I've been using ad blocking software for years but only because of the unethical motives of advertising companies who use autoplay video ads, full page pop-ups that try to bypass ad-blockers and other unscrupulous advertising methods that have proven to be a major inconvenience.
Until advertising businesses stop using these methods, I'll continue to employ ad blockers and support them. I just have no interest to continue to add websites to a white-list and I just employ a "block all ads" just because it's easier.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Just where the hell does Crazy Mike Masnick come up with these bizarre ideas? What I'm referring to is his comments in the article:
Did you happen to overhear someone planning a crime, but you can no longer remember what the person looked like? You've violated their due process rights.
That is a very bizarre comment for Mike to throw out there. Just because you can't remember what someone looks like, it doesn't violate their due process rights. Matter of fact, it helps the person who committed the crime because you are no longer a qualified witness against him at trial.
While the "brief" is bizarre, Mike Masnick's comments are even more bizarre. This isn't disrespect, but it's apparent that Mr. Masnick didn't take the time to think his comment through or he was very tired when he wrote the article above. I was rolling my eyes at the ceiling when I read that because it made absolutely no sense.
I think if you ask any attorney, they will tell you that law enforcement and prosecutors need a legal basis on which to get any type of warrant, whether that's an arrest warrant, a search warrant or whatever.
Prosecutors saying that "there might be" evidence is NOT a legal justification, that's just a biased opinion coming from the prosecutor and they aren't allowed to go on fishing expeditions just because they think there might be evidence.
What happens if Apple is forced to unlock the device and there is no evidence? That opens up to the filing of lawsuits against the police department and the prosecutor.
Courts do not grant warrants based on guesswork. If they did start doing this, it would open up every case to being appealed in the federal courts and cost local jurisdictions millions of tax dollars in wasted court proceedings.
Somebody needs to remind the San Bernardino district attorney that courts do not allow law enforcement or prosecutors to go on "fishing expeditions" based o0n nothing more than a wild theory. The above statement the prosecutor made:
The seized IPhone may contain evidence
Courts have said in the past that prosecutors and law enforcement need a valid reason to search anything that a suspect might own. Prosecutors and law enforcement need legal justification to search something that a suspect possesses or possessed. Telling the court that they "might be evidence" is not a legal justification for a search, which is why courts routinely toss out evidence when it has been obtained illegally and without due process.
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in Rodriguez v. United States that police officers who detained a driver and then extended the vehicle stop by calling for a K9 unit where the police found methamphetamine in the car amounted to nothing more than an illegal search.
With Apple, even though the iPhone is owned by the government (the state of California), neither law enforcement nor the government can force any company, corporation, business or private citizen to engage in behavior solely for the benefit of the government.
It's simply ridiculous how little this prosecutor knows ab out the law, which he is supposed to be quite familiar with.
For instance, just say that I have produced an album and Tidal wanted to license my music for their streaming service. Even if they have HFA (as a managing agent) for licensing my music for them, it's not HFA that is liable for paying royalties to either me or my production company, Tidal is wholly responsible for ensuring that royalty checks are paid.
If Tidal sent royalty checks to HFA, then why didn't they follow through with HFA as to why Yesh Music wasn't paid royalties on the music that Tidal licensed?
Many here are forgetting one very important fact, that Tidal didn't follow through with HFA the minute they received the lawsuit. Tidal has serious liability here and the question that hasn't been answered is "why Yesh Music wasn't paid" and "why the royalty rates were miscalculated".
First, if it's discovered that Tidal miscalculated royalty rates on the streamed music, then they have liability with respect to the licensed music. Second, Tidal didn't paid Yesh Music royalty checks for the music they produced. HFA didn't pay royalty checks to Yesh Music for the music they produced. Thing is, HFA has no liability in regards to Yesh Music. Tidal has full liability. If Tidal's agreement with HFA resulted in royalty checks not being paid out to Yesh Music, they it's Tidal that has liability to Yesh Music and that HFA needs to answer to Tidal as to what happened to those royalty checks.
Tidal is simply in a losing position. What it boils down to is that Yesh Music wasn't paid and that who has liability. HFA has liability to Tidal and Tidal has liability to Yesh Music.
While it may be true that Tidal and HFA may have had agreements, that's besides the point ... Yesh Music Publishing and John Emanuele have not been paid.
It may be hard to fathom for many but even if there was an agreement between Tidal and HFA, Yesh Music Publishing and John Emanuele have not been paid and the only thing I'm saying is that Tidal is liable for paying the artists, despite whatever agreement they may have had with HFA.
Follow the thinking here, your neighbor borrows money from you. Some time later, he's in a hospital far away and he gives the money to a friend to pay you back but he doesn't drop the money off to you. Even though your friend and the person he gave the money to so you get paid back, your friend is still liable for paying back that loan to you, no matter what agreement your friend and the person he gave the money to.
Tidal (A) and HFA (B) have an agreement based on various licensing agreements for music from an artist Yesh Music Publishing and John Emanuele (C). Even though Tidal (A) and HFA (B) have an agreement, even if HFA doesn't pay those royalties to Yesh Music Publishing, Tidal is still responsible for paying royalties to Yesh Music Publishing. If there's disagreement between Tidal and HFA, then that's a matter that Tidal needs to settle in court by filing suit against HFA.
Tidal is trying to make the argument that they sent the royalties to HFA and that they are not responsible for the royalties. Fact is, Tidal is still responsible for paying royalties to Yesh Music. If HFA didn't pay Yesh Music the royalties, then Tidal needs to file suit against HFA.
Then, there's the other part of the complaint, that they improperly calculated the per-stream royalty rates. Tidal is in a losing position and it would be in their benefit to pay Yesh Music and then turn around and take HFA to court to recoup the royalty checks they sent HFA.
This is what I come to expect from Techdirt, recently. Biased articles that shed no light on the issue. Tidal is trying to blame the Harry Fox Agency for failing to pay Yesh Music the royalties they are owed. Even if HFA handled the licensing of such music to Tidal, it's Tidal's responsibility to ensure that the royalty checks are being paid out and it's their liability if the artists aren't being paid.
It seems that Tidal and HFA are pulling the old finger pointing scam:
I'm glad that CBS put the halt to this fan film. What everyone keeps forgetting is that this isn't no damn fan film, it's an attempt by idiots who thought they could scam CBS by saying it's a fan film when they generated one million dollars to produce this movie. Fan films do NOT cost one million dollars, they don't come anywhere near that cost.
Fan films are films made by fans at their own cost. They do NOT crowd-source the cost of their fan film by generating a million dollars. Just what the HELL did these morons think would happen. I'm just surprised it didn't happen sooner.
CBS is producing a big budget Star Trek movie. People will confuse Axanar with Star Trek Beyond and they won't go to see the new film.
AC, I can see why you might think that drug testing is a constitutional violation. After all, Canadians don't believe in constitutional rights. Just a bunch of bloody wankers. After all, Canada is part of the British Empire and they are still angry that the American Colonies succeeded and kicked the British out.
This could backfire against every employer in the country who could be pressured into halting drug testing. Because if this police union succeeds in stopping police officers from getting drug tested, employers are going to hold police unions all across the country responsible for this bullshit.
Employers, no matter if they are public or private or government, have the right to require drug testing of its employees if they suspect drug or alcohol use or if they are suspected to be under the influence of such drugs or alcohol.
These police unions have created a major screw-up over this, there is no way they can win on this issue, even if they succeed.
It's a violation of their union contract to undergo drug and alcohol testing? Did I miss something? Every business, every government agency, every retailer ... any job you take requires potential employees to undergo drug and alcohol testing. It's actually a requirement before you are considered for employment. Police officers are paid for by tax dollars and are subject to the same rules.
I don't know if I would feel safe if a police officer in my neighborhood was hopped up on drugs and alcohol. The very fact that they also have a badge and a gun makes that a dangerous situation.
What also makes this even worse is that if you were accused of drug and alcohol abuse, the police would confiscate your guns and you would lose your gun licenses. What the hell is going on here?
This is one case where the USPTO was quite correct. "The Slants" should never get a trademark on the name. Just because they are "Asians" doesn't mean they are entitled to flaunt an ethnic slur in the faces of everyone else. It would be the same if Native Americans were given the trademark over the Washington "Redskins".
If you allow one group to trademark names that are 'ethnic' slurs then you have to give everyone that right.
While doing some web searching on this matter, I discovered a Harvard Law write-up from 2008 on this very issue, where the state of Oregon sued some websites over this very same thing:
Although Section 105 of the Copyright Act places the works of federal government employees (so, federal statutes, federal judicial opinions, and the like) in the public domain, Section 105 doesn’t apply to state laws. Does that mean state laws are copyrightable? Although the statute is silent, the courts have always said: no, they aren’t. In Nash v. Lathrop, 6 N.E. 559, 560 (Mass. 1886), the court rested this conclusion on the unfairness of limiting public’s access to the rules that governed its conduct:
Every citizen is presumed to know the law thus declared, and it needs no argument to show that justice requires that all should have free access to the opinions, and that it is against sound public policy to prevent this, or to suppress and keep from the earliest knowledge of the public the statutes, or the decisions and opinions of the justices. … It can hardly be contended that it would be within the constitutional power of the legislature to enact that the statutes and opinions should not be made known to the public. It is its duty to provide for promulgating them; while it has the power to pass reasonable and wholesome laws regulating the mode of promulgating them, so as to give accuracy and authority to them.
Goober, you are actually quite incorrect where it concerns photographers who are 'paid' to take photographs. Under the rule of law, the photographer, since he or she are being paid for their services, is considered 'under contract' for producing those photographs. They do not own the copyright.
This is why many professional attorneys suggest that when you hire or contract with a professional photographer that you state in the contract with that photographer that you retain all copies, negatives and masters of any photos that are taken or produced by the photographer. If you don't point this out in a contract agreement with the photographer, then the photographer will retain the rights to those photographs.
Before I get rapped on the knuckles for this, it's been established that the person taking the photograph (i.e., the person pressing the button that captures the image) is the rightful owner of that particular photograph. The one exception is with professional photographers who are paid for their services to take those photos (i.e., the person who paid the professional photographer is the person who owns the copyright to those photos).
While it's true that copyright law was never intended to cover this, it nevertheless has happened that the person taking the photo retains the copyright.
The law, like any living document, evolves to change with the times. July 17, 1790 was the first recorded instance of U.S. Copyright, and it had been signed in script type by George Washington and appeared in The Columbian Centinel and is the first known copyright act to protect books, maps and other original documents.
Since then, U.S. Copyright Law has evolved to over other intellectual works such as printed publications, video, audio, photographs and other original works. While technically, Mike is correct about copyright law not being intended to cover photographs, the law evolves.
I think it's a good idea that copyright law expands to cover new areas of intellectual rights and taking photographs is nothing new. After all, copyright law does protect photographs, just ask anyone who misappropriates an A.P. News photo. I actually hear about copyright takedown requests all the time, quite a few that are never reported on Techdirt.
While too many people, businesses, corporations and lawyers wield the DMCA like it was some ban-hammer demand for removal ... I do think that there are legitimate DMCA takedown requests, and it's become common that whenever someone reports a DMCA takedown request, that everyone just assumes it's a bad thing.
I do admit that while they are far and few between, not every takedown request is a bad thing.