Re: Re: Re: If the government's not going to do anything
Tell you what, why don't you go completely without the internet for an entire month, then come back and tell us how easy it was and maybe people will take your calls to do without the internet long enough for a company to care seriously.
It's not like you need the internet or anything, and think of how much your example would inspire people to do the same, showing them that it can be done. Lead by example, show people that you can do without the internet at all for extended periods of time, it's only a minor sacrifice after all and think of how much weight your calls for a boycott will gain after the hardship.
Re: Re: And there's a much more legitimate argument against the gun manufacturers.
I think you might be taking their comment the wrong way. As I read it they're basically saying 'If Twitter can be held personally responsible for those that use their site, then by that logic gun manufacturers/sellers should be liable for those that use their products' without necessarily agreeing with that logic themselves.
If, when someone uses a gun to commit a crime they rather than the one who made/sold the gun are held responsible, then likewise blame the murderous losers for their actions, don't blame the site they use.
Copyright is 'for a limited' time only by definition at this point, as it does not yet last for eternity and it's theoretically possible that something could, at some point, enter the public domain.
For all intents and purposes though you're quite right, it is effectively eternal, as once the duration of something lasts longer than a person's life it doesn't matter if it's five years or five hundred, it's the same for them either way.
Which of course is completely and utterly ridiculous. I mean who would possibly read one book for free and then upon learning what kind of story to expect from a given author decide whether or not to buy more of their works(or say, an entire series)? Doesn't he know that the best way to get new readers is to force people to pay out the nose first for a book they have no knowledge of, and then if they manage to stumble upon something they enjoy rather than something they don't they'll buy more?
And don't even get me started on the scourge of the literary world, libraries, buying a book once and then letting multiple people read it for free, it's a miracle that it's even still possible for authors to make any money at all with all those pirate-commie-librarians stealing readers and daring to expose those dirty criminals to authors they might have otherwise been unaware of.
I read it as 'said' by the CAFC due to the 'promptly ignored' bit in the original comment it was in response to.
"Alice, what Alice? Why are you bringing up some random name in a case like this? Stop wasting everyone's time on unrelated nonsense so we can get back to our jobs and make another ruling about how awesome any and all patents are."
The staffer noted it would be impossible for an NSL to issue against Cloudflare, since the services our company provides expressly did not fall within the jurisdiction of the NSL statute. The staffer went so far as to open a copy of the U.S. Code and read from the statutory language to make her point.
Unless you want to say that the staffer was just making a fool of themself by going through that whole song and dance, it seems pretty clear that no, that individual, and likely several others at least did not 'know that this shit was happening'. They, and likely several others, staff and lawmakers 'thought' the law applied one way, the FBI 'disagreed', and thanks to the gag order the company was prohibited from telling the lawmakers that the FBI's 'interpretation' differed notably from their's.
Now, I'll fully agree that some lawmakers likely do know about this sort of thing, I distinctly remember a story a few years back when the Snowden stuff started coming out about one of the members of the 'oversight' groups deliberately withholding information from the others. They knew, they didn't want the others to know because what was differed from what was presented.
Later on, when it became harder to just ignore the leaks some of them came forward claiming that they had no idea this sort of thing was happening, and while I'm sure some of them were just putting into play their 'I'm shocked, shocked I say!' practice it's quite likely that at least a few didn't actually know, because they'd been kept in the dark.
Sometimes it is malicious intent(and while in politics 'assuming malicious intent' is a pretty safe bet, you need to be careful with it), but sometimes it really is incompetence and/or thinking one thing is perfectly clear, while someone else thinks that there's 'room for a different interpretation' and running with their 'interpretation'.
At the same time though, even assuming that every single lawmaker involved knew exactly how the law would really be used, making it public forces them to scramble and pretend that their actual intent matches their professed intent, possibly closing the 'accidental loophole'.
"It was just a toddler, not like it was someone that matters or anything."
The state and police are more concerned with keeping the case alive than the toddler that got to enjoy having a flashbang detonated in the same room as it, to the point that they are arguing that such a tactic isn't a big deal, and certainly not enough to suppress any evidence over.
Getting to the root of the matter, I'd say that the most important take-away from this is that via a gag order a company in general, and one of the people from it was legally bound from telling the truth to a government representative'.
They were put in a position where it would be illegal for them to tell the truth of what was happening, or even correct a mistaken belief about what couldn't possibly be happening, all because of the gag order.
Lawmakers can only fix problems that they are aware of, and cases like this demonstrate that gag orders can prevent that from happening, leaving lawmakers thinking one thing is happening when that is very much not the case. While I know that 'that's a feature, not a bug' as far as those issuing the gag orders are concerned, it should be all that's needed to find the practice unconstitutional and flat out dangerous, and prohibited for good.
Besides sounding like they were just a wee bit condescending the staffer's only 'crime' was that they were under the (hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous) mistaken belief that the FBI actually cares about what the law says when it might limit what they can do.
'Believing that a major government agency cares one bit about the laws they are tasked to uphold' may be more than a little naive these days, but I wouldn't say it reaches the point where a name and shame is appropriate.
'A few bad apples spoil the barrel' isn't an excuse, it's a warning
It doesn't need to be systemic to be a problem, it just needs to be ignored. Get a large enough collection of people and it's all but guaranteed that a few 'bad' ones will slip through the cracks, pretty much anyone should understand that.
One or two 'bad apples' out of a hundred isn't that big of a problem so long as they are removed promptly, but when that not only doesn't happen but the other 'apples' fight to keep them, to insist that they're not really that bad and in fact what they did should be completely acceptable, that is a problem.
When that happens the 'apples' don't really have any ground to object when they all get put under the label of 'bad apple', because from the outside, with the many defending the actions of the few, they all have the appearance of agreeing with those actions, even if they themselves don't engage in them.
My first thought was along the lines of 'That seems incredibly sleazy and dishonest, a way to dodge being able to be held accountable', and then I thought about it some more, re-read your example, thought about this lawsuit, and moved on to '... and yet, when the system is this broken, I suppose I can't say I can blame those that have to respond to a gamed system by trying to game it in their favor to avoid ridiculous results'.
"It is disappointing that the FCC’s current leadership has yet again chosen to spend its last days in office the same way it spent the last few years—cutting corners on process, keeping fellow Commissioners in the dark, and pursuing partisan, political agendas that only harm investment and innovation.
I'm actually impressed that he was able to say that with a straight face. It's got to take significant practice to be able to make a statement that fits you perfectly and then claim that the other person is guilty of it.
A complete and utter lack of shame and integrity probably helps too.
Exactly. If the documents demonstrated what the FBI was saying they do they would be tripping over themselves to present them, as they would demolish the claims being made by the defense. The fact that they are instead doing everything they can to prevent the documents from being examined makes it pretty clear that the defense is likely dead-on, and the FBI doesn't want their claims confirmed in court.
I expect that if push comes to shove the FBI will once again drop the case if the alternative is to present the evidence of the 'collaboration' program. As much as they prize convictions(not justice mind) they value their secrecy much, much more, as numerous cases have made abundantly clear.
Though the FBI has had eight different CHS at Best Buy’s Kentucky facility,
Employees, they had eight informants in a single store, and the previous article talked about three in a single store. If BB wants to clear out the informants they are going to have to get rid of a lot of people if these two stories are any indication.
'Randazza filed an Anti-SLAPP motion in the under the California Anti-SLAPP law, despite the case being in Florida. The motion was granted, since one of the plaintiffs was from California. It was successful, and the federal court awarded Novella a victory in the case. "As a prevailing defendant, Novella is entitled to recover his attorney's fees and costs under the anti-SLAPP statute. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1). He may seek to recover his fees and costs by separate motion."
So it is possible to make use of a state's anti-SLAPP law even if the case if filed in another state, so long as one of the parties is from the state with the law, which TD/Mike is.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Define 'winning'. Winning on the facts, no, that is not going to happen. Winning through driving the other side into the ground through protracted legal fighting and the associated costs, such that they have no choice but to fold, that is a very real possibility, and almost certainly the true goal.