Latest Techdirt Comments

Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:47:20 PDT

What a surprise!

Re: Exactly when did school administrators become THIS incompetent

That Crazy Freetard — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:46:38 PDT

Funny thing about education adminstration, is that people tend to fail upwards.

Delete button is censorship

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:44:02 PDT

A delete button for the internet is censorship, because such a mechanism to be effective would have to dictate which information I can disseminate from my own server.

Professor Volokh has written an excellent paper about the free speech implication of a similar legal theory -- namely the right nnot to be talked about.

But an even more problematic aspect of the argument for a delete button is its notion that anyone has any right to control republication of truthful information.

If John Doe had a criminal conviction in 1950,1980 or 2000 and it was mentioned in any public record or in any other way leaked to the public, tbanning republication is a clear free speech violation.

Sheogorath — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:43:48 PDT

"Hopefully, if the telcos do decide to actually file a lawsuit, it gets laughed out of court."
I agree, especially with one of the telcos' crappy attempt to fix their lousy security by replacing the entire web form with their phone number. So much for online commerce!
Source: https://www.terracomwireless.com/m/renewals.html

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:42:40 PDT

Sounds like you have some real sick puppies there

yeah right

mike d — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:42:15 PDT

This is bull****, it's pure hype. This kid will not go to jail. They are just trying to hype this to get publicity. I do not disagree with music as an art form but guess what? When you are unknown and make death threats (art or not), someone may take you serious. This kid is an idiot and hopefully learns something from this. Screw you Hip-hop idoits for ruining society just to make money. Its all to sell kids clothing and records. Its not real! You are all sheep following the herd!

Re: Re: Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:41:54 PDT

" No one is dismissing the eye witness testimonies against the cops."

Want to bet that when they get to court that all the witness will support the cops.

College is...

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:41:35 PDT

...OVER

Re: Way to slander .. Mrs Judge..

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:39:13 PDT

Except that judges enjoy wide exemptions from slander and lible, as was previously pointed out. So, you know, maybe you should be examining your own competency? Trust me, calling a judge incompetent isn't going to endear them to you and your cause.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:36:54 PDT

If the evidence is stacking up against you and you plead the fifth, they aren't going to go easy on you. Pleading the fifth is basically admitting that you cannot refute what is being said without further incriminating your self, it isn't a get out of court free charge. I'm not understanding how you can say they are being railroaded and not being afforded their due process. They were given their due process, they refused to comply with the court's questions. End game.

Re: Re: Re:

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:36:40 PDT

Sounds like you have some real sick puppies there who believe that totalitarianism is the greatest thing they ever heard of.

Re:

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:34:48 PDT

Where else would you go?

Seriously, I need some ideas. My requirements are reasonably good internet. Solid freedoms like press and speech. Reasonable copyright law. Switzerland is currently at the top of my list.

Re:

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:32:10 PDT

Your taking Mike totally out-of-context. Suing some based on bogus patent clams is not the same as communicating online.

Re: Re: Re: Solution

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:31:43 PDT

Figuring Out A Way To Erase The Past

Sheogorath — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:30:36 PDT

I've already done that, you simply have to delete your entire Google account and then create a new one. Now how hard was that, really?

If the system could be changed, do away with trolling entirely!

out_of_the_blue — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:28:47 PDT

I'd define "patent trolling" as bringing suit without ever having made an actual product, so if is just patent lawyers from deep cover, end that with a few simple tests.

And yet again, Mike has identified problem with present system is LAWYERS and other get-rich-quick grifters, not the system as such.

But in practice tiny changes are MORE difficult than HUGE changes! You need widespread Populist appeal, not a few pointy-headed policy wonks! So I skip over low-level weenie-ing and tweaks to simple honest confiscatory taxes on unearned income -- as used to be before The Rich and their pet "economists" put over the giant scam that lower tax rates on upper incomes would help the poor. -- WELL, hasn't, and as the US sinks into police state the correlation with tax cuts is enough to show causation.

Re:

Bengie — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:22:12 PDT

We should have an anonymous president and all votes should be anonymous.

Hmmm.. Maybe anonymity doesn't work for lawsuits.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright

horse with no name — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:21:57 PDT

Let see. The content was created by NYT. Check. They hold the copyright. That's all they need on the face.

Now, can you tell me, using the standard test, how this is fair use? Remember, this is to promote what is really a commercial product. So, what do you think?

Put another way, could the same type of promo video be made using generic color block images, using lorem ipsum text? The answer is yes, they could have "recreated" the NYT page without their content, and then used it as an example, going with the basic "large metropolitain newspaper" and been done with it.

Fair use? I am still waiting for someone to clearly state why using NYT's content and name is fair use here.

Alana — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:17:20 PDT

TERRORISTS!

Re:

DOlz — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:17:13 PDT

Anonymity to express ideas and have discussions (Federalist Papers for example) is fine.

Anonymity to hide when bringing a lawsuit against someone inhibits their ability to defend themselves.

Context try in sometime it makes the world less confusing.