Assuming MPAA gets its default injunction with overbroad relief intact, the main risk is that ISPs and other parties given notice will think it applies to them. But except in cases where parties are shown to be sufficiently connected to the defendants, the Court has no jurisdiction over parties who aren't before it in the action. So go ahead, show me that Order so I can ignore it.
I had a nice quiet sincere acoustic guit version of U Got the Look that was on YouTube 4 years, 20k views. It recently got yanked by Prince's enforcement crew AND they hit me with a strike. And that's what you get for appreciating Prince.
"The question is whether people beyond innovators and early adopters who place a high value on privacy are enough to drive adoption."
I think post-Snowden, there are certainly more -- including myself when I saw the part about how the NSA can decide whether to read attorney/client communications it has collected. !?!
I think the big adoption of cryptocurrency is likely to happen predominantly by the 3rd-world and disenfranchised classes... those with smartphone and no bank account. See, e.g., Kenya. Once ensconsed, I doubt it's going anywhere. (Even banking on it, as they say, to some extent.)
Being currently involved with bitcoin, I see many articles about how it's dead. The pundit always traces back to banks. They don't like it. IRS thinks of bitcoin as property ... nice for now.
While the transactions are transparent, in most non-web wallets the addresses hierarchically change during use, and you can have wallets not tied to you. It's easy enough to create a wallet on blockchain's hidden Tor site with no personal info whatsoever, bounce transactions through a tumbler/mixer or through other wallets, and effectively engage in virtually impossible-to-trace transactions never tied to you personally. No amount of legislation will stop that.
And since the software is open-source and the meta-software continually being improved worldwide, it'll only get better and more secure. And more widely adopted.
Ludicrous. Every time I see something on this case I am reminded of Todd Rundgren's album "Deface the Music" in which every single song directly cops the feel of a particular Beatles song. Each of Rundgren's songs is wholly original, while it's glaringly obvious which Beatles song it is modeled after.
With a title like Deface the Music, obviously he wasn't making a secret of it. The Beatles didn't sue... perhaps because it was homage? Perhaps because it's not copyright infringement.
I live very close to a University, which Yik Yak caters to, so I check the posts periodically. Platform and users are pretty good about weeding out high-schoolers, et al.
Yes, there are some offensive things said there; yes, perhaps even hate-crimey things said there. But, they get downvoted pretty quickly, and it only takes like 5 downvotes to disappear the post.
Like many platforms, it self-polices pretty well from what I have seen. Granted, this is California, not NC, but students are students, and tend to be from all over. So let the students decide what they think should not be on Yik Yak. They have the power to do so.
In CA, the issue of Employee v. Indy Contractor has tests that breed results all over the map. The bottom line query is who controls the manner and means of production. Factors to consider include the degree of control exercised by the company, whose equipment & offices, etc.
Here, the big tell for me is the IC's don't have to work at all if they don't want to (per my understanding). And it seems a thorny issue is that Uber/Lyft may set the prices, but are otherwise just the platform (unlike, say, a web developer who is an IC, but is still given specific tasks by the company, not third-party site users).
The public requests the service, the platform sends it out, a driver picks it up. That sounds like IC to me.
But ... then there is the fact that in many (other) legal contexts, the law is designed to weigh in favor of finding the party an employee (which makes sense as far as companies who regularly try to screw their workers with creative workarounds to making them employees).
Anyway, let's freaking hope they aren't found employees, as that would seem to set a dangerous precedent to online platforms in general.
NOTE: Robert Reich's story is a humanist piece about a normative world. It is about the way he thinks the law should be, not necessarily what it is.
When a coffee shop or somesuch wants my name so they can call it out when my order is ready, I tell them "Zeus."
I use "Jetson." They say, "Jenson?" "No, Jetson." "Johnson?" Then I get to act like I've had a lifetime of dealing with this, and slightly exasperated say, "JETSON ... like the cartoon." And by then they think I'm serious. Gotta maintain deadpan though.
Except ... my "home" burn phone is the original landline home number now piggy-backed on my biz VoIP acct, and we moved since then, so the number is tied to an old address, if at all, but not the biz address.
We've long referred to our home phone number as the burner. It's only used when signing up for things online or at stores, etc. where they want your phone #. So all the subsequent telemarketing calls go there and we don't bother to answer it at all.
I also have multiple burner email addresses, not directly tied to me, for use in querying sketchy businesses, etc.
None of them are temporary, but the word "burner" immediately gets the point across.
So we have a group of Techdirt writers -- who read, research, write about, and basically live with these issues all day every day -- discussing at length whether an article about banning hate speech is satire. Apparently still without consensus.
The general public is certainly less likely to spot the satire than this group of subject-matter educated writers. Therefore the article, spreading via its own controversy, is likely to breed more converts to the destruction of free speech than "ah-hahs" at its cleverness. The potential damage to freedoms is incalculable.
Looks like you're right that you don't have to be member of patent bar to litigate court cases involving patents.
Nonetheless, lawyers do have an ethical duty to only take cases they are competent to handle. If one were actually competent to litigate a patent case, one would think they could pass the patent bar, and as such, would.
From my frame of reference, non-patent attorneys don't touch patent issues. Because malpractice.