-- and rather than considering this a public interest issue, the FBI has classified it as "commercial use" because (the FBI claims, bizarrely) "it seeks information to further the commercial trade, profit interests of the requester."
Well, Muckrock is in the business of FOIA requests, so every FOIA request it makes furthers its commercial trade...
So why didn't this Ray Rogers take the stand to testify about his signatures on the copyright assignments? As a matter of fact why would Ray Rogers sign copyright assignments when he didn't work for AF Holdings?
Ray Rogers is the assignor, or representative of the assignor, who sold the copyright to AF Holdings. In all of the coverage, I have never seen where anyone disputed that Ray Rogers actually did sign the assignment of the copyright, just that no one ever signed it as the assignee from AF Holdings in his or her real name (Alan Cooper, Salt March, etc.)
It really helps if you actually READ Wikipedia if you are going to reference it. Wikipedia references Clinton v. City of New York in which the Supreme Court struck down the line item veto for violating bicameralism. While I don't agree with the decision, it is the law of the land and the line item veto is dead. So, therefore if the amendment had passed, Obama either signs or defunds the DoD.
Punishment that fits the crime. Make her pay for reprinting the Yearbook, give her a wrist slap and let her live on.
Way overthinking it. Make her pay for the stickers and actually stick them in place. Doesn't involve the police AND is the equivalent of writing on the chalkboard "I will never change Mastain to Masturbate again" 100 times.
Rapper addresses haters, makes grandiose claims, plays up street cred with criminal references. Positively unremarkable, except that multiple students reported this status update to school administration.
Yeah, except he's not a rapper. Just a run of the mill thug and criminal. That many of his peers reported this and also knew him well should tell you what you need to know. But no; once again you stoop to defend human garbage like this.
Funny thing, the First Amendment even covers human garbage. Be thankful for that.
Where your contractual argument goes off the rails is a lack of understanding of MD law regarding teachers. The actual Teacher's Contract that the teacher signs is written by the State Bd of Ed, not the local board. There is a negotiated agreement between the local boards and the local union, but that applies to, and is only enforceable by, the local union. The teacher is a third party beneficiary, and not an actual party to the contract (has your head exploded yet?). It is a byzantine system, and while there could be a provision in there in which the Board would agree to not take the copyright, I have seen most of these agreements, and they don't touch upon copyright at all.
That being said, if the work is created outside of work, or would not be something the teacher would normally be expected to create to do the job, then it will most likely not be a work for hire, policy or no policy.
Lastly, the union could NEVER get the copyright, nor are they interested in it. The unions do not employ the teacher and therefore can't get the copyright.
While I agree, it is an attempted money grab by the Board, it is self-defeating since it prevents there from being any "money" to grab. It is like taxing at 100%. . . no one is going to try to earn any income since it is all taken. Let's keep the focus on the bad actor here, and not try to bring in non-actors such as the union, into the argument.
I love reading Techdirt, and I agree with 90% of the articles here. However, I have noticed a disturbing trend lately. Many of the comments are being reported, not because of ad hominem attacks or other such good reasons, but simply because those reporting the comments disagree. It seems to be happening more and more, and frankly, those who are reporting attempted arguments by those they disagree with, simply because they disagree are sinking to the same level as the regular trolls. Please, stop it.
If you think the comment is stupid, say why. But don't report it. Keep the discussion going. The only way to sharpen the arguments is to actually have to make and explain them. Agree to disagree, please. Free speech and all that. Thank you!
Now, back to our regularly scheduled commenting. . .
"Yeah, it's totally disgusting. The feds are telling the guy that he has to sue the company he was doing business with, and not the feds. That is horrible, making the site owner actually responsible for their customer's satisfaction."
I would agree with this if the site owner hadn't had its ability to satisfy the customer completely blocked by the DOJ.
"Sorry Mike, but the feds are right on this one. The only reason the feds seized the assets is because of the behavior of the company, which was flagrant and fairly well public. Any normal citizen doing due dilligence before selecting Mega as a storage medium would have been able to determine their notoriety and their "profile" online as a great place to put your infringing material. A quick search of google would turn up any number of questionable links."
A quick search of any storage locker would turn up any number of questionable links. Your point is? While Kim Dotcom was flagrant and public, that doesn't mean that the Feds get to go in and destroy the ability of ALL legitimate users to access their legitimate data. The Feds could have used the same logic to seize all of the Carpathia servers, not just Megauploads. After all, Carpathia's servers were being used to store infringing material, were they not? Remember, Carpathia owns the servers, not Megaupload. The Carpathia servers are the actual property being used to commit the crime. Why stop there?
Let's take this to a real world example. I rent a storage unit in a sketchy part of town (the rent is cheap). There are gang tags everywhere. I put my things in my rented unit. The storage facility has also rented to gangmembers who happen to use their storage units for less than legal activities. The Feds raid the storage facility, and seize everything. The reasoning for this is that the storage facility is making profits off of the illegal activity of the gangmembers. My things are seized as well. The Feds won't give me my things back arguing that my things are still in the storage facility that has been seized, and therefore it is not their problem. Oh, and the last bit of information? The town is Hong Kong, and US Federal law does not apply there, but the payment processor is US based. Does this sound familiar? Obviously, it isn't a perfect analogy, but it is pretty close. The storage facility did its job and kept my items safe. I just can't retrieve them because they are "seized" by the US. I don't seem to have much beef with the storage facility.
"That this guy still chose to use Mega, and Mega exclusively for content that he truly valued, with no other backup or support in place, is a head shaker."
I can't disagree with this statement, but hindsight is 20/20. Most people don't develop a comprehensive back up plan until they have lost important data.
The last I checked, a lie is an intentional misrepresentation of truth or facts. Doesn't that imply that one have the intellectual capacity to actually intend to misrepresent? That would seem to me to be giving Lamar Smith a lot more credit than he is due.