1) Copyright a whole bunch of stuff (Doesn't matter what it is. Any old claptrap will do.).
2) Clandestinely upload it to all kinds of sites that are now automatically liable based on this EU shit.
3) Initiate lawsuits against everyone, claiming loss of revenue.
4) Win lawsuits because these stupid EU laws say so.
5) Profit!!!
There's a massive liability here for any site that hosts user-uploaded content. My advice to all of them (Youtube, Reddit, Vimeo, etc.) is to withdraw from the EU if these directives become law.
We can't even tell the voters of Tennessee to go screw themselves over this. It appears they already have! Maybe now that she has an even bigger profile, they'll finally see that she's only in this for her and her masters' own interests and vote her out next time.
"Something smells rotten in the state of Nebraska"
Not just defamation, but possibly also damages for lost revenue for being wrongly branded as malicious/illegal. I wonder how many other filters, etc. are preventing folks from reaching the site. All those missing hits could be making a dent in their ad revenue in addition to their reputation. Perhaps they should send a polite letter to Steam and any others doing the same thing asking to be unblocked before they are forced to take legal action.
First, they come up with some stupid plan that anyone with a brain knows is useless and only serves their agenda. Then they quote or twist a bunch of wrong/made-up statistics to justify their position. The only thing missing is the final step where they collect their bonuses and move on to the next victim. Of course they're only students, so they're probably practising until they graduate and become real MBAs-(My Bonus Awaits). Then they can get to work coming up with new ways to fleece the public for the benefit of their corporate masters and themselves.
I still remember what happened in the 1990s when Microsoft agreed to work together with IBM on OS/2.
Well let me go on record now with a message for Donald Trump: 'A day of reckoning is almost certainly coming'. Go ahead, sic your law enforcement on me if you want. From my perspective that wasn't a threat, merely an observation.
Michigan investigation reveals that less than 3% of chidren listed a 'Missing' are actually sex-trafficked.
Ho will the US congress be able to sign off on USMCA with this language in it:
"no Party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created, or developed the information."
Doesn't SESTA/FOSTA make computer services liable for content related to trafficking? If so how can the conflict be resolved? Will Congress have to drop SESTA or refuse to ratify USMCA, or have I not analysed this properly?
Maybe they should all just start using open source code.
I do and its nice to know that I can vet everything I'm using if I want to. Can check for backdoors, security holes, etc. Can customize according to my needs. Plus it's free, does all I want and more, with no need to kowtow to the BSA, Microsoft, Apple et al.
All you US folks should take a look at your CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act). Don't all of you find it weird that under this act ISPs are treated as common carriers for the purposes of wiretaps and information gathering. If it's good enough for law enforcement then why not for everything else? Maybe your Supreme Court can invoke one of its 'Looks like a duck, Quacks like a duck, rulings and rule once and for all that ISP are indeed common carriers.
If the school administrators wanted to keep the conversation out of the public eye, they may have shot themselves in the foot. The lawyer for the kid should ask to have the entire recorded conversation entered into the public record at the trial. Perhaps a threat of this nature would cause the prosecution to reconsider its case, or at least prove embarrassing to the administrators.
Nice to see that the NRA thinks repealing net-neutrality will result in a free and open internet that isn't subject to a lot of government regulation. I wonder if they'll also speak out against the SESTA/FOSTA shitshow that's currently working its way through Congress. That's way more government interference and regulation of internet services than net-neutrality ever was. Come on NRA. Put your money where your mouth is, or are you too afraid to upset your bought-and-paid-for minions in Congress?
Just wondering if it would be possible for someone like the EFF to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all Americans against the Net Neutrality repeal. If enough interested folks signed on, the sheer size of the class (possibly tens of millions if everyone signs up) might be enough to convince a court and possibly lawmakers that the FCC-run comment period was really the bogus, self serving travesty that everyone but Ajit Pai and the rest of the ISPs' shills say it was.
Does anyone know if there are any loopholes in international law that would prevent the sovereign Mohawk nation from persuing patent infringers in other countries? Possibly along the lines of "you don't have standing here because we don't recognize you as another nation, or we don't accept lawsuits from sovereign nations against our citizens/corporations". It would be great for these 'patent holders' to lose all rights internationally as a result of being too greedy at home. Hopefully some smart lawyers will figure it out.
If you have a neighbor you trust, maybe it's time to start sharing a connection via wifi, etc. One bill plus $50 (split 2 ways) is probably a lot less than a bill each with data data caps. If you're not topping out on the speed you should be able to consume all the data you want for less. Bonus - If you can alternate signing up for new service every time an incentive plan for a 'new' customer comes around you'll probably be able to get the lowest rate available all the time.
I'm confused. If Vaulin is being accused of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement where are the folks who actually committed the infringement? Shouldn't they at least have been charged with criminal copyright infringement prior to Vaulin's arrest? If no one has been arrested/charged/convicted of criminal copyright infringement using Vaulin's website and torrents how can he be on the hook for anything?
If no criminal act was committed by an end user then how can Vaulin be extradited under criminal law? It looks like the USA is making up its own criminal laws on the fly at the behest of the copyright holders in order to unjustly get access to civil defendants via the back door. Same thing probably applies to the Kim Dotcom case.
So what happens when someone in a country with strong free speech laws posts something to a social media platform like Facebook that the Germans don't like? If it gets taken down globally (thanks Supreme Court of Canada), can the poster then sue the social media platform for supressing his/her free speech? What happens if the poster wins and a court orders the speech to be reinstated? The platform will be in violation of the law somewhere - a truly no-win situation.
Maybe Google should just stop indexing search results for Equustek as well as Datalink. That should send a clear message:"FUCK WITH US AND YOU'RE TOAST". I don't think there's a law that Google must show Equustek in their results, and I'm sure this fiasco probably cost them a ton of legal fees, so why should Google be doing them any favours? It might make others who are too stupid to realize that Google is not the internet think twice about engaging in bullshit actions such as this.
By the way, I'm Canadian and think the court really fucked up on this one. Probably not their fault though as they don't understand all the technology involved and the various quirks that go with it. We could really use a Judge Alsup here, or at least some judges who realize when they're out of their depth and will call in some experts when needed.
Trump's version of a JFK quote:
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your country can do for me.