FIFA sells the rights to broadcast the world cup matches (and thus the goals) to various companies around the world. I'm guessing that ESPN has that in the US; here in the UK the matches are split between the BBC and ITV.
Are ESPN only targeting US websites? They have no right to decide whether the BBC for example can show goal clips to a UK audience. Hell, they have no right to decide whether I can show goal clips to a UK audience - that would be down to the local media company and laws whether it constitutes infringement etc.
Presumably it also depends on the source for the Vine clip. If it was recorded live then it's down to FIFA (since I think tickets tend to say that you assign the copyright on any recording you make to FIFA?) as it's not ESPN's copyright.
While fact checking this, today I learned that the split in the periodic table isn't into metal/organic, it is into metal/non-metal.
I always thought organic compounds were those including the top right corner elements (which would include water) but in fact organic compounds are those that include carbon (so water is in fact not organic)
To play devil's advocate, is "confidential source" defined anywhere? Granted it could mean that one of the accused's friends told the police where he was on condition of anonymity. However, the stingray presumably acts as a source of the information and the Feds are attempting to treat it in a similar manner.
I would say I'm with Mike that acting in this manner is essentially denying accused their fair trial and will lead not only to damage to the justice system but also to mistrials, retrials, and all round expense and hassle which has to be funded by the taxpayer.
SO they are being "cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered"
I can see that as a reason not to grant them, but isn't it better to say that they're *cancelled* because they are disparaging *now*? Otherwise is it OK to hold a trademark on an offensive term if you registered it before it was considered to be offensive? For example, if you had trademarked the N-word say 50-100 years ago when it was relatively common parlance. This ruling would seem to suggest you can hang on to the trademark.
Presumably the govt can't retrospectively cancel the trademark - as then people who had been sued for infringing on it could then sue "that team" to get their money back which doesn't seem fair since they were acting under the rules in place at the time.
There is a market for products which claim to obscure your number plate from cameras but leave it visible to the naked eye. Mostly from people who speed but want to avoid getting caught by speed cameras.
You get sprays, plastic reflective covers, even Fresnel lenses which go opaque when viewed from above (as from a camera on a pole over the road).
However I think mythbusters did a show which debunked them all and proved that they don't actually work.
Basically it's a bunch of unscrupulous snake oil salesmen taking money from unscrupulous drivers, who can't really complain that their attempt to avoid being caught breaking the law didn't work.
This article says that transient copies of web pages made by a computer may be made without the express authorisation of the copyright holder.
Blizzard is currently suing some StarCraft cheat writers (and historically sued some World of WarCraft cheat writers) by claiming copyright infringement. Essentially in order to run the game (or any program), the computer makes a copy of the program in memory. Blizzard argues that the permission to make that copy goes along with your adherence to the Terms of Service. The moment that you breach the ToS (by, for example, installing a cheat program), you no longer have their permission to create a temporary copy of their product in the computer's memory. So the moment that you run the game with the cheat live, you are making an infringing copy and thus guilty of copyright infringement. (See the links in my post above for the Techdirt stories about this).
Essentially the EU is now ruling that transient copies of web pages can't be found to be infringing copyright. The extension would be that transient copies of anything, which are an integral part of the technological process, aren't copyright infringement.
Therefore, Blizzard would lose the ability to use their currently preferred line of attack in Europe.
So in the case where someone has an old court case they want forgotten google has to remove links to that old content.
However, how about a site like chillingeffects collating the right to be forgotten requests? Could google remove the link to the original material, but include a link to something commenting on the request - and thus reveal the old content?
Of course I guess someone could request that removal. Which would result in a link to another request on chillingeffects ... ad infinitum
Here's hoping server hard drives keep increasing exponentially ...
There are plenty of ways to change the government without resorting to terrorist actions, as carried out by some anti-abortion and animal rights groups. Look to people like Rosa Parks and MLK Jr in the US for example. Nobody said it would be easy to change the government - and sometimes you have to acknowledge that in a democracy you don't always get your own way.
(acknowledging your point questioning how democratic the US and various other "democracies" really are at this point in time)
Seems that there are two reasons why people are after transparency in who is supplying the drugs:
- concerns about purity. This doesn't need the name of the company to be revealed, as it wouldn't tell you anything directly about the purity of the drugs. You could infer likely purity from the reputation of the company, but that's as far as you can go. The only way to check the purity is to test the drugs provided - this could be done on a random sample, by a lab chosen by a public body.
- in order to put public pressure on the pharmacist through boycotts and campaigns in order to stop them supplying the drugs in future. And the reason to do this is because some people don't like having the death penalty.
I think that to the extent people don't like the death penalty they should target their politicians to get the punishment repealed. Hurdles such as ensuring proper due process has been followed, and keeping it humane are fine. However we shouldn't be adding unnecessary hurdles denying the government the ability to do things which it has the democratic mandate to do.
(As an aside, I didn't like Hines' comment on death being a side effect. The goal isn't just to kill someone, but to do it in a certain manner - to the extent that doesn't happen it is a problem. If he feels the sole objective is death Hines should try striking down the cruel and unusual punishment clause, and good luck to him)
There are lots of things which the government does and which groups of people disagree with - and which they decide to voice that disagreement by targeting those who carry out the government's legal directives. Abortion clinics, animal testing facilities, etc have all been on the receiving end of this.
Whilst I agree that governments need (way) more transparency, it does seem that in this case there is a need for secrecy in order to protect the company and its employees from a portion of the public.
TL;DR: If you don't like what the government is doing, change the government.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
Um no, as I said I agree with the point they're making, I just disagree with the methodology of the number.
Essentially, if you want to watch GoT right now legally you need: - A TV - An electricity supply - A subscription to HBO
All of these things can be used for things other than watching GoT. The calculation in question assumes that the person has other uses for a TV and an electricity supply so doesn't count them as a GoT cost. I'm just pointing out that it's a fairly arbitrary assumption and other assumptions are equally valid - everything from the only thing he would need a TV for is GoT, so the cost is huge, or he would actually want to watch Breaking Bad, CSI, whatever else is on, so the GoT cost is low.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it means that people=citizen, as citizen could have a higher standard of entry. For example age, status, gender, race, wealth, etc have all been used as a qualification for the full rights of citizenship. "People" is a broader classification.
However I do think the use of "the" in the term "the people" means it is referring to a specific group of people, rather than everyone in the world. If it meant everyone then it would say "the right of people to be secure ...". By using the it then means that the right of this specific group of people. Which would presumably just mean US persons.
IANAL, and in particular IANACL. Indeed IANAUSP ...