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.
Did they "admit defeat"? Or just lie their way out of it, like they tried to lie their way into it? Claim it was a "business decision" to pull out, or due to some vast government conspiracy, everybody's out to get them, or some such crap.
As for the $4 billion they have to pay DT, another article says that will really only cost them about $1.4 billion after a tax write off.
The point is the majority of info came from the original article, meaning that's where NYT got it from.
The point is if the NYT writes an article first, and anyone else then writes an article using much of the same info, NYT screams plagiarism. But let the NYT be the ones writing the article second and using info from another article, like they just did in this case, they don't mention it at all and don't credit anyone else, making them HUGE hypocrites.
Does this other site that copies Techdirt content, copy only the articles or does it copy/scrape entire pages with all of their embedded links intact?
If the latter, then maybe the Indians actually clicked on a copyright notification link on that other site, which of course points back to the real Techdirt.
Thankfully, an Illinois state court tossed out the lawsuit, noting that the law pretty clearly violated the First Amendment.
No, that's not what they said. They said using that law against someone for recording the police was a violation of that person's first amendment. The law itself was not.
Yes, it makes a difference.
This isn't about the actual gold farming/buying/selling, but about the money transfers this can allow, and subsequently a hunt for terrorist suspects using it for such.
Read this ComputerWorld article. It talks about a Canadian study from a couple years ago that mentions this, as well as a US Intelligence agency reports mentioning the same thing.
Whether this is really a valid conern is a different story.
If you're out in public, and people can see you, then it's not private.
I agree with that.
But,:
But the real question here is somewhat more complex: if you don't see anyone following you, do you have an expectation of privacy in your long-term aggregate movements?
I don't think it should be about whether or not it's long term following you or not. You're still out in public, so it's still not private.
I think it should be about police actually doing something to / putting something on, your car. That's a completely separate and different issue than just being able to see you out in public.
Since the actors % share of the merchandising is based on Net profits, Hollywood Accounting will be in full force to show that there was no Net profit on any of it.
it's still ludicrous that bit part players in an ancient tv series should think that anything using the name of the show they were once in should entitle them to payments,
Not really, because this appears to be a direct contract issue. It's in their original contracts that they're supposed to be paid a % of all the merchandising. There was a ton of merchandising, but seems to have never been any payments on it.
Non-competes are against CA state laws.
He could move to CA, then sue M$. CA Court ruling, since he now lives there, would trump the previous court ruling.
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.
(untitled comment)
Did they "admit defeat"? Or just lie their way out of it, like they tried to lie their way into it? Claim it was a "business decision" to pull out, or due to some vast government conspiracy, everybody's out to get them, or some such crap.
As for the $4 billion they have to pay DT, another article says that will really only cost them about $1.4 billion after a tax write off.
Re:
The point is the majority of info came from the original article, meaning that's where NYT got it from.
The point is if the NYT writes an article first, and anyone else then writes an article using much of the same info, NYT screams plagiarism. But let the NYT be the ones writing the article second and using info from another article, like they just did in this case, they don't mention it at all and don't credit anyone else, making them HUGE hypocrites.
Re:
(untitled comment)
Does this other site that copies Techdirt content, copy only the articles or does it copy/scrape entire pages with all of their embedded links intact?
If the latter, then maybe the Indians actually clicked on a copyright notification link on that other site, which of course points back to the real Techdirt.
(untitled comment)
Thankfully, an Illinois state court tossed out the lawsuit, noting that the law pretty clearly violated the First Amendment.
No, that's not what they said. They said using that law against someone for recording the police was a violation of that person's first amendment. The law itself was not.
Yes, it makes a difference.
(untitled comment)
If we can't direct the traffic, then NOBODY can!
(untitled comment)
This isn't about the actual gold farming/buying/selling, but about the money transfers this can allow, and subsequently a hunt for terrorist suspects using it for such.
Read this ComputerWorld article. It talks about a Canadian study from a couple years ago that mentions this, as well as a US Intelligence agency reports mentioning the same thing.
Whether this is really a valid conern is a different story.
(untitled comment)
Or they want to charge people with illegal gambling, and this is merely a way for them to garner more "evidence" for possible prosecutions.
(untitled comment)
it was Welcome Back, Kotter.
(untitled comment)
But,:I don't think it should be about whether or not it's long term following you or not. You're still out in public, so it's still not private.
I think it should be about police actually doing something to / putting something on, your car. That's a completely separate and different issue than just being able to see you out in public.
(untitled comment)
Since the actors % share of the merchandising is based on Net profits, Hollywood Accounting will be in full force to show that there was no Net profit on any of it.
Not really, because this appears to be a direct contract issue. It's in their original contracts that they're supposed to be paid a % of all the merchandising. There was a ton of merchandising, but seems to have never been any payments on it.
(untitled comment)
Non-competes are against CA state laws.
He could move to CA, then sue M$. CA Court ruling, since he now lives there, would trump the previous court ruling.
Not exactly an infallible source, but the Wikipedia article on non-competes specificly mentions this exact situation.
A CA court ruled that an out of state non-compete isn't enforceable in CA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Out_of_state_agreements_are_not_enforceable