In discussions around free speech and censorship you often hear that free speech does not include the right to be listened to.
Someone exercising their free speech rights does not have the right to airtime on their desired radio/TV shows, to text placements in the publication of their choice, to a hall full of listening people.
Applying this principle here would seem to suggest that they should be allowed to produce as many yellow pages as they want, but may face lawful restrictions in distributing them door-to-door, and this wouldn't hurt their freedom of speech.
In discussions around free speech and censorship you often hear that free speech does not include the right to be listened to.
Someone exercising their free speech rights does not have the right to airtime on their desired radio/TV shows, to text placements in the publication of their choice, to a hall full of listening people.
Applying this principle here would seem to suggest that they should be allowed to produce as many yellow pages as they want, but may face lawful restrictions in distributing them door-to-door, and this wouldn't hurt their freedom of speech.
While there are overlapping features, neither has all the features of the other.
In some EU law systems, there is the concept of a "prohibition of analogies". It basically means that someone cannot said to have violated a law if the act was just very similar (analoguous) to what that law says, but not exactly the same. I wonder whether similar principles exist in US law? Obviously it wasn't really a law here, but a probation restriction.
If works could be freely analyzed, and potential customers can find the works that are really interesting to them, publishers lose the control over the marketability of their works.
To them, there is a risk that previously lesser known artists are going to be more successful than the ones they were hoping to earn big money with, and which they are supporting with big marketing efforts and investments.
If a password itself can be considered a "trade secret", why not change it and then reveal the password that was used during the employment? You could even have the judge present to verify the old one being entered (under secrecy).
And what about the Terms and Conditions of Twitter? Did he sign up under his company's credentials, or private ones?
"if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have any objection to being tracked/filmed/recorded/etc"
There is no inconsistency in allowing the filming of police officers. Phrases like "nothing to hide - nothing to fear" are about protecting privacy against abuses by those in power. This does not apply here: police officers are doing public work in a public space. The people filming are not "in power".
What would happen if they had not fought the lawsuit and accepted the obligation to censor search suggestions the way the entertainment industry demands?
1. They would have set themselves up for fines and more lawsuits if any violations were found in the future.
2. They would have had to invest more resources into implementing and maintaining the system demanded by SNEP. Their own voluntary implementation is probably much simpler and cheaper in detail and still prevents future lawsuits.
Ironically, many people in the Netherlands call the energy-harnessing type of wind mills "landscape pollution". In one area in the South, where they are already particularly numerous, citizens actively protest against every new planning permission.
Leaving the efficiency debate aside, does anyone here think that this should be a valid criticism?
Would you trust your Internet provider(s) to "approve" just the right websites and services for you? Can you be certain that your favorite website will still be available in a couple of months, even if the ISP had just discovered that the bandwidth to that website had increased?
What might be a nuisance to end users (some websites becoming unavailable), is at the same time a serious threat to website operators. While Google may be able to pay big ISPs for the right to be included in their bandwidth bundles, smaller websites and services may not.
Every new website or internet start-up has to secure funding, build up a user base etc. Just imagine if they also had to negotiate with hundreds of Internet service providers and mobile carriers around the world, just for the "right" to provide its services to end users...
It's because they believe that they have the moral highground: "If I create something, then I should be able to dictate that no one can copy it, regardless of whether there might be benefits in it for me."
Also, many people simply cannot ignore the urge to create an analogy between imaginary property and real tangible property. The copying = stealing fallacy. Who would do research into letting people steal their property?
They are always looking to convert illegal downloaders to legitimate customers, but when there's a genuine opportunity, they throw out the baby with the bath water.
What they fail to see, is that people visiting those sites are really interested in their products, and might easily "convert" to legal customers, if tempted in the right way (e.g. with great prices, or extras that don't come with the illegal downloads). Those are business opportunities!
Hi Mike, I get your sentiment, and I agree with your points, but the "60+ year old" argument is just plain agism. This kind of thinking is why people like my dad have a hell of a hard time to find another job in the current economy. I suggest that next time, you reword your phrases, at least to make your real opinion less obvious. Just talk about lack of experience in current technologies or something.
Don't film makers have copyrights over the film sets they create?
Otherwise, what would prevent low-budget film crews from following other crews around, in order to use their explosions, scenes etc. for their own purposes?
I was once in a film park that offers create-your-own-film afternoons for birthdays. They wouldn't let us shoot films on official film sets that were used in films, because these sets were copyrighted. Might have been contractual issues though...
Many websites allow very active users to get some extra "powers", but they're still only users. Section 230 should apply.
On the other hand, if these 3rd-party moderators are at a comparable level to employees, for instance temp contractors from a job agency, they are fully acting on behalf of the site (by contract), and so the site should also take blame for their mess-ups.
What about travelling with copies?
What if a business made 1 million copies on USB sticks in Australia and physically took them to the US to sell?
The copying would not have taken place in the US.
Free speech does not mean that we all have to listen
Someone exercising their free speech rights does not have the right to airtime on their desired radio/TV shows, to text placements in the publication of their choice, to a hall full of listening people.
Applying this principle here would seem to suggest that they should be allowed to produce as many yellow pages as they want, but may face lawful restrictions in distributing them door-to-door, and this wouldn't hurt their freedom of speech.
Free speech does not mean that we all have to listen
Someone exercising their free speech rights does not have the right to airtime on their desired radio/TV shows, to text placements in the publication of their choice, to a hall full of listening people.
Applying this principle here would seem to suggest that they should be allowed to produce as many yellow pages as they want, but may face lawful restrictions in distributing them door-to-door, and this wouldn't hurt their freedom of speech.
Their main concern is revenue from auctions
However, since they plan on allowing auction sales using real money, they'd be cutting off a significant part of potential future revenue as well.
New hardware found: Boeing 737
Facebook and BBSs may have overlapping features, but are not the same
In some EU law systems, there is the concept of a "prohibition of analogies". It basically means that someone cannot said to have violated a law if the act was just very similar (analoguous) to what that law says, but not exactly the same. I wonder whether similar principles exist in US law? Obviously it wasn't really a law here, but a probation restriction.
They don't want a meritocracy
To them, there is a risk that previously lesser known artists are going to be more successful than the ones they were hoping to earn big money with, and which they are supporting with big marketing efforts and investments.
Just give them the password that was used during the employment (but change it first)
And what about the Terms and Conditions of Twitter? Did he sign up under his company's credentials, or private ones?
What about a story about an author that wrote a book...
Re:
There is no inconsistency in allowing the filming of police officers. Phrases like "nothing to hide - nothing to fear" are about protecting privacy against abuses by those in power. This does not apply here: police officers are doing public work in a public space. The people filming are not "in power".
Obligations create risk
1. They would have set themselves up for fines and more lawsuits if any violations were found in the future.
2. They would have had to invest more resources into implementing and maintaining the system demanded by SNEP. Their own voluntary implementation is probably much simpler and cheaper in detail and still prevents future lawsuits.
National-level TLD blocking threatens internet stability?
And those parents that know how to "filter .xxx domain names", will more than likely know about the other naughty sources as well.
Landscape Pollution
Leaving the efficiency debate aside, does anyone here think that this should be a valid criticism?
Net Neutrality also protects website operators
What might be a nuisance to end users (some websites becoming unavailable), is at the same time a serious threat to website operators. While Google may be able to pay big ISPs for the right to be included in their bandwidth bundles, smaller websites and services may not.
Every new website or internet start-up has to secure funding, build up a user base etc. Just imagine if they also had to negotiate with hundreds of Internet service providers and mobile carriers around the world, just for the "right" to provide its services to end users...
Moral Highground
Also, many people simply cannot ignore the urge to create an analogy between imaginary property and real tangible property. The copying = stealing fallacy. Who would do research into letting people steal their property?
Users on those sites are potential legal customers!
What they fail to see, is that people visiting those sites are really interested in their products, and might easily "convert" to legal customers, if tempted in the right way (e.g. with great prices, or extras that don't come with the illegal downloads). Those are business opportunities!
Agism is well and alive
Copyrights applicable to film sets?
Otherwise, what would prevent low-budget film crews from following other crews around, in order to use their explosions, scenes etc. for their own purposes?
I was once in a film park that offers create-your-own-film afternoons for birthdays. They wouldn't let us shoot films on official film sets that were used in films, because these sets were copyrighted. Might have been contractual issues though...
The solution: layers
You'd then either need a tool to later merge the data with an "officially provided" form, or print empty forms and data on the same paper.
Are these moderators just upgraded users, or more like employees?
On the other hand, if these 3rd-party moderators are at a comparable level to employees, for instance temp contractors from a job agency, they are fully acting on behalf of the site (by contract), and so the site should also take blame for their mess-ups.
More comments from Ralph-J >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ralph-J.
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