You make a number of good points, and I have to admit I'm not as up on the story as you. I have been following the Elf Man story closely though, so I think it's worth looking at it again in light of your statement that "...FCT & DTD put the information about what is going on in these cases out to the public...". At the end of the day, a lot of news sites are already looking into the forensics related to those suits, independent of the FCT and DTD blogs. Let's say Malibu silence them now; the cat's already out of the bag. They can't do anything about the Elf Man cases going forward, and the more we learn about Guardaley's involvement in those, the less credence they have and the more information made available to defense attorneys anyway. Maybe I'm missing something here, I just don't get what they hope to accomplish with this, it strikes me as sheer vindictiveness. But then, what do I know?
So I'm reading this story here, and another news site that shall not be named. Let me just say the differences in the quality of discussion on the comments here, as opposed to there, reminded me of why I prefer Tech Dirt's reporting and community. Not to mention it's nice to actually have some background information that puts the story in context, rather than playing on the sensational elements. I was ready to fire off a criticism of the discussion and article on that other site, but instead I thought I would say this: Thanks, Mike, and kudos to the TD community for keeping it reasonably above board.
Anyway, to the point, you have to wonder if the alleged connections between Malibu and Guardaley that have gradually been exposed, to the best of my knowledge, by the Elf Man case are putting the heat on. Let's not forget Prenda played it cool for a long time just offhandedly denouncing the "heresay" and "speculation", until TPB helped provide evidence of the honeypot. Then their defamation suit directed at unmasking bloggers suddenly came forward, along with the Judge Wright smackdown. The tone of this Malibu v. Bloggers thing has ratcheted up drastically, almost to Prenda levels, you have to wonder if where there's smoke...
I would have to think this one would have a lot of precedent; I used to be a Corrections Officer, and Native Americans are already allowed to wear their hair down to their waists for religious reasons based on their religious beliefs. IANAL though, I'm not sure what role tribal sovereignty plays in it, but considering it applied to state and federal prisons I'd wager it should still be valuable precedent.
I'm just not buying your argument here. Goldman's analysis isn't "results oriented", it's legal precedent oriented. And the "court's substantive analysis"? Substantive based on what, you yourself directed people to read the ruling, which is itself very light on references to prior cases. I would call it the court's opinionative analysis, certainly, but people who rely on opinion are legal advocates and have no place on the bench.
Here is the most pertinent part: "Finally, what to make of the free speech implications of this ruling? Itís certainly surprising to see a First Amendment stalwart such as Kozinski casually refer to the Garciaís dialogue as ďfighting words,Ē and to place such heavy reliance on the threats Garcia received. Compare the tone of this ruling with Kozinskiís opinions in cases such as City of Norse, where he take a much firmer and almost contemptuous stance on the ability of those offended to impose restrictions on speech. Given the well-documented efforts of censorship that use copyright as a proxy, itís unfortunate Chief Judge Kozinski did not make the connection between the two. I wouldnít go so far as to say that anyone who issues a DMCA takedown request is a censorious thug, but here, the connection between the actions of those who disagreed with the message and the resulting pressure on Garcia to try to get the video pulled were well documented. This starts to look a whole like a variation on the hecklerís veto. Itís certainly not very speech friendly to take an expansive view of copyright in connection with takedown requests that are prompted by threats of violence. Whatís next? Someone who issues a widely ridiculed religious pronouncement starts to issue DMCA takedown notices directed at articles critiquing and poking fun at the pronouncement?"
I don't think you're grasping what the point of McDiarmid's argument here is. All that needs to happen is for this precedent to be set, and it opens the Pandora's gate of DMCA notices. So it doesn't technically apply to the vast majority, but it enables pretty much anyone who has ever appeared in a film to file a DMCA takedown. Now, you might say "But there is a contract in place that would be examined at the surely occuring hearing to review the DMCA takedown!" In what world is that actually going to happen? There are no reprecussions for invalid DMCA takedown requests, and no venue in which to have an appeal heard.
So the short answer is that yes, if we are talking a civil copyright suit (and we all know how well those are handled based on Malibu Media, Prenda, etc.) this would not be as horrific. But in terms of suppression of speech, the consequences are very serious.
@ The Anonymous Coward who seems to be channeling OOTB:
The LA Times has just done a nice write up on this where they quoted several credible experts. By all means have a read before attacking Mike's credibility or completely misunderstanding that Kozinski was only able to take advantage of a very questionable loophole because this was an independent production which did not use the standard Hollywood contracts.: "Hollywood studio executives say they're not worried about the implications of the ruling. That's because their contracts stipulate that actors are working for hire, which means they have no copyrights, and that even if they weren't working for hire, they assigned their copyrights to the production company.
"Tech advocates were not so sanguine.
"Based on this ruling, anyone who contributes creative expression to a larger copyrighted work potentially may have an independent copyright claim against the work's distribution and performance," opined Andrew McDiarmid of the Center for Democracy & Technology. "In the case of a movie, for example, adjudicating these claims would require careful case-by-case examination of the contract, written or oral, between each bit player and the moviemakers. Beyond that, moreover, the notion that an individual actor may have a copyright interest in her performance poses huge problems in the context of the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provisions."
Wrote Corryne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation: "Garcia is claiming a copyright interest in her brief performance, a novel theory and one that doesn't work well here. After all, Garcia herself admits she had no creative control over the movie, but simply performed the lines given to her. There may be a context where an actor could assert some species of authorship, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. Moviemakers of all kinds should be worried indeed."
There's nothing particularly wrong with Ice Weasel, but it's very bloated and slows down like the older Firefox releases had been doing. A lot of people have also raised concerns about it being vulnerable due to the age of the software (but then you could say that about all of Debian). Personally, I like a leaner, faster browser so Qupzilla is right for me. Not to mention I use KDE for my desktop, and since it's written in Qt it's a much smoother experience. It's also a great option for anyone on older hardware too, I convinced my aunt to let me switch her to Linux Lite since she is still on XP (her PC is a Pentium 4 from 2003), and Qupzilla ran great while Firefox with add ons struggled to keep up.
Depends on which one we're talking about, the thing to remember about these open source browsers is that they all are designed to fulfill different niches. Qupzilla can absolutely, though, because it has AdBlock built in to the browser. AdBlock allows you to block 3rd party lists which accomplishes the same goal as Ghostery, take this guide from GitHub: "Now that AdBlock supports 3rd party lists and this looks like the same can be achieved with some special subscription... A special subscription might be
So the long answer is that you can achieve the same thing with those browsers, it will just take some legwork on your part to research how to accomplish it depending on which one you pick. I'm not familiar with all of the plugins you've listed, but if there is no equivalent, just file a request for whatever function it grants you on the GitHub page for Qupzilla or whichever one you choose; this is how these browsers get improved, and it takes a wide variety of people using them to make sure they can do everything that these plug ins accomplish.
Sorry, trying post from my phone and had a few errors (I'm not sure as to how to edit my comments here, I tried google and looking for a FAQ to no avail). That should have read: That's the thing, though, there are a TON of solutions. Not all of them are as OS independent as Qupzilla which I already mentioned, Midori http://midori-browser.org/download/choose/ , Amaya http://www.w3.org/Amaya/User/BinDist.html , NetSurf http://www.netsurf-browser.org/ and many others are available. Some aim to be more lightweight than others and are less fully featured of course, but there is a FireFox alternative right for almost all hardware/OS combinations.
That's the thing, though, there are a TON of solutions. Not all of them as are OS independent as Qupzilla which I already mentioned, Midori http://midori-browser.org/download/choose/ , Amaya http://www.w3.org/Amaya/User/BinDist.html , NetSurfhttp://www.netsurf-browser.org/ and many others. Some aim to be more lightweight than others and are less fully featured of course, but there is a FireFox alternative right for almost all hardware/OS combinations.
Just thought I'd throw this out there, there is an excellent Mozilla style browser based on Webkit that is committed to being non-intrusive and ad free that I use, called Qupzilla. It's available for every OS, be you Windows, Linux, Mac or BSD (Haiku OS/BeOS even!). http://www.qupzilla.com/download If you're dissatisfied with Mozilla, it's worth a look for sure, I use it as my every day browser with no issues and it has a very Netscape-y vibe (in a good way).
Just pucking up on that, I live in rural Ohio and the only highspeed I have access to is 2.5 mpbs Time Warner cable Internet (there is no DSL provider). The only competition in any sense is Exxede, which is satellite based Internet, but can actually hit speeds higher than TWC (I have a relative who switched). This issue with it is data caps, but here is what is ironic: they take the cap off from midnight to 5 a.m. when traffic is low, BECAUSE THE CAP REALLY EXISTS TO PRESERVE SPEED AND BREAK UP TRAFFIC. I am already paying $49.95 a month for my crappy 2.5 mbps from Time Warner, if Comcast implements a cap it will actually be more cost effective for me to go with Exxede and just do all of my downloading/streaming at night since I work 2nd shift anyway. That satellite Internet could be a better value for money in this day and age is just pathetic.
Wait, so who exactly in the US is 100% guaranteed to be NSA surveillance proof given that the Snowden leaks revealed they have cracked most VPN encryption and are doing everything possible to compromise TOR? We're one Snowden like contractor with less moral righteousness or a hacker who gains access to the NSA data farm away from a thief nabbing unheard of amounts of data, but we're supposed to be shaking in our boots because the (according to the same media) inept Russians who can't do anything right are also master hackers at the same time? Whatever this is, is not journalism.