Basically, they cannot claim to be "innocent index" when they created and hosted specialized and detail pages for the shows. Since the content they were providing (by curation) was clearly copyright infringing, they can't claim not to know.
You'd have a point if it were a civil case.
But that doesn't apply to a criminal case.
You should learn what the law says.
The "we don't host anything" game is just that, a game. It's a whole pile of tapdancing around responsibility for your site. Having clear knowledge that the most popular files (and almost all the files) on your curated pages were to infringing material makes it pretty hard to avoid knowledge. Selling ads (and charging more for those popular pages) is another issue.
Again, you should learn what the law says before spouting off and showing your ignorance.
I fully support Niantic in their decision to fight back against the hackers. They are ruining the game for everyone else who plays legit and in my opinion if you are cheating then you deserve to have your falsely acquired assets wiped.
You do realize most of this article is not about Niantic, but Pokemon Company which went way beyond what Niantic did?
Mike missed the part where the kid tried to take his own life after the joke made him a laughingstock at his school. A twelve year old kid wanted to die because of that joke. Is that really the kind of speech that shouldn't have some form of punishment?
It has punishment in the form of public reprehension at the person making such a joke.
But to answer your question more specifically: No, actually, I don't think someone trying to commit suicide should impact anyone else's punishment. There are many factors that go into why someone decided to commit suicide. It's why we were against punishment in the Lori Drew case. It's why -- unlike many others -- we've resisted blaming the government for Aaron Swartz's suicide.
When you say that someone else can get in trouble because someone they were mean to committed suicide YOU'RE ENCOURAGING SUICIDE, because that's telling people "if I kill myself, that's a way to really get back at whoever was mean to me."
Don't do that.
No one knows why anyone finally makes a decision to try to kill themselves, but under your rules, if I said that your comment made me so distressed that I tried to kill myself, do you think you should be punished? We should never punish someone for the way someone else *felt* about what they said.
FWIW, OTR is a protocol, not an app. And it's generally more for one on one chat, which is a very different use case than Slack and the others above, which are for persistent groups working together on projects.
We don't need more competitors in the Slack "space", so to speak. We need more people taking the time to learn fundamentals that have long since proven themselves vastly more enduring and clearly superior.
Er, yes, more competition is always good.
And usenet, frankly, doesn't really suffice as a tool for work groups. And, yes, I know how to use it -- I was a regular on Usenet in the early 90s before the web came around. I lived in Usenet and IRC.
Especially the current ones from the FCC, despite the new rules being worse, and despite that the FCC was responsible for the problems to begin with.
No. To be clear, historically we were very wary of the FCC rules because we're generally not big fans of over regulation, contrary to your weird claim to the contrary. We tend to favor free markets and competition and innovation.
Where concerns are raised is where there are situations that block out competition, innovation and a free market, and the broadband industry was becoming exactly that -- where you had a few dominant players who were abusing their dominant position to harm the open market on the internet. Under those circumstances, we supported the FCC's VERY NARROW rules that did little more than block abusive practices by ISPs, encouraged more competition and did nothing whatsoever to put more onerous regulations on companies. That's it.
But this article is critical of RIAA. A business that is doing nothing more than using regulation to protect its bottom line.
Yes. And we have been historically absolutely consistent that we don't agree with regulatory arbitrage like that.
The point is that TD just runs its mouth like everyone else, but ultimately serves no real purpose other than to provide the masses with entertainment.
The point is you seem to have made a bunch of assumptions about us, almost all of which were wrong.
Do not get me wrong, I do enjoy reading TD, but today I think... what is the point of all of this? You have reported on RIAA and many others like them, and I have yet to see any success.
We've pointed to that as well, but FWIW, the Copyright Office is not, in fact, the final say on interpretations of copyright law (and that's actually a good thing). So it's not case closed because of that.
I listened to his news conference. He never asked Russia to hack into Hillary's e-mails. What he requested was that if Russia had found the 30,000 missing e-mails to turn these over to the FBI.
To be clear that's NOT what he said at the actual press conference. At the conference he asked Russia to get the emails (though, it's pretty clear he was being somewhat sarcastic).
AFTER the conference, he did a tweet where he changed what he said slightly, and THEN asked Russia, if they found those emails, to turn them over to the FBI. You're confusing what he said at the conference with what he tweeted after.
Re: PR firm propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma $$$
Nice propaganda effort, this article, web page, and the fake comments included. Shows you what Big Pharma profits $$$$ can purchase in the way of public relations firm services. Pretty convincing. Very God-less and immoral. These PR firms should be shut down and their staff sent to prison!
Ok, the Article Writer says that pre-1972 recordings are on a 'state license' basis, but if you play 'Paint it Black' (by the Stones circa 1966) in a radio station from an old cassette, you can do this. Whether you are in LA, or in Podunk, Virgina, you can play this song. You do NOT need to apply for 'original artist' permission before you play this song (if you do, there are a LOT of 'oldies' stations that were, and are, in violation). You simply keep your logs for playtime, and remit them with air fees each period (day, week, month, whatever). You don't ask permission, you don't apply to play prior-to.
Actually, there was just a lawsuit about this, as we wrote about here:
So, if this is the case, then is the Article Writer thus saying that if you want to 'play from catalog', a politician's best bet is to get a Radio Station license? I mean, to my knowledge, NO RADIO STATION was ever banned from playing a 'mainstream song' by the artist (though some raunchy songs were prevented play time by the FCC or general audiences - like most-anything that David Allen Coe ever wrote or performed).
No. You're confusing a WHOLE BUNCH of different copyright issues here. The law is clear that you don't need a performance license for radio, but it's a specific carve out (and one, as I noted, that some labels started challenging just last year). Radio play is a whole different ball of wax. And there is no "radio station license" that a campaign or venue can block.
It does seem like this is the ULTIMATE work-around for those temperamental 'you can't play my song at your function' artists! After all, the politicians WOULD be playing the songs, in theory, for an AUDIENCE, not for his personal gain!