without prejudice to future adjustments based on new information
Unfortunately for her, new information has just been obtained. It has recently come to light that she prevailed in a case against the DHS. If we allow that to continue to happen, the DHS will become weaker, allowing terrorists to bomb us fortnightly. Therefore, she is a threat to our national security and is hereby placed on the no-fly list.
It's truth. It's not retributional at all. We even signed a promise to that, but we can't let you see it for security reasons.
As the father of two single-digit-aged girls, I would gladly vote for any politician who ran on a platform of banning glitter. It does not matter how often you clean up, that stuff shows up in weird places years later.
The telcos are happy to hand over data to the NSA for lots of reasons, one of which is they get paid to do it. I'm sure they also do it either to keep getting the boondoggles I mentioned previously, or to keep those boondoggles from being spoken about too much in Congress.
I'd wager that a sizable portion of the telcos revenue doesn't come from actual customers, but from defrauding the government and the government spying on its citizens.
I agree that Alexander's two positions are opposed to each other. He seems to have preferred the NSA one over the cyber security one. Would he suggest city walls are bad since they make it more difficult to see all angles of where the enemy might be coming from?
Wow, you didn't get my comment at all. Perhaps you should spend some more time reading and thinking.
The key word is independently. If some Amazonian tribal guy with no education to speak of wrote a book about how he independently discovered some new mathematical model that is really just calculus as we understand it, nobody would care, even though he would need the same mental genius as Newton. In fact, this happened. See Leibniz. We don't judge people for how smart they are. We judge them by how novel they are. Newton did it first, therefore he is a genius. Some guy does it second, but independently, and we don't care.
Mental geniuses from centuries ago had a level of genius to make a leap to understand things we take for granted now. Nobody needs to make these leaps anymore, but that doesn't mean nobody could. Many people are making further leaps, but their leaps are in such specialized fields that we, as a society, can't even begin to appreciate it because understanding those leaps is beyond us.
Or you know, everyone is dumb nowadays. Except you of course.
And all those mental giants got the low hanging fruit. If someone today independently came up with Newton's laws, we would ignore them completely rather than praising them for their understanding. We have mental giants today who are getting the next lowest level of fruit, but they are harder to recognize because their fields are necessarily more specialized.
I've been thinking about doing the same thing with Steamboat Willie. Unfortunately, I don't have the money. I wonder where the GMTY people are getting their funds. Wherever they're getting it, I hope it doesn't run out. That will probably be Warner/Chappell's biggest tactic.
You have it backwards. If he can show his phone being somewhere else, then the DoJ now has to show that he didn't have his phone. The guy's not been convicted yet. The government has to show that beyond a reasonable doubt he was there committing a crime. If he shows that his phone wasn't there, and that it was involved in making phone calls, that makes the government's job harder.
The guy could be guilty. He could also be telling the truth that he wasn't there. Let's let due process do it's thing. If he's guilty and walks, that sucks. But that's better, IMO, than him being innocent while not being able to show some exculpatory evidence because the NSA would prefer to keep their secret surveillance secret for longer.
Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Let due process work. Make the prosecution do it's job of proving guilt. Let the defendant show his evidence.
There are all sorts of things that affect only a small portion of the population, and most people just don't care. That doesn't make it right.
A law that bans all Welsh immigrants to the US from ever being granted a small business license would be "important only to a small number of [Welsh entrepeneur]-weenies, while nearly everyone else doesn't worry about it". That hypothetical law would still be wrong.
You're also wrong that they are looking for evidence. The position is solid without anecdotes. What they are looking for is human stories that make it more understandable for congresspersons. That's completely different. Taking the example above, I don't need to know a single Welsh entrepeneur to know that a law barring them from starting businesses is wrong. But if I had an actual example of it harming someone that would make it easier to overturn that hypothetical law.
Exactly. There is no requirement that he file a DMCA-compliant take down notice to the actual infringers, nor is it even a requirement that a takedown notice be DMCA-compliant at all. It has to be if the service provider wants to make sure all i's are dotted and t's crossed to limit their liability, sure. But there is nowhere that states content can only be taken down with a DMCA-compliant notice.
Re: Prosecute him for improper DMCA takedown notice!
Yeah, he should be prosecuted for not having a video taken down.
Did you seriously get that confused? Mike writes an article about DMCA notices being used to takedown content they don't own, and you get it confused with a non-DMCA email asking for content to be removed (which didn't get removed by the way). One abuses the force of law to get someone else's content taken down, the other asks for someone to consider their own hypocrisy. No law states that DMCA compliant notices are required to take content down.
Perhaps, blue, you should spend a few more seconds in figuring out what is even going on.
Actually, most of the public doesn't have a clue about copyright law, regularly get it confused with patents and trademarks, and generally think that it deals with attribution. That's why youtube lyrics videos start off with comments like "I don't own the copyright on this".
Because people think copyright has something to do with attribution. It doesn't. Why do they think this? Because people generally want credit for what they do. They want validation. That's innate in human beings. Wanting money or control over some idea of theirs is not innate. People simply respect copyright law today not because they get it and understand it and agree with it, but because they think it's something it's not and agree with that other something. The more I've taught people that what they are doing is infringement, the more I've found people hate copryight law.
What do you mean I can't copy this song and give it to my friend? I didn't change the artist?
What do you mean I can't copy this coloring book for my friends' kids? They know I didn't make it.
What do you mean I can't play the music/movie I bought at the block party for my neighborhood? I just told you I bought it.
No, the public at large generally hates copyright once they find out the basic things they think should be ok are punishable by up to $150,000.
Kim Dotcom might sue Twitter, Google and Facebook over murder.
Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said Thursday he was considering taking legal action against tech giants such as Twitter, Google and Facebook for murdering a security measure he invented.
Dotcom said he had never sought to enforce murder charges on his invention but was now reconsidering in light of the US case accusing him of masterminding massive online piracy through his now-defunct Megaupload file-sharing site.
Copyright law is in Title 17, Patent law is in title 35, while federal laws against murder are in title 18. If AJ gets to count the number of judges who agreed or disagreed with the eventual outcome of SonyCorp vs Universal then I think it's fair to say that murder laws are closer to copyright laws because the titles are closer.