i wish the studio had the money to file a copyright infringement claim for each one of those bogus DCMA notices. each separate claim or "infringement" would have the ridiculous damages making the studio billions, and then they could double dip by suing for anti competitive behavior.
the reason the post office is unable to "turn a profit" is simply because the us post office is required to prepay health benefits for the great grandchildren of the great grandchildren of OUR great grand children's grandchildren. it's being used in a scheme to "lessen" the budget deficit and it's not something that should be done.
would not do anything. in my area all broadband and utilities are pre determined thanks to exclusive rights contracts since before i was born. i live on a side of town which means i have to use THIS utility provider or none and i have a choice between one cable broadband provider or the one guy who gets to sell satellite.
google is maximizing profits by removing those who use the high volume service and building up a competitor's share so that they can't be sued under monopoly laws for providing something for free.
what upsets me is the fact i just found out that lawyers can commit crimes during the course of a court proceeding and be immune from civil actions for it. seeing as they rarely get put in a state that renders them permanently unable to practice the law.
the fact they lost a ruling trying to save their sunken ship means less than nothing to be compared to that.
I'm not sure why the farmers don't sue Monsanto for trespass, breaking and entering, loss of livelihood and negligently contaminating their farms with their unwanted genetically modified seeds. monsanto has failed in a legal obligation to prevent their genetically altered seed from ruining the farmers organic non genetically engineered crops.
my question is when will someone try to take the company behind righthaven to court. with the Revelation that the transfer of copyright was improper I'm betting a judge says they have no protections from anyone and everyone who wants money from righthaven.
everyone should be thanking UMG. thanks to them the court is going to be ruling that a flase copyright takedown notice constitites infringement and that a false copyright takedown notice is able to get the insane damages that they claim through the riaa housewives/the elderly/the dead/ people who don't own the internet owe them
did the supreme court not say that a threat has to be directed a soneome in a recent court ruling that if you named no recipient or a corporation it doesn't even make it a crime?
there is also a need for ethics to ******* return. posting things getting people killed, posting unsubstantiated blog posts and twitter comments as fact. and the fact that shows like the o'rielly factor and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart aren't forced to have a disclaimer saying that it's entertainment tv and not a legitimate news program is sickening.
the judge should toss out the copyright claim and they should just sue the company for fraud. this whole thing was to impersonate someone else hence it being a matter of fraud not copyright.
c redit card companies having people arrested. do they have the legal right to have you arrested for a debt of 89 dollars? does this not cause your rights to be violated? http://www.startribune.com/local/95692619.html
to be fair corporations are not people. they are faceless entities that exist in a legal quagmire. a person has the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. the only rights a corporation should have is the right to conduct business honestly & fairly. but because of their legal quagmire status they get away with infringing the rights of the citizens but their rights get protected. when a corporate employee calls you up and threatens you. nobody gets arrested or punished. but if you threaten a corporation then well by god your in prison faster than you can blink
opinions do not exist when someone is telling you they are certified expert and such. opinions do no count when money is on the line. you are right or you are wrong and if you are wrong. you pay out the arse for it.
"You didn't answer my question. So, in what you say here, it means it's perfectly fine for the gov't to censor movies, books and music, because it involves selling a product from a producer to a consumer for a sum."
there's a difference between censorship and a stopping some **** who hocks a book telling people eating goji berries cure cancer (only 49.99!). leave it to a republican/democrat/independent to be unable to do anything except stir up controversy by scaremongering. corporations are not people and extending them rights is something the court should undo.
(untitled comment)
i wish the studio had the money to file a copyright infringement claim for each one of those bogus DCMA notices. each separate claim or "infringement" would have the ridiculous damages making the studio billions, and then they could double dip by suing for anti competitive behavior.
(untitled comment)
the reason the post office is unable to "turn a profit" is simply because the us post office is required to prepay health benefits for the great grandchildren of the great grandchildren of OUR great grand children's grandchildren. it's being used in a scheme to "lessen" the budget deficit and it's not something that should be done.
(untitled comment)
would not do anything. in my area all broadband and utilities are pre determined thanks to exclusive rights contracts since before i was born. i live on a side of town which means i have to use THIS utility provider or none and i have a choice between one cable broadband provider or the one guy who gets to sell satellite.
(untitled comment)
google is maximizing profits by removing those who use the high volume service and building up a competitor's share so that they can't be sued under monopoly laws for providing something for free.
just as planned.
(untitled comment)
what upsets me is the fact i just found out that lawyers can commit crimes during the course of a court proceeding and be immune from civil actions for it. seeing as they rarely get put in a state that renders them permanently unable to practice the law.
the fact they lost a ruling trying to save their sunken ship means less than nothing to be compared to that.
(untitled comment)
I'm not sure why the farmers don't sue Monsanto for trespass, breaking and entering, loss of livelihood and negligently contaminating their farms with their unwanted genetically modified seeds. monsanto has failed in a legal obligation to prevent their genetically altered seed from ruining the farmers organic non genetically engineered crops.
(untitled comment)
my question is when will someone try to take the company behind righthaven to court. with the Revelation that the transfer of copyright was improper I'm betting a judge says they have no protections from anyone and everyone who wants money from righthaven.
(untitled comment)
everyone should be thanking UMG. thanks to them the court is going to be ruling that a flase copyright takedown notice constitites infringement and that a false copyright takedown notice is able to get the insane damages that they claim through the riaa housewives/the elderly/the dead/ people who don't own the internet owe them
(untitled comment)
the question is that righthaven when they post the bond is there a way for them to get out of paying when the appeal fails.
Re: No winners
except i see that the way righthaven messed up and i forsee the victims they tried to extort filing suit against Stephens Media for the money.
(untitled comment)
are they going to prosecute or are they asking it just to have done something.
(untitled comment)
did the supreme court not say that a threat has to be directed a soneome in a recent court ruling that if you named no recipient or a corporation it doesn't even make it a crime?
(untitled comment)
are we seeing the beginning of a mike nifong effect?
(untitled comment)
does this mean that we can tape corrupt cops again?
(untitled comment)
there is also a need for ethics to ******* return. posting things getting people killed, posting unsubstantiated blog posts and twitter comments as fact. and the fact that shows like the o'rielly factor and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart aren't forced to have a disclaimer saying that it's entertainment tv and not a legitimate news program is sickening.
(untitled comment)
the judge should toss out the copyright claim and they should just sue the company for fraud. this whole thing was to impersonate someone else hence it being a matter of fraud not copyright.
(untitled comment)
of course they are both censorship. if we do not have clearly defined limits on the speech of a corporation then we end up with:
bill collectors threatening to blow up your house to frighten them into paying their bill. does threatening your life and home free speech constitute free speech? no.
http://consumerist.com/2010/05/verizon-bill-collector-threatens-to-blow-up-mans-house.html
c redit card companies having people arrested. do they have the legal right to have you arrested for a debt of 89 dollars? does this not cause your rights to be violated?
http://www.startribune.com/local/95692619.html
lax laws about the formation of companies allow fake collection agencies to make threatening calls to kill you. does threatening to stab you or to kill you constitute a legal right? nope?
http://cbs11tv.com/local/Threatening.Phone.Calls.2.1760728.html
is a debt collector breaking into your house with a gun and a knife to kill you? really not violating your rights?
http://www.lookatvietnam.com/2009/05/debt-collectors-switch-to-crime-mode.html
to be fair corporations are not people. they are faceless entities that exist in a legal quagmire. a person has the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. the only rights a corporation should have is the right to conduct business honestly & fairly. but because of their legal quagmire status they get away with infringing the rights of the citizens but their rights get protected. when a corporate employee calls you up and threatens you. nobody gets arrested or punished. but if you threaten a corporation then well by god your in prison faster than you can blink
(untitled comment)
when promises are offered for cash. when cash enters the equation thats when you start paying attention
censoring someone who speaks against corruption. BAD!
censoring an asshole selling a fake cure to diseases! good.
(untitled comment)
opinions do not exist when someone is telling you they are certified expert and such. opinions do no count when money is on the line. you are right or you are wrong and if you are wrong. you pay out the arse for it.
(untitled comment)
"You didn't answer my question. So, in what you say here, it means it's perfectly fine for the gov't to censor movies, books and music, because it involves selling a product from a producer to a consumer for a sum."
there's a difference between censorship and a stopping some **** who hocks a book telling people eating goji berries cure cancer (only 49.99!). leave it to a republican/democrat/independent to be unable to do anything except stir up controversy by scaremongering. corporations are not people and extending them rights is something the court should undo.