The real core of the problem is that the Federal government has more than muddied these waters in recent decades by mandating that certain companies do have comply in this fashion, for instance defense contractors and certain other private companies that receive taxpayer dollars for use in their operation via government contract. Recent Presidents have used EOs to ensure certain companies and even religious organizations follow certain rules established by Congress that were created to regulate government agencies and their employees. SCOTUS has refused to visit any case that challenge these actions.
1) He imposed a variable 6%-20% "Netflix and Amazon Tax" (Nevermind that we already pay state sales taxes on this stuff, this is on top of that).
2) He's blocked any sort of public union and pension reform, let alone sensible reform given the state budget (and related shortfalls) for the next twenty-five odd years (and given the giant number of Boomers and their eldest children getting ready to retire).
3) Still no excise tax on natural resource extraction, the only state in the entire USA without one.
4) While his intentions in this case are admirable (and he isn't wrong about the broad/vague language), he needed to state that this bill should have had that language adjusted and be sent back to his desk for signing. PA is unfortunately one of the leaders when it comes to the production and distribution of methamphetamine (and by leader, we are talking on the size of Mexico's meth production leader) and this bill was ostensibly to address undercover and tactical officers terminating the life/lives of individuals inside of meth labs while not having their names revealed to other criminal suspects in the case not present at the lab. We've had more than one case where they've terminated the lives of individuals inside of mobile meth labs who refused to pull over/stop for law enforcement.
5) He's at constant loggerheads with the GOP majority in the state legislature over every petty thing.
6) He's been treated for cancer while holding office, and while this shouldn't affect his chances, the fact of the matter is voters will doubt his health and ability to continue serving another term.
This election cycle has had hackles raised even more than normal across the political spectrum and people thought making jokes about committing Federal-level felony acts in a public arena in this sort of climate was a good idea? There is stupid and then there is stupid (Maybe they weren't aware that tearing up absentee ballots at the Post Office carries a fine and jail sentence that would make the music industry blush with how modest their punishment proposals have been).
1) The lawyers know that Twitter is exempt under 230 of the CDA, but they are bringing this in front of a judge to get that judge to say "This isn't the proper venue, please take this upstairs to the Federal Circuit.", so that when the real lawsuit is filed, they have the ruling of this judge to use for standing.
2) Twitter could do much more to remove ISIS accounts, as even Facebook and some other social media sites remove them much, much faster when notified of their existence. Twitter relies too much on their semi-automated reporting system that requires a multitude of reports before an account is suspended and not nearly enough on employee eyeballs and filtering technology.
It's 480p if you're on an LTE connection and the original source video is 720p or greater. It gets compressed even more if the original source video is lower than 720p or you're on 3G/2G.
Those are just minor details that will be worked out in deals down the road. I imagine that the first carrier to zero rate Youtube is going to grab a ton of subscribers from the others, considering the flagship phones are available from every carrier now and not just locked to AT&T or Verizon (in the US, at least).
Putting a bunch of professional archivists into this situation is absolutely ridiculous and a total abdication of responsibility by Congress itself (who frankly, is trying to pass the buck onto these guys only so Hollyweird can't shit a brick in their direction).
That is the gist of it, and I believe they specifically mention games such as old MMOs & games with a multiplayer component, etc that require online authentication (such as a credential login). This is kind of good news, as it means customers who own those titles are free to modify their game software so it is in at least some working order, but since in the case of MMOs, etc, no specific mention or exemption was made for the server-side software, it remains a total no-no or gray area at best.
Yep, was going to say that myself - they've been BTFO on their own articles for journalistic mistakes (like asserting opinion as fact) so many times by their readers that they've now decided to close the comment section entirely.
TBH, I stopped visiting that site ages ago due to such nonsense, and I don't foresee them maintaining readership levels by doing this, either.
This is not necessarily correct - you can do so, but you can't provide the tools to do so nor inform others on how you did it (nor redistribute it, but that's the obvious one). 2010 exemption renewal in part: "Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage, or obsoleteness."
That doesn't work everywhere, unfortunately, especially now that more and more owners of devices with any sort of wifi hotspot capability are disabling it or otherwise locking third parties out of using their signal. Something to do with all of those fancy laws appearing that hold wifi providers accountable for shit like kiddie porn and pirated material that transfer over their network.
They are going to get him for destruction of evidence and obstruction of an ongoing investigation.
There was a similar case locally a few years ago, where a small mom & pop ISP got into a bit of a bind because they swapped to newer equipment (a new database server). The regional drug task force and the DEA + FBI had "requested" they maintain the older server while they completed the investigation of someone running a rather large meth lab who happened to be a customer of their ISP.
The new system they installed had software that was incompatible with the data formats they previously used for email and account storage, and when they swapped, the old stuff went "poof".
Needless to say the owner barely got out of being jailed themselves, but did have to pay a rather large fine, perform community service, and was reprimanded by a judge.
One of the ACs keeps carping on how PROTECT IP will somehow prevent payment processors, advertising networks, etc from working with these sites. This is patently untrue. What will happen instead, is that US-based payment processors, advertising networks, etc will lose business to ones that are not US-based, and in fact, more will simply crop up to serve this purpose.
They also carped on the fact that part of the bill addresses non-domestic domains. What is the definition of a non-domestic domain? Can a domain that has content served from a CDN in Canada be considered non-domestic? What about one that has the main domain registered in say, Belgium, but has email or other services provided out of the US and the owners and all other parts of the site/operation are in the US? Is that a non-domestic domain then?
How is this going to handle what may be infringing content posted to the European branch of Facebook for instance?
There are many other questions to ask surrounding this bill, and the least of it involves "piracy" of any sort. Much of it involving censorship, prior restraint, restrictions on trade, due process, etc.
I also wonder how countries like India will react when they find out their national sovereignty is impacted by a US law they had no say in (this law will impact legitimate business enterprises in other nations, of which those nations have the say over, not the US media content industry). What will the US do if these nations in turn decide they can seize US domains as they see fit? What would the US do, for instance, if an Indian pharmaceutical or chemical company successfully took the domain of Pfizer or DOW Chemical? What would they do if a Russian payment processing company successfully took the domain of Paypal?
What happens if the root DNS servers hosted outside of the US unilaterally blackhole the entire IP address space of the US government because a foreign government wins a court judgement to do so in retaliation for their corporations being impacted by this bill?
Something tells me this PROTECT IP act opens up a can of worms they are not expecting or are prepared to deal with, including the possibility of economic retaliations.
Anti-vaxers make me LOL. Right before they make me shudder.
There's been several investigative reports on PBS and the like about this bunch.
They've basically put everyone else in danger is what it boils down to. In areas where there are "significant" numbers of anti-vaxers, diseases which are normally only still prevalent in the 3rd World are having outbreaks and killing people.
Courts are also starting to prosecute these people if their children die from the preventable diseases. I believe criminal negligence and voluntary manslaughter were the latest successful charges brought against these nutjobs - anti-vax parents out in like Oregon or Washington State who let their daughter die because they refused to get her vaccinated.
Pastafarians have more scientific evidence in support of the FSM being the Supreme Divinity than the anti-vax crowd have against vaccines.
To be honest, vaccinations should be mandatory, period. I have no desire to live in a repeat of the age of Cholera, Yellow Fever, have my relatives go blind from measles, or have my son die because some jerkwad decided to be a DERP about a vaccination.
I think what he is saying, is that certainly there are those religious individuals who can reason, such as Sir Isaac Newton or Galileo. On the converse side, religion tends to attract those who cannot reason properly, and results in such as "extremists", the KKK, The Inquisition, etc.
This is the point I believe he was attempting to make.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by thejynxed.
Re: Re:
The real core of the problem is that the Federal government has more than muddied these waters in recent decades by mandating that certain companies do have comply in this fashion, for instance defense contractors and certain other private companies that receive taxpayer dollars for use in their operation via government contract. Recent Presidents have used EOs to ensure certain companies and even religious organizations follow certain rules established by Congress that were created to regulate government agencies and their employees. SCOTUS has refused to visit any case that challenge these actions.
Wolf is going to have problems getting re-elected
2) He's blocked any sort of public union and pension reform, let alone sensible reform given the state budget (and related shortfalls) for the next twenty-five odd years (and given the giant number of Boomers and their eldest children getting ready to retire).
3) Still no excise tax on natural resource extraction, the only state in the entire USA without one.
4) While his intentions in this case are admirable (and he isn't wrong about the broad/vague language), he needed to state that this bill should have had that language adjusted and be sent back to his desk for signing. PA is unfortunately one of the leaders when it comes to the production and distribution of methamphetamine (and by leader, we are talking on the size of Mexico's meth production leader) and this bill was ostensibly to address undercover and tactical officers terminating the life/lives of individuals inside of meth labs while not having their names revealed to other criminal suspects in the case not present at the lab. We've had more than one case where they've terminated the lives of individuals inside of mobile meth labs who refused to pull over/stop for law enforcement.
5) He's at constant loggerheads with the GOP majority in the state legislature over every petty thing.
6) He's been treated for cancer while holding office, and while this shouldn't affect his chances, the fact of the matter is voters will doubt his health and ability to continue serving another term.
Oh, that's easy...
A funny joke presented in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Keep it among you and your friends.
This case & Twitter
1) The lawyers know that Twitter is exempt under 230 of the CDA, but they are bringing this in front of a judge to get that judge to say "This isn't the proper venue, please take this upstairs to the Federal Circuit.", so that when the real lawsuit is filed, they have the ruling of this judge to use for standing.
2) Twitter could do much more to remove ISIS accounts, as even Facebook and some other social media sites remove them much, much faster when notified of their existence. Twitter relies too much on their semi-automated reporting system that requires a multitude of reports before an account is suspended and not nearly enough on employee eyeballs and filtering technology.
Re: Re: BingeOn Is Selective
Re:
Re: Re: It's a shame
Re: Re: Old game cracking
Oh Verge...
TBH, I stopped visiting that site ages ago due to such nonsense, and I don't foresee them maintaining readership levels by doing this, either.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is that legal?
Re: Watch out Verizon and AT&T
Re: Popcorn Time
Lavabit & evidence
There was a similar case locally a few years ago, where a small mom & pop ISP got into a bit of a bind because they swapped to newer equipment (a new database server). The regional drug task force and the DEA + FBI had "requested" they maintain the older server while they completed the investigation of someone running a rather large meth lab who happened to be a customer of their ISP.
The new system they installed had software that was incompatible with the data formats they previously used for email and account storage, and when they swapped, the old stuff went "poof".
Needless to say the owner barely got out of being jailed themselves, but did have to pay a rather large fine, perform community service, and was reprimanded by a judge.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"AJ has Cognitive Dissonance with two delicious sides of Ad Hominem smothered with Appeal to Authority."
Some thoughts (as Wes Sumner)
They also carped on the fact that part of the bill addresses non-domestic domains. What is the definition of a non-domestic domain? Can a domain that has content served from a CDN in Canada be considered non-domestic? What about one that has the main domain registered in say, Belgium, but has email or other services provided out of the US and the owners and all other parts of the site/operation are in the US? Is that a non-domestic domain then?
How is this going to handle what may be infringing content posted to the European branch of Facebook for instance?
There are many other questions to ask surrounding this bill, and the least of it involves "piracy" of any sort. Much of it involving censorship, prior restraint, restrictions on trade, due process, etc.
I also wonder how countries like India will react when they find out their national sovereignty is impacted by a US law they had no say in (this law will impact legitimate business enterprises in other nations, of which those nations have the say over, not the US media content industry). What will the US do if these nations in turn decide they can seize US domains as they see fit? What would the US do, for instance, if an Indian pharmaceutical or chemical company successfully took the domain of Pfizer or DOW Chemical? What would they do if a Russian payment processing company successfully took the domain of Paypal?
What happens if the root DNS servers hosted outside of the US unilaterally blackhole the entire IP address space of the US government because a foreign government wins a court judgement to do so in retaliation for their corporations being impacted by this bill?
Something tells me this PROTECT IP act opens up a can of worms they are not expecting or are prepared to deal with, including the possibility of economic retaliations.
(untitled comment) (as Wes Sumner)
There's been several investigative reports on PBS and the like about this bunch.
They've basically put everyone else in danger is what it boils down to. In areas where there are "significant" numbers of anti-vaxers, diseases which are normally only still prevalent in the 3rd World are having outbreaks and killing people.
Courts are also starting to prosecute these people if their children die from the preventable diseases. I believe criminal negligence and voluntary manslaughter were the latest successful charges brought against these nutjobs - anti-vax parents out in like Oregon or Washington State who let their daughter die because they refused to get her vaccinated.
Pastafarians have more scientific evidence in support of the FSM being the Supreme Divinity than the anti-vax crowd have against vaccines.
To be honest, vaccinations should be mandatory, period. I have no desire to live in a repeat of the age of Cholera, Yellow Fever, have my relatives go blind from measles, or have my son die because some jerkwad decided to be a DERP about a vaccination.
(untitled comment) (as Wes Sumner)
This is the point I believe he was attempting to make.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by thejynxed.
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