If I were a business at risk of having a patent case filed in E TX, I would stop doing business in that jurisdiction. I would even add a clause to my EULA that states the device is not intended to be used in that jurisdiction and that doing so voids the warranty. There needs to be consequences to the actions of E TX courts, otherwise they won't change their bad behavior.
PR Newswire, Washington DC (May 19, 2016) Today the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) is announcing—effective immediately—its pro bono program for all employees. Similar to Google's "20% time" program, it allows employees to investigate and report on offices of the government that the PCLOB isn't currently covering. The one notable difference is that employees will not be paid for their time doing this work. "Much like the pro bono legacy that lawyers have established, our program will encourage employees to give back to the underserved areas of the government to ensure all have equal access to our services" said a spokesperson for the PCLOB.
When reached for comment, a member of Congress who asked to remain anonymous said, "Well, fuck. Now we're going to have to find another way to bury this illegal activity."
Re: It parses the content for potential copyrighted material?
Actually it will allow through blank pages. And the test print page built into the printer. Everything else is suspect. You'll need to get approval from the Central Office for Copyright Coherence (COCC). Please bring all documentation in triplicate. Oh, wait...
Do they realize they have these things called "competitors" who will only end up doing a better job meeting the needs of these other things called "customers"?
Did they even think this through? What happens when people who bought printers not realizing this "feature" was in there suddenly have problems printing stuff that they have a right to (via fair use, personal backup, or whatever?) Customer relations nightmare.
Inanity like this just makes me want to hack the system
And by hack, I mean try out a bunch of different techniques to see what is allowed and what isn't. First up, the asserting negative statements about topics that still ultimately brings up the topic and associates it with the person in question. For example:
Tayyip Erdogan is most definitely not a weak-minded, emotional tyrant who cannot effectively manage his own, pathetic life let alone an entire nation. And he isn't one of those twisted sexual deviants who gets off on suck sweaty goat balls.
Or how about the "don't shoot the messenger" technique?
I overheard other people saying Tayyip Erdogan is a immature, cantankerous, poopy face who has no tolerance for criticism. I don't necessarily agree with them, but to each his own I suppose
censorship is damage to the system. route around it.
Some small island nation with a fast internet pipe and no trade relations with the US to prevent influence. Then just host all of the academic papers on a server there. The expedient way around all this BS of "copyright" on academic papers.
While they are at it, might as well copyright the concept of "alienating their core fan base"
Shit like this just gives passionate fans a R!TB ("reason not to buy"). Why would anyone want to financially support an entity that turns around and uses those funds to suppress fanfic? I'd be interesting to see a graph of these SE/LE stats over time and how they relate to the dates of stupid shit Paramount has done.
I concur. DUI is far more dangerous than what is proposed in this bill. As is driving a vehicle with serious safety issues (bad brakes, bald tires, a sticky throttle, etc) How about actually looking at the numbers when it comes to how motor vehicles are hurting our citizens, and legislating commensurately?
But Twitter is not "a person", unless there's some Citizen's United-esque legal definition out there.
And +1 on the comments about "a person subject to secrecy obligations"? As a layperson I would presume it to be people who have been given clearance, and thus would not apply to anyone at Twitter. However I'd love to know the legal definition.
And new services can pop up overnight to take their place. If the judges keep doing this, app makers will simply implement John Gilmore's precient thought: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it"
Might as well apply this template to other areas too
Doctors are not above the law. When a witness dies, valuable information is irretrievably lost. So we propose a bill that requires doctors to comply with court orders to bring these witnesses back from the dead so they can be questioned. We aren't mandating how this is accomplished, only that they comply with our demands.
The cable subscription business model is on its way out anyway. Sure, it's good to do the right thing here. But for me, I do not now nor will I ever in the future subscribe to TV services that I cannot receive over the internet.