Large companies no longer seek to compete in traditional ways. They are not only "too big to fail" but big enough to steamroller whatever gets in their way.
Those companies no longer compete for customers by traditional means: providing a better product or better service. They sue, for patent infringement, for trademark violation, for copyright infringement, or for industrial espionage. They create unilateral and oppressive contracts--offer products and services--that the customer can take or leave.
Why struggle to have a better product or service when your legal Borg minions will ruin your competitor with $10 million in legal fees--or the individual customer for $150,000?
They punish, cheat, rob, ruin, poison, or kill their customers with impunity; destroy their property. Even if they are prosecuted, the penalties imposed are usually pocket change. But how about a serious fine? BP, responsible for the Gulf oil spill (which did probably $100's of billion in economic and ecologic losses) was fined the largest fine ever: $34 billion. But with their income of $230 billion plus per year, the stockholders didn't get paid for all of eight weeks--boy was that lesson learned (must do a better job of steamrolling government next time).
Should it surprise anyone those companies are using their weight to bully nations? It's only natural they would.
The large corporations are like hurricanes, big devastating storms which neither know nor care what they crush and destroy. Today, all the victims (individuals or nations) of a large company can do is hope or pray the company doesn't crush them.
Article: Many platforms make it clear (correctly) that filing a counternotice can lead to you being sued in federal court, where you may face statutory damages awards up to $150,000 per work infringed. But the folks at ITIF are apparently so out of touch that they don't even realize that this might scare off the vast, vast, vast majority of people who are the receiving end of bogus takedown notices.
"But, but, but, that threat wouldn't scare our $50 billion corporate clients and their 500-member Ivy League law firms. Why should it scare anyone else?"
Sorry, not surprised: it was no-brain that this would happen.
Did they publish it within the "statute of limitations"? Yep. The law says "published" and no matter how much the defendant would like "re-published" to not actually be considered "published", well the law doesn't distinguish.
Is there a question that needs to be decided by a jury? Well, I might think the question of whether the image is of Lohan is stupid, but even I can see it is something that needs to be decided by a jury.
That is, after all, why we have a right to jury trials in this country (Seventh Amendment, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,...") The bottom line on this is that there are things the judge is not permitted to decide--that a jury must decide--if the plaintiff or defendant (it takes only one) wants a jury trial.
It's profitable to sell security theater. It's profitable to sell people things that make them sick (cigarettes, junk food). It's profitable to sell dying people things to extend their life (drugs, healthcare, insurance). It's profitable to sell war. It's loss to build greater safety into consumer products. It's loss to keep soldiers alive with armor.
So this is a great idea, and please don't take me as unkind, but I think you can expect to receive a gift from entrenched power interests tonight--a horse head in your bed.
It has been observed that one of the tools that are used by government in promoting war is dehumanization of the enemy, because by making the enemy less than human a government makes inhumane treatment of the enemy acceptable. We can kill the enemy, because they are not human; we can torture the enemy, use inhumane weapons against the enemy, commit genocide. Because they are not human.
Bigotry is a term we apply to a form of dehumanization. By its very nature, bigotry makes the victim less than human; for example ascribing animal intelligence or animal motives. The resulting effects are broad: in the case of blacks, n****rs were not only viewed as non-humans on a personal basis, but in many respects by law.
The person who asserts that he is "entitled to his bigoted beliefs", is the problem. The same problem as war, only on a smaller scale.
There is a problem in our society; we have competing requirements. On the one hand, there is the First Amendment; on the other a definite need to eliminate bigotry and its ilk at all scales. How shall these be reconciled? Because until we can eliminate bigotry, intolerance (a broader form), and dehumanization (their bastard stepchild) we cannot solve the problems of humanity.
Shall humanity continue in this form, forever, because there is a First Amendment? The hard answer to that question is that, if humanity is to improve, to some extent bigotry, intolerance, dehumanization and war must be removed from the domain of protected speech.
So… move the target. Instead of being deep inside the airport, it will be closer to the entrance. As Gawker's Alex Pareene notes, at some point you can't push the envelope back any further.
True, strictly speaking. But you can push it back quite a ways from where it is right now. For example, TSA could send a team of 20 jackbooted and trigger happy agents to your house at 4 AM before your flight. Inspect your car, inspect your bags, inspect your house...and then they could push the proctoscopes they brought along, quite a ways up your a$$ just ensure you're really, truly not hiding anything. Then they could load you and your family into straight-jackets and then into a paddy wagon for your trip to the airport.
That would probably keep everyone safe.
I think we can all be sure this is what Michael Chertoff has in mind as he enthuses about pushing back the boundaries.
"...'open source by default' approach that required all new Federal custom code to be released as OSS, subject to exceptions for things like national security..."
Yes, the IRS tax program source is a matter of national security! Yes, the EPA superfund manager source is a matter of national security! Yes, the National Park Service land management source is a matter of national security! Yes, the National Forest Service park toilet maintenance scheduler source is a matter of national security!
Re: Re: Way too much entitlement in this thread - making content takes time and money
In principle, I agree with the need for sites to finance their work. They deserve to be paid, simply put.
But the ads at the top, around the edges, those are okay. If I'm interested, I can look, but I don't have to. They still get paid.
But that wasn't good enough; they saw that I might not pay attention (which is actually my right). So they invented pop-out ads.
And I was still ignoring them, so they invented pop over ads. Ads that you had to watch to enter the site.
And I still might be stubborn and not actually pay attention so: Motion ads, inline ads that move the text, and video ads that auto-play at top volume, and sound ads that play at top volume that you can't even find.
And malware, to enslave your system.
They started out bumping your shoulder with ads; I had no problem with that. Now they're hitting you in the side of the head with a three-foot elephant-leather glove, with a twelve-pound lead brick in the business end.
After you pick your bleeding, beaten carcass out of the dirt and complain, they say, "What the fuck do you mean, annoying?"
I think there should be a browser-plugin link-rating system that can be used to preview any link off of the current site.
1. Hover to pop up the rating display. 2. Snap bit.ly and similar links to determine the real target. 3. Consult a crowd-sourced rating system and display ratings. 4. Profile settings to mark unwanted features of the target site. 5. Mark links with a warning symbol when the site has features the user has indicated in the profile are unwanted. 6. Easy vote-rating system to register reviews of a site.
A quick search didn't show anything obvious in this space.
Rating features include:
1. Pop-over ads 2. Automatic video/sound ads and, secondarily, automatic video content 3. Ad malware 4. Pop-out ads 5. Pop-over ads 6. Inline ads that disturb text positioning 7. More?
Free speech is their watchword. Therfore they should have no problem with us using our free speech to rate their sites and share those ratings with others via such a system.
I agree. But we should come up with some kind of marker that everyone understands to be that type of site, that is easily understood. Perhaps something like:
It shouldn't just be us that does this either. Google should add this marker to its links. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech; they want to force people to watch ads, the people should be allowed to identify them openly as such.
At one point, the prosecutor cross-examined me by asking if I thought the agents handling Princess [the informant] were plotting to kill Princess by exposing her to one deadly situation after the other until she was killed. I testified (paraphrased according to my memory) that with more than $20 million missing and unaccounted for, and in consideration of the way they were handling her, it was a reasonable possibility.