I always wonder how ignorant these state politicians must be of the basic workings of the internet to think that any law passed on the state level is somehow going to solve a 'problem' like this. Even if it was actually a problem, no New York law is going to stop it. Does this Conte idiot actually think the state legislature in Albany has jurisdiction outside the state of New York?
> In addition to banning bully speech and speech critical
> of business
?!?!?
This fucktard actually thinks it's constitutional to ban speech critical of business? The 'bully speech' bit is bad enough, though a weak argument could be made that it falls under the 'fighting words' exception to the 1st Amendment, but criticizing a business? Really? A frakking 4th-grade Civics class could tell this moron his law is an auto-fail from a constitutional perspective.
> Conte's bill will make it a crime to post "mean-spirited and
> baseless political attacks."
Leaving aside the obvious constitutional question, what is the legal definition of 'mean-spirited', which will have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction could be obtained?
> If passed, the legislation will produce a massive
> chilling effect on political speech in the state.
No, it won't. It will instantly be declared unconstitutional within moments of someone challenging it in a federal court-- challenges which are surely even now being prepared.
> The law would require websites to post email addresses for
> "removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where
> comments are posted." Those demanding the removal of
> content they find objectionable, however, would have their
> anonymity protected.
Nice double standard there! And apparently these morons are as abjectly ignorant of the Supreme Court decisions protecting anonymous speech as they are the decisions protecting political speech and critical speech.
> They can't force you to sit in front of the TV and
> watch commercials.
They also can't legally force Dish or any other company to remove an auto-skip feature from their devices.
Once again, it's important to to note that there's NO LAW against enabling consumers to avoid viewing advertising. As draconian as copyright law has become, this is not even a copyright issue. Avoiding commercials is not a copyright violation.
> here I live, you are only allowed to park on the street for 72
> hours unless it is in front of your house. The way it works
> in practice is: a citizen complains to the city about the
> vehicle, the city comes out and chalks the tires, then if the
> car hasn't moved in 72 hours it is impounded.
Such bullshit. So if I come home and someone is already parked in the space in front of my house, I can't park a few dozen feet away without having to move my car every three days-- which really becomes a problem if you travel frequently and have to worry that your car will be towed every time you have to be away and don't get that one spot right in front of your house.
Great, so lay out an accounting of the legal liability for Google for not putting a label on a body of water. Cite case law precedent, code, or statute. Be specific.
> Imagine a map without Russia, China or the USA on it.
Easy. Just look at the pictures of Earth taken from the moon. No labels at all. Imagine that.
> > "Not liking how a map is labeled doesn't automatically
> > make it illegal."
> Thus, it could be argued that anything disliked by a
> State is illegal.
The point is that the only place it's illegal is *in* that State, in this case, Iran. So yeah, they could hold a trial in Iran and Google could be convicted, but since Google isn't actually there, the most they can do is block Google, which they're probably doing already anyway, so why should Google care?
And if they tried to sue anywhere else, then they'd have to face the fact that it's *not* illegal in those jurisdictions and they'd lose their case immediately.
> As someone once suggested, police's last resort
> is to have a mini-speakers attached to them,
> permanently playing music that is copyrighted
> by a major label.
But then they'd have to pay a public performance royalty to ASCAP. Not sure the budget of the average PD could handle that.
> In the story linked about the man in Illinois, he was actually
> breaking the state's wiretapping laws
The DOJ has taken the position that photographing and recording the cops is protected by the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Any local law which violates that is no law at all.
> FF button is an established feature that has been around
> for decades now. Auto-skip on the other hand is still up
> in the air, legally speaking.
Actually, it's not. LEGALLY speaking, neither one violates any actual law. This isn't even a copyright issue. This is an entirely new and separate right being asserted-- the right to force people to watch advertising-- and no such law exists. And even if there were such a law, if the auto-skip violated it, so would the FFW button.
> Hawaii Five 0 has had some clangers too - especially
> the Microsoft ones.
No, their absolute worst one was also a Subway product placement. They were in the middle of a time-sensitive murder investigation, but the characters actually took the time to stop at the beach where the big fat guy who runs the shrimp truck told them all about how delicious his Subway sandwich was.
> There is no evidence
> discussed in the
> filing to the magistrate,
> only representations
> by a third party
> without evidence
> provided.
First, let me start by saying I think the government's actions in this case were a severe overreach and should not have happened.
Having said that, however, I have to point out the error in everyone saying 'there was no evidence presented, just an accusationby the RIAA'. The accusation *is* evidence. It's testimonial evidence and such evidence forms the basis for search warrants and seizures all the time.
When I apply for warrants, many times the only evidence I have to make my probable cause is some snitch or neighbor or other informant's testimony. Basically, nothing but an accusation. And it's the judge's job to decide if the person making the accusation is credible enough to base a warrant on their testimony.
In this case, I think the judge is the one that failed by not recognizing the historical bias of the RIAA and realizing how little credibility their accusations have. But to say it's not evidence is incorrect.
> Obviously the rules are different in case of a
> real fire, but that's not the situation being discussed
> when this phrase is invoked.
No, you're just invoking the wrong phrase. Go back and read the case from which it originates. The prohibition was on falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, not just shouting it in general.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> In the city I live near, you can even get
> a ticket for parking in your own driveway,
> and not in your garage (if you have one).
So it's illegal to own more cars than you have garage spaces for?
Well...
Technically it's true. This *is* unprecedented transparency. Just not in the way most people assume.
Amazing
I always wonder how ignorant these state politicians must be of the basic workings of the internet to think that any law passed on the state level is somehow going to solve a 'problem' like this. Even if it was actually a problem, no New York law is going to stop it. Does this Conte idiot actually think the state legislature in Albany has jurisdiction outside the state of New York?
> In addition to banning bully speech and speech critical
> of business
?!?!?
This fucktard actually thinks it's constitutional to ban speech critical of business? The 'bully speech' bit is bad enough, though a weak argument could be made that it falls under the 'fighting words' exception to the 1st Amendment, but criticizing a business? Really? A frakking 4th-grade Civics class could tell this moron his law is an auto-fail from a constitutional perspective.
> Conte's bill will make it a crime to post "mean-spirited and
> baseless political attacks."
Leaving aside the obvious constitutional question, what is the legal definition of 'mean-spirited', which will have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction could be obtained?
> If passed, the legislation will produce a massive
> chilling effect on political speech in the state.
No, it won't. It will instantly be declared unconstitutional within moments of someone challenging it in a federal court-- challenges which are surely even now being prepared.
> The law would require websites to post email addresses for
> "removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where
> comments are posted." Those demanding the removal of
> content they find objectionable, however, would have their
> anonymity protected.
Nice double standard there! And apparently these morons are as abjectly ignorant of the Supreme Court decisions protecting anonymous speech as they are the decisions protecting political speech and critical speech.
Re:
> Does this bill contain a requirement that the "offended party"
> demanding the takedown verify their own identity as well?
No, actually the opposite. It contains a provision *protecting* the offended party's anonymity.
Re: Piracy Excuse #37
> Piracy Excuse #37
> "I just want to use the product I bought."
So now even paying customers are pirates in your blinkered world-view?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused
> They can't force you to sit in front of the TV and
> watch commercials.
They also can't legally force Dish or any other company to remove an auto-skip feature from their devices.
Once again, it's important to to note that there's NO LAW against enabling consumers to avoid viewing advertising. As draconian as copyright law has become, this is not even a copyright issue. Avoiding commercials is not a copyright violation.
Re: Re:
> here I live, you are only allowed to park on the street for 72
> hours unless it is in front of your house. The way it works
> in practice is: a citizen complains to the city about the
> vehicle, the city comes out and chalks the tires, then if the
> car hasn't moved in 72 hours it is impounded.
Such bullshit. So if I come home and someone is already parked in the space in front of my house, I can't park a few dozen feet away without having to move my car every three days-- which really becomes a problem if you travel frequently and have to worry that your car will be towed every time you have to be away and don't get that one spot right in front of your house.
Re:
> I would take that case for Iran.
Great, so lay out an accounting of the legal liability for Google for not putting a label on a body of water. Cite case law precedent, code, or statute. Be specific.
> Imagine a map without Russia, China or the USA on it.
Easy. Just look at the pictures of Earth taken from the moon. No labels at all. Imagine that.
Re: State's Rights
> > "Not liking how a map is labeled doesn't automatically
> > make it illegal."
> Thus, it could be argued that anything disliked by a
> State is illegal.
The point is that the only place it's illegal is *in* that State, in this case, Iran. So yeah, they could hold a trial in Iran and Google could be convicted, but since Google isn't actually there, the most they can do is block Google, which they're probably doing already anyway, so why should Google care?
And if they tried to sue anywhere else, then they'd have to face the fact that it's *not* illegal in those jurisdictions and they'd lose their case immediately.
Re:
> As someone once suggested, police's last resort
> is to have a mini-speakers attached to them,
> permanently playing music that is copyrighted
> by a major label.
But then they'd have to pay a public performance royalty to ASCAP. Not sure the budget of the average PD could handle that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Send DOJ to IL to help this guy!
> In the story linked about the man in Illinois, he was actually
> breaking the state's wiretapping laws
The DOJ has taken the position that photographing and recording the cops is protected by the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Any local law which violates that is no law at all.
Re: Re: Wolfram's Heart
> Don't worry, Angel's on it.
Are you kidding me? Angela's running the place!
Horrible
I'm going to bash my DVR to bits if it has that auto-skip feature. It's like inviting terrorism into my home.
Re: Re: Confused
> FF button is an established feature that has been around
> for decades now. Auto-skip on the other hand is still up
> in the air, legally speaking.
Actually, it's not. LEGALLY speaking, neither one violates any actual law. This isn't even a copyright issue. This is an entirely new and separate right being asserted-- the right to force people to watch advertising-- and no such law exists. And even if there were such a law, if the auto-skip violated it, so would the FFW button.
Re:
> They even worked it into the script as a major plot-point
I used to laugh on '24' when they had Jack Bauer chasing terrorists around L.A. in a Ford Focus.
Re: Once upon a time...
> You couldn't skip the ads
Sure you could. It's called leaving the room and making a sandwich, taking a whiz, reading a book, or throwing a ball for the dog.
We had all sorts of ways of skipping commercials in those pre-VCR days.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Hawaii Five 0 has had some clangers too - especially
> the Microsoft ones.
No, their absolute worst one was also a Subway product placement. They were in the middle of a time-sensitive murder investigation, but the characters actually took the time to stop at the beach where the big fat guy who runs the shrimp truck told them all about how delicious his Subway sandwich was.
Confused
How is this feature any different than a FFW button on a remote?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> There is no evidence
> discussed in the
> filing to the magistrate,
> only representations
> by a third party
> without evidence
> provided.
First, let me start by saying I think the government's actions in this case were a severe overreach and should not have happened.
Having said that, however, I have to point out the error in everyone saying 'there was no evidence presented, just an accusationby the RIAA'. The accusation *is* evidence. It's testimonial evidence and such evidence forms the basis for search warrants and seizures all the time.
When I apply for warrants, many times the only evidence I have to make my probable cause is some snitch or neighbor or other informant's testimony. Basically, nothing but an accusation. And it's the judge's job to decide if the person making the accusation is credible enough to base a warrant on their testimony.
In this case, I think the judge is the one that failed by not recognizing the historical bias of the RIAA and realizing how little credibility their accusations have. But to say it's not evidence is incorrect.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Obviously the rules are different in case of a
> real fire, but that's not the situation being discussed
> when this phrase is invoked.
No, you're just invoking the wrong phrase. Go back and read the case from which it originates. The prohibition was on falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, not just shouting it in general.