A bunch of anti-OOTB trolls claim you hate due process, your comment here proves this. MPAA has committed fraud because the initial finding do not support the claims made by the MPAA. Suing because I downloaded 'Dogtown' if I actually downloaded the soundtrack to 'Anastasia' is called fraud and will not win in a court of law, because I can not defend adequately defined myself.
"mislabeling" is something you can not do in a court of law.
Which only means you need a statute of limitations of having a third party appeal to revoke your deadness, or better yet, the only way to reverse a declaration of death is for you (or your doctor or a officer of the law if you can not travel for medical or legal reasons) to show up in court.
Right. The TSA has told us it needs to strip search toddlers because they might be carrying bombs. A child without ID or a boarding pass managed to walk right through the security which should have caught that he didn't have a boarding pass.
I agree with you its not perfect and we shouldn't judge...but wide-spread reports of corruption when combined with the failure of the TSA to respond to critizems of ineffective measures and examples of the ineffectiveness of those measures paints a larger picture of lots of money and time being spent doing very little.
Location Security is all about statistics. If you make entry to solid soft targets harder (ie. have a valid boarding pass, make the 'villian' wait while you check it), you increase the likelyhood of suspicious behavior (I know, broad identifiers, not valid, ect.) and reduce the likelyhood of an attack (barriers weed out most impulsive crimes). A security researcher proved you can generate a junk data ticket that will pass security. Its not and can't ever be fullproof. Instead we look at reducing the likelyhood of an attack, and this step follows a solid body of crime prevention, make the criminal think and he is often likely to not commit the crime.
Also, please remember that getting on the plane is not the only possible target in an airport.
And what they are looking for is that the ticket is 'valid', in that it is for the right day, the right area of the airport, for the person identified, ect. Not that the ticket is for a specific flight. Their is burden on the airline that the kid got on, but there is burden on the TSA as to how he made it to the 'secure area'.
Curious, you make a claim that "obama is unwilling to negotiate".
Obama has 'negotiated' the delay of the Affordable Care Act when it was attached to 'must pass' legislation several times. So now the Republican leadership, after failing to repeal the ACA through normal channels 42 times, first declared that they required the 'defunding' of the ACA, and then 'backed down' to a 'reasonable' stance of removing a tax to pay for the ACA, combined with spending another year to attempt to fully defund it.
By starting out outrageous and then 'backing down', you can get what you want and claim you 'negotiated' when in reality your real stance was the negotiated settlement. This is the republican strategy. Keep delaying the cost controlling benefits of the ACA and it's requirements all while telling people the ACA is raising your rates. Finally get enough support to repeal.
The Republican leadership is not negotiating in good faith. When Obama and the democrats have offered to consider amending sections of the ACA, Republicans have refused. Republicans have directly stated they hooked this to 'must pass' legislation so people who otherwise would say no would say yes. That is not negotiating. That is hanging sword of damocles over the american people and telling congress to do what the republicans want. Or else.
Actually, it is the TSA's job to ensure that everyone who goes through security has either a valid ticket, or a valid pass to escort someone with a valid ticket. The kid couldn't have gotten the latter at his age, so he had to have the former to get through security. And we are told he didn't.
If you don't have the credentials to either A) board a flight or B) escort someone who is boarding a flight you shouldn't be able to get into the terminal. thanks to the TSA, its assumed you should be in the concorse and so a child, moving close enough to an adult, might not be noticed, because we know they are supposed to be there.
Re: You are looking at this from an American point of view
A big problem is the word 'civil' offense varies depending on jurisdiction, but in most cases the examples you gave aren't civil offenses.
In most cases a law school will teach that civil offenses (Torts) are between private parties. Criminal Offenses are 'against the state'. Your taillight and speeding examples? That ticket you receive is actually you being arrested and then "released on your own recognizance", pending the court date on your ticket. Its just simpiler for minor traffic violations to not have to worry about the long arrest process and the costs to society far outweigh the benefits.
I have read a few places where misdemenors are refered to as civil offenses, but normally civil offenses refer to private parties (which lead to lawsuits) rather then criminal offenses which involve the cops.
By definition, breaking the law is a crime. an infraction is still a crime, it just isn't punishable by imprisonment.
Except that the 'one guy' that is the excuse for this isn't the real target. The real target is all of the rest of the information. Thats why the court order wasn't targeted. Because Snowden was just an excuse.
Except it actually isn't legally analogous. Aereokiller does things differently, not ensuring they hold to Cablevision. Moreover, fucknuttery on the part of Aerokiller's owner both hurts its case and suggsts the entire point is to set bad precident.
Oh, and Aerokiller lost in courts that disagree with cablevision. Specifically, Aero Lost in courts who believe that the Location of the DVR changes the legality of the offering. Given previous SCOTUS rulings, this is not likely to go well in the long run.
Oh, and the logic for overturning Remote DVRs also outlaws the slingbox, whose use fails to meet the standards for a 'public broadcast'.
I normally agree with you...but I think the concerning fact is the undisclosed 'user profiles'. I can't find details on what goes into creating them, and that data might be far more extensive then for the ads...which leads to potential NSA level capture and abuse potential. I hope the extensive examination on this both shows that google is on the up and up, and sets solid precedent on what constitutes interception.
This trial could be used to clarify the wire tap laws in ways that simply dismissing that wouldn't. This trial makes perfect sense from that perspective.
Re: I'm not sure the defense would agree with you just yet...
The judge feels that dismissing a case would be too severe a sanction at this time (read: it will get overturned on appeal). There isn't enough evidence of real fraud for such a sanction to stick. Fraud is only a small part of the troll playbook remember. Most of it is 100% legal, if morally iffy. And so it needs to go to Trial for a jury to see the iffy parts. If I am reading this ruling correctly, the merits of the motion itself is going to be directly considered by the jury:
The best you can hope for is that the jury's going to decide this; but for the jury to decide the sham nature of this closet in Texas, they're going to have to understand why somebody would want to do this. So an expert is somebody you need to have explain it. This is going to be part of your case.
As in, the judge has ruled that the sham nature of the holding company, as determined by a jury is reason enough to invalidate an assignment. He has allowed a Jury to decide He wants a jury deciding this so an appeal won't have an easy affect. What do I mean by that?
One of the biggest problems with the Wright ruling is that a Judge decided it, not a jury. By making a jury make the decision, it becomes incredibly difficult to appeal. Namely, Appeals courts normally assume that juries have made accurate statements of fact., and so Appeals are concered with application law. If a jury decides that the facts do not support a valid copyright assignment or that the facts show a pattern of imprudence and fraud, those finding are very hard to dismiss. The appeal can then only be argued over how the judge handles those rulings.
Re: Since I was censored in the prior item, I'll cross-post:
He has. He doesn't need to reiterate the CISPA is bad arguments ad nauseam....
I limit the Data I share with Facebook specifically because I do not agree with its data handling. I can't limit which data gets shared with the NSA. That is why CISPA is a problem, because now Google, Microsoft, and/or facebook Have no incentive to not share your information, As mike has already pointed out.
By unilaterally denying diplomats and presidents passage without a solid reason, the US is Trampling on the spirit on national soverignty. It might not be illegal by US law, but the UN might issue further sanctions against the US (we are already being sanctioned for bullying countries with our trade policies). And when the US ignores the NEW round of sanctions, The UN continues to lose any concept of credibility. As this happens those nations who already resent our bullying further ignore our laws, continue to violate our copyrights, and the nations who do not have the economic ties to us get more and more beligerent. Violating National Sovergnty and ignoring the value of international goodwill will lead to negative consequences
Re: So how would this magically rid us of bad patents?
Let me help you here
Unlike as Mike blithely answers, what you're missing is the likelihood that existing "bigger" companies could further game the system to run these cases through the courts and MORE QUICKLY shut down startups
Except The patent owner is likely to be the big company. If its a bad, broad patent, they don't want a reexam. and If they get the reexam and win, then the patent is likely valid. Techdirt has argued that one of the biggest root problems (not a symptom but a root problem) in patents is the assumption of validity that patents have when they are taken to court, in the face of evidence that 90% of patents are found to be partially invalid. This article discusses a solution to that problem that Mike wants to see. Isn't that what you have been asking him for?
...keep corporations small and hungry, not fat and lazy, through high tax rates....
Funny thing about taxes.....they are proportional. So a 70% corporate tax rate means Mom & Pop Co. loses 70% of its profits as well as Walmart. Which means Walmart is still 1000 times their size, M&P Co. is just that much smaller too.
The problem as I see it is that claims are so broad...
So you admit that patent filings are broken
...that only long review by a technical expert could distinguish, and that in practice it's left up to juries to decide who has the most convincing lawyers, or which the jury hates the least. It's a basically a crap-shoot.
You fail to understand how this process would work. Currently, you have to rely on Juries and Judges because it takes years before your review comes up and the trial is not put on hold. The new law places the trial on hold while a priority review takes place, in which technical experts can provide evidence of prior art and proof of obviousness in the industry. Tech experts and less lawyers. Thats what you want right?
So "If the competitor requests [an accelerated] review of the patent and" LOSES how is it better? There's still no judgment on technical merits. Again, you have no clue what a patent office review is, do you?
Outside of your obvious socialist leanings, which are inherently incompatible with private ownership and IP (A writer is just grifting off the hard work of bookbinders, editors, publishers, marketers, and bookstores, without whom their product wouldn't get to market), you have solid ideas about the need to provide increased taxation of corporations...because it encourages corporations to reinvest in their business to reduce their tax burden. Job growth and domestic economic growth have been tied to high corporate tax rates.
It does in many ways. Look at books. Ian Fleming (wrote James Bond) wasn't popular here in america until JFK (who started reading James Bond after meeting Flemming) told a reporter that the James bond books were his favorite. Suddenly its a national pastime and we have movies! If Fleming had never met JFK, if JFK didn't find him amusing, if JFK didn't like the books....James bond would not be a huge part of popular culture. Hitting it big and making money is a Contest in many ways. One which quality, consistent, compelling writing helps, but does not guarantee anything. Its a contest. A contest in which one author is liked by the right person that starts a chain reaction that causes a lot of people to read it.
Publishers are the 'buyers' in this scenario. They are valuing a work based on the perceived likelihood that the costs of publication will be overcome by the income when the book takes off. The creator is mitigating his risk over the cost of publication and marketing by selling to a publisher. he makes less profit overall, but has fewer sunk costs to concern himself with.
The same (in general terms) value/risk assessment goes into a contest as a publishing deal. Will this book/haiku get popular/chosen in a contest?
Now others might be more willing then me to explain at length the application of this analogy to the risk of purchasing a $10 e-book which can get 'unbought' at any time, or a $60 video game. But will just posit that I use a risk/reward concern when making these purchases.
Is it a perfect model? no. But given other suggestions in the market relating to overpricing (ebooks, video games, digital vs. analog pricing), it does lend weight to the arguement.
Re: Re: Re: Sometimes industry likes long copyrights without intending to make money off them
Point in case: GOG.com produces DRM free copies of older games for $2-$5. They go through the hassle of building emulation wrappers, they get the licencing, and I get a game that just works. Hell yes i buy from them!
People with that arguement make a major fallacy. There are two factors increasing the take in the G and PG markets. A) the very scarcity you are talking about. Low input into the market means more people go to see those movies as they have fewer choices for family friendly entertainment. B) An automatically larger consumer base. Assuming children are the targeted audience of most G and PG movies, you rarely get just the child, they get the parent as well. Groups are more common.
When you look at those factors G and PG films look to be the best films to make. However: If you flood the market with children's films you lose that scarcity. You also start to get the 'dilution' films, films which do well on paper but hurt a brand/studio in the future sales department. As anyone who looks at the size of children's books to young adult books to the size of 'adult' book sections in a bookstore will determine, books that are entertaining and appropriate to younger readers are harder. Many tropes used by authors writing for an adult audiance aren't appropriate or go over the young reader's head. Parents willingly go to Pixar films because of the quality and entertainment of a pixar film. But if that is no longer seen as true, pixar films may no longer remain 'must see' with new parents, and therefore new viewers. Disney hit this problem when they thought direct to video sequels was a gold mine. They undermined their name with a lot of the up-and-coming parents who were fans of the animated films, and work done by disney is often taken with a 'long arm' approach nowadays.
A good example of quantity over quality would be Cars 2 for Pixar. Cars 2 was the first Pixar film to get mostly bad ratings (kids love it, but unlike previous pixar films, adults didn't), and while it made money because of the market force Pixar has, if they continue the idea of 'we need to keep chugging out a film every year", they will sacrifice their goodwill with the adults who will be making the next batch of kids. Remember these are the cord cutters. Commercials are less and less a guaranteed way of getting a child to nag their parents into going to a film.
Once you start diluting the children's market, I imagine in 5 years you'll see someone ask why the market is mostly childrens films when its the R films grossing the most....