I just realized. The U.S. Government is putting everybody on the No Fly List because they don't want Americans leaving the United States, giving up their citizenship, and revolting to another country, a more friendlier country.
When a website owner is not doing anything to curb the behavior of inappropriate content, then the owner of the site SHOULD be held liable. After all, website owners all around the world are being held liable for the content posted by their members.
This all started with bit torrent and filesharing sites. Did anyone honestly believe that courts would keep that contained to just filesharing sites?
What you guys are forgetting is that Europe is not in the United States. Since Wikipedia has created a German portal, they are responsible for the content posted on their site.
Wikipedia has a responsibility to follow the laws of other countries and if a court finds that a website can be held liable then the owner of that website either needs to block Germany from accessing Wikipedia or start monitoring what its users are posted.
For those who say that Wikipedia doesn't do this, your argument is non-existent. Because Wikipedia already logs every change made to its website and they have thousands of assigned moderators and editors who actively monitor their website.
I happen to agree with the German courts on this one. What nobody realizes is that if a member on a website posts something inflammatory or they post something libel, and the owner of that website does not take adequate measures to remove that content, then the website administrator/owner SHOULD be held libel for that content.
At the same time, I think that website owners should have a certain limited period of time to identify the libel content and to remove it within an appropriate period of time.
Website owners should be held libel if they don't take appropriate steps to ensure that its users aren't posting such content. After all, website owners cannot immediately remove some content while denying the ability to remove other similar libel content.
Feinstein keeps saying "bombs, bombs, bombs and more bombs". Does she own that word where she gets $5 everytime she says it? And Rogers talking about Al Qaeda and their splinter groups.
Well, who's fault is that? The White House and Congress deciding that they had a right to invade any country in the Middle East because every country nin the Middle East who doesn't do what the White House tells them to do is labeled a terrorist.
Where are the terrorist attacks?
ON September 11th, Osama bin Laden only got lucky. Since then? We had a guy who tried to light his underwear on fire; another guy who tried to catch his shoes on fire and the New York attack where a guy used fertilizer that did not explode and he locked the keys to the car bomb inside the car.
It's like Al Qaeda is outsourcing to Ringling Brothers. This was discovered to be the plot for a new Jim Carey movie.
I think Mike's article is wrong because if the courts rule for GoldieBlox that using music is 'fair use' then it would be open season for any business, retailer, advertiser, movie studio or television studio to use copyrighted music without having to license it.
I'm shocked that neither the RIAA nor the MPAA have filed amicus briefs with the court opposing the GoldieBlox motion.
I just don't see GoldieBlox winning this one. CFrom the way I understand it, what GoldieBlox did with The Beastie Boys music cannot be claimed as "Fair Use" since they used the music to advertise their own product.
It's like if you took someone's song and used it in your advertisement. You simply cannot claim "Fair Use" if you use someone else's copyrighted material to sell your product.
Common forms of Fair Use:
Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.
News reporting -- for example, summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report.
Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations.
Nonprofit educational uses -- for example, photocopying of limited portions of written works by teachers for classroom use.
Parody -- that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way.
I agree with the court in the damages that were awarded. Personally, I think Mike has it wrong in that he finds the awarded $1.2 million to be out of whack. The court has definitely sent a message to commercial entities that stealing images that were obviously created by the original photographer, and then turning around and suing that photographer after they credited a different person for that image, is exactly the response that the courts should have sent.
When we're constantly seeing entertainment companies suing filesharing for downloading a long and ending up with such disastrous judgments ($220,000, $1.2 million and so on) ... this definitely sends a message to these commercial companies that they are also liable for stealing the intellectual property rights of individual citizens.
The jury got it right and they sent AFP and Getty a message.
The NSA, The Department of Justice is working contrary to the interests of the American People.
Remind again why the NSA and the DoJ thinks that their opinion is more important than the rights of the American People? I thought it's the role of the government to look after our interests. It's not the job of government to take it upon themselves to ignore court orders, to spy on the American People and to violate our constitutional rights.
I think that this country is heading toward a time when the people are going to say "enough is enough" and simply overthrow the idiots who are giving our country a black eye.
I would like to know just how exactly did these boobs get jobs without the Federal government. Let's see. The NSA violates our privacy by collecting the data on every American. That, in itself, is a violation of our privacy.
Now, the government is saying that handing the control over to private companies to act as watchdogs would violate our privacy and that we're safer with the government in control?
If THAT isn't an oxymoron, then I don't know what is. But, then again, the morons in charge are oxyMORONS.
Somebody needs to tell the geniuses in the intelligence community that if someone removes the battery from their cell phone, there is no way, in Hell, that government intelligence agencies can turn your phone back on, through malware or otherwise.
Upon checking out Techdirt this morning, I don't usually laugh at the absurdity of the articles posted on here and while I'm a very verbal person, when I read THIS article, I laughed so hard, I fell out of my chair, hard heart palpitations and Jesus fell from my roof because HE also found it hilarious.
Jesus told me that the lawyer was an idiot and that Justice was such a moron that he makes Prenda Law look like angels.
This comment may sound callous and hateful, but the TSA is bringing this all on itself with citizens in this country target and kill one of their own agents. I'm appalled at the taking of ANY life, but we're definitely going to see more TSA agents getting killed because of the way they treat Americans in this country.
This latest incident regarding this 3 year old, who happens to also be a disabled child, defies logic. If you ask me, TSA agents lack empathy, lack common decency and think they can get away with mistreating American citizens.
I hope that the TSA ends this mistreatment of passengers but this is exactly what congress intended when they created these Rent-A-Cop, err, Rent-A-Nazis.
I'm wanting to know when the Justice Department is going to investigate the TSA for its violations of the "Americans With Disabilities Act". After all, this is a prime example of a violation of this three year old's civil rights.