More people might want to start using apps that upload video to the internet as it's being recorded. Lose the phone or memory card, or have it deleted, they'll usually miss the uploaded version. Some, like the free ACLU app, even use secure servers so uploaded videos *can't* be deleted.
Yes, as many others say, expect them to appeal.
But I think the only thing they can appeal is the fee award. The referrals to the various bar associations, the DOJ, and the IRS, aren't court orders making somebody do something, so they can't be stopped. They're just notices to completely separate agencies about what's going on. If any/all of these other agencies decide to start their own investiagation/prosecution, they do it under their own power and not via this court order, so it can't be stopped by appealing this. Not to mention that
Finally.
But I imagine that any subsequent investigations by IRS/DOJ/Bar Assoc., will take at least a couple years, and then any actual prosecution would take a couple more.
What happened to Steve Gibson and his claim to still control Righthaven, despite the court ordered receivorship?
I seem to recall he filed an objection or something.
What's going on with the real Alan Cooper's lawsuit against Steele and company, or whoever it is? Couldn't he make that a criminal complaint of identity theft, probably with the FBI since the incorporation was based offshore?
..."in his case against Facebook, Zuckerberg looks to be (unsurprisingly) closer to falling apart completely after the court has decided that the extremely damning evidence of fraud can be discussed in the case."
Not to be a nit, and maybe I'm sleepy, but I got so hung up on the last sentence of this article, that I'm stuck in an infinite logical loop, and must retire...
Same here. If only he'd used "and" instead of a comma between Facebook and Zuckerberg.
That was my thought, exactly, when I wrote my comment above, but then I forgot to mention it
MDY Industries LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment
It was actually MDY (maker of Glider) that sued Blizzard, but Blizzard won big on the counterclaims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Indus._LLC_v._Blizzard_Entm%27t,_Inc.
While I can see Masnick's point of view, in that a tool provider shouldn't [normally] be liable for what it's users do with it, does it change the tool provider's liability if/when that tool is designed specifically to do nothing but spam and violate Twitter TOS? especially if they're circumventing the provided API
It's my understanding that CBS didn't block the entire show, but just blocked them from using an official, albeit unused, ST script.
The original author of this unused script liked the project so much, that he was even going to direct it for free. Nothing I read explained how CBS came to own the script he wrote, whether he sold it to them way back in the day or it was a work-for-hire.
ICANN will do things like this, probably because they think they have to if they want to maintain their control. If they don't, that's more ammo for other countries to get the UN to take control.
One article I read, can't find it now, said the guy freely admitted to tethering, clearly against the TOS, and AT&T only said they ~could~ cancel his contract for that.
He keeps digging himself deeper and deeper, and all the while he's dragging the actual controller company he's supposed to be repping down with him.
Has anyone tried to contact them? Who was it, N-Control? To see if they might decide to finally do some of their own damage control.
Randazza isn't arguing that.
The court ordered it.
Since they weren't paying any of the court ordered judgements already outstanding against them, the court ordered them to turn over any and all assets, including any IP, to receivership, to satisfy the outstanding judgements.
Randazza just following along with the continuing court cases, and trying to get the money the court already said it's owed.
(untitled comment)
More people might want to start using apps that upload video to the internet as it's being recorded. Lose the phone or memory card, or have it deleted, they'll usually miss the uploaded version. Some, like the free ACLU app, even use secure servers so uploaded videos *can't* be deleted.
(untitled comment)
oops.
Not to mention that....these referrals will probably get to those agencies pretty quick, but any appeal will take many, many months, at least.
(untitled comment)
Yes, as many others say, expect them to appeal.
But I think the only thing they can appeal is the fee award. The referrals to the various bar associations, the DOJ, and the IRS, aren't court orders making somebody do something, so they can't be stopped. They're just notices to completely separate agencies about what's going on. If any/all of these other agencies decide to start their own investiagation/prosecution, they do it under their own power and not via this court order, so it can't be stopped by appealing this. Not to mention that
(untitled comment)
Finally.
But I imagine that any subsequent investigations by IRS/DOJ/Bar Assoc., will take at least a couple years, and then any actual prosecution would take a couple more.
fool
How's that phrase go?
"Any lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a client and an idiot for an attorney."
Steve Gibson?
What happened to Steve Gibson and his claim to still control Righthaven, despite the court ordered receivorship?
I seem to recall he filed an objection or something.
How long?
How long before we can expect an order from the judge?
(untitled comment)
What's going on with the real Alan Cooper's lawsuit against Steele and company, or whoever it is? Couldn't he make that a criminal complaint of identity theft, probably with the FBI since the incorporation was based offshore?
the "ad" has been pulled
The Atlantic has pulled the "Advertorial" and suspended the ad campaign, and apologized for it.
In their own words, "We screwed up."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/15/the_atlantic_scientology_magazine_yanks_sp onsored_content_after_outcry.html
Re: Quoting out of context
(untitled comment)
The judge has already denied her request to force Youtube to remove it:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/09/20/innocence-of-muslims-youtube-lawsuit/
(untitled comment)
Large enough bribes, er, "campaign contributions", will start anti trust investigations against anyone.
Re: Blizzard
That was my thought, exactly, when I wrote my comment above, but then I forgot to mention it
MDY Industries LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment
It was actually MDY (maker of Glider) that sued Blizzard, but Blizzard won big on the counterclaims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Indus._LLC_v._Blizzard_Entm%27t,_Inc.
(untitled comment)
While I can see Masnick's point of view, in that a tool provider shouldn't [normally] be liable for what it's users do with it, does it change the tool provider's liability if/when that tool is designed specifically to do nothing but spam and violate Twitter TOS? especially if they're circumventing the provided API
(untitled comment)
It's my understanding that CBS didn't block the entire show, but just blocked them from using an official, albeit unused, ST script.
The original author of this unused script liked the project so much, that he was even going to direct it for free. Nothing I read explained how CBS came to own the script he wrote, whether he sold it to them way back in the day or it was a work-for-hire.
(untitled comment)
ICANN will do things like this, probably because they think they have to if they want to maintain their control. If they don't, that's more ammo for other countries to get the UN to take control.
Re:
here's the AP article that says he admitted to tethering:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-offers-quiet-settlement-iphone-193059176.html
here's an article on Consumerist:
http://consumerist.com/2012/03/att-threatens-to-cancel-service-for-man-who-won-throttl ing-lawsuit-if-he-wont-discuss-settlement.html
that says:
"AT&T has reached out to Consumerist to clarify that the letter only threatens to terminate the customer's service only if he signed the nondisclosure agreement and then violated the terms of that agreement. We have subsequently confirmed this with a source who has seen a copy of the letter."
(untitled comment)
One article I read, can't find it now, said the guy freely admitted to tethering, clearly against the TOS, and AT&T only said they ~could~ cancel his contract for that.
(untitled comment)
He keeps digging himself deeper and deeper, and all the while he's dragging the actual controller company he's supposed to be repping down with him.
Has anyone tried to contact them? Who was it, N-Control? To see if they might decide to finally do some of their own damage control.
Re:
Randazza isn't arguing that.
The court ordered it.
Since they weren't paying any of the court ordered judgements already outstanding against them, the court ordered them to turn over any and all assets, including any IP, to receivership, to satisfy the outstanding judgements.
Randazza just following along with the continuing court cases, and trying to get the money the court already said it's owed.