able to copyright a number, but you can scare people into thinking you can.
Years ago, I used to sell digital models on TurboSquid. One of models had a description that said "includes a table model with 1,747 polygons". Their system flagged and said I couldn't use "747" because it was a Boeing copyright. Yes, human would see that I'm selling a furniture model, not an airplane, but their automated system was set up to flag and avoid possible complaints from companies like Boeing.
This rule also applied to numbers like 350 (BMW), 356 (Porsche), 250 (Ferrari), and so on.
I once uploaded an F-14 aircraft model and my description includes a little history about how the aircraft served on the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier. Their system flagged it and said "Enterprise" was copyrighted by CBS/ Viacom.
(Yet there are plenty of Star Trek models for sale at TurboSquid, so it's not like this flagging is stopping anyone from selling Star Trek models.)
Can someone copyright the word "Enterprise" in every single usage? Probably not, but if a company can scare people into believing they own it, then that's good enough.
Two points
First, I'm sure the executives at ONN know their days are numbered, but they need to "do something" to show their base that they're going something to get back at those nasty liberals trying to silence them. In their minds, they're being "patriots" standing up for their right to free speech.
Second, some people have commented about how it's not a good idea to openly talk about committing crimes. No offense, but where have you been for the last few years?
The right-wing playbook goes something like this: first, they say it's not a crime, then they say that if it was a crime, they should be able to get away with it, but then if they're arresed, then Trump will pardon them.
Disbar the lawyers
I say the same thing every time one of these stories comes up: the courts need to disbar the lawyers who start these cases.
Either the lawyer doesn't know the law, so he shouldn't be practicing.
Or he does know the law and he's taking money from the client, which is an ethics violation and he shouldn't be practicing.
Turn piracy into profit
Hasn't this site shown over and over, and with plenty of studies, how to turn piracy into profit?
We can debate whether piracy is wrong, but blindly sending out takedown notices to review sites will not turn anyone into customers.
In fact, I'd bet news of this issue will spread further than any negative book review, assuming that review site even had any bad reviews.
It's all about the money
If there were 3.6 billion robo calls made December and the telecom companies charged 5 cents per call as a connection fee, that's $180 million just to connect the call.
Then the telecom companies could charge their customers $4.95 a month for a cal screening service. Des anyone know how many people have purchased subscriptions to AT&T's screening app?
Then the telecom companies could charge companies another fee to let their calls get past customers' screening apps.
So why in the world would any telecom company do anything to stop this flow of money?
Re:
I've used the idea of "pick it up and put it on mute" for years. I like to think the same as you- that putting it on mute tells the robo call that it reached a dead number. Hopefully their computer will remove my phone number from their system.
However, some scammers like the "support our police" use real people who say hello, which causes me to say hello, so then start in on their sales pitch.
But at least putting it on mute may stop the robo callers.
Re: Re:
"They send a pointless letter that makes the client happy, bills them more hours, and then never file a case"
Doesn't it violate legal ethics to take money from a client to file a lawsuit that the lawyer should know has no merit?
I've said this over and over: shouldn't judges start disbarring lawyers for doing this? Maybe some disbarments will send a message that lawyers need to stop sending letters or filing cases like this.
We all know this is performative
If everyone here on this site knows this idea is performative and stupid, why aren't more people going on the offensive and pushing back? Where's the media calling out these AG's for their dumb idea? Why aren't we seeing Democratic politicians calling out this stupid idea? I would think Democrats would get a lot of mileage out of blasting the "party of personal responsibility" for their claims of censorship.
And as a bonus, the Democrats could post examples of the posts that are getting Republicans "censored".
Go after his law team
If this law suit is actually frivolous then the judge needs to throw the book at Trump and his law team. Though I'm sure Trump will figure out a way to not pay any fines (or even pay his own legal team).
But what will happen to the lawyers if they're looking at thousands or millions in legal costs and punitive court fines? Or do they not care about fines since they'll get tons of attention from the right-wing conservative media sphere? Sure, they'll have to sell off all their assets to pay the court fines, but look how many conservative followers they now have on Twitter!
What do they want to post?
I know this has been said before, but all say it again. Whenever conservatives accuse websites of censoring thier posts, ask them what they were trying to post.
If they're trying to talk about fiscal responsibility and a smaller government and they're getting banned, then there might be an issue. But I somehow doubt this is what they mean by "censorship".
If they're trying to post racist comments or if they start discussions about killing Democrats or even overthrowing the legitimately elected president, then yes, those kinds of comments should be removed.
Basically, if the average person thinks the comment is racist or hateful, then the site has every right to remove it. But it seems like their "right" to post crap is more important than a community's right not to deal with crap posts.
Re: This demonstrates the purpose of Tucker Carlson
Yes, of course this.
I don't remember where I saw it, but Rupert Murdoch said he'd switch to left-leaning news if it got more attention than right-leaning news. But it doesn't, so he keeps FOX spouting information that appeals to right-wing people and gets left-wing people upset.
Either way, he gets more attention.
Don't use other people's IP
Playing the devil's advocate...
Is this is a risk taken by anyone who bases their creation off of someone else's IP? Maybe he should consider himself lucky Square Enix didn't object and send him a cease and desist order before now.
I know people are fans of things, but the only way to keep copyright maximalists from suing is to not use anything of theirs in any other form.
That word "indefinitely"
I wonder if lawyers will argue over the term "indefinitely" as it applies to digital files.
When you buy a physical good, like a CD or DVD, you literally have it forever: you can give it to your kids and they can give it to their kids, for hundreds of years, or until the DVD falls apart. Though whether you can play the DVD is another story.
But what about digital files? Should Apple keep an iTunes server up for 25 years or 50 years or 100 years? What happens when Apple is bought by Disney? Should Disney keep the iTunes server up and running?
And even if the server is still running in 25 years, does Apple (or their new owner) have an obligation to convert the file to other formats as technology changes?
Or would this fall under the idea that the media is there, but the maker isn't responsible for providing a player?
More comments from John85851 >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by John85851.
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