On one hand, what he said about the foreclosure order being worthless was more likely to be true than false. In this post-2008 world, that should be the default attitude of anyone who's been paying attention, and it's good to see LE standing up to foreclosure fraud and going after the real criminals.
On the other hand... it would have a lot less of a skeezy "conflict of interest" feel to it had the victim not been himself.
Considering the stuff that the Colombians are trying to put an end to with the Paz Colombia process, I don't suppose there's any way to take this threat by Everett Eissenstat and charge him with support for terrorism?
Wow, so much fail here. Almost everything you said is wrong! Where do I even start?
First off, an API and an ABI have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. An API is a defined set of data types and functions to use to communicate with a specific system; an ABI is a set of conventions used to define how functions, function calls, and data are organized on a specific platform and language. It's possible to implement the exact same API on multiple different ABIs, and to implement multiple APIs on any given ABI. Despite their similar names, the two are entirely unrelated concepts and the copyrightability of one has nothing to do with the copyrightability of the other.
because technically, all code is an API
What in the world are you talking about? An API is a defined interface for external code to interface with a system. This comes nowhere near covering "all code," or even "all code that interfaces with external systems" for that matter!
Has anyone actually read them? If not, I'd ask you do because you'll note something unique about them. However, if you don't have the time or care to do so, here's what a typical GNU/GPL licenses says: "You can use our software and do what you want with it, but you can't sell it and you need to keep it open".
First, there's no such thing as "a typical GNU/GPL licence". There is the GPL license, with various versions thereof, all of which are set in stone. It's a legal document crafted for a specific purpose by a specific group of people.
Second, nowhere does the GPL say you can "do what you want with" the GPL'd code; its entire purpose is to restrict what you can do with the code. It also doesn't say "you can't sell it"; the FSF has repeatedly come out and said the exact opposite: selling GPL software in no way violates either the letter or the spirit of the GPL, so long as it isn't done in a way that violates the GPL.
I'm not quite clear what points you're trying to make, but can you please fact-check your arguments before deploying things that are simply not true in support of them?
Oh, I dunno ... say you have finally gotten that appointment with that HIV specialist and have no other way to get there but your own car.
Why say that? Show me a scenario in which public transportation and cabs are unavailable, and yet normal businesses are open for business and the roads are clear for normal driving (ie. not a natural disaster situation) and I will show you a contrived scenario that has no place in a discussion of real-life events.
And yet, Techdirt has posted several articles detailing concerns over ALPR abuse, particularly by law enforcement. My question is, how is this (which there's apparently nothing wrong with) any different?
No idea why a sports broadcast is exempted here, but okay.
Most likely to head off potential stupid lawsuits where players go "hey, I don't like what the commentary guys said about me, and according to this law they didn't actually have the right to say that, so I can sue them over it!"
Problem here is that a water bottling company COULD also bottle juice.
Exactly. Look at all the non-soda products sold by Coca-Cola. It's perfectly reasonable to think that a successful bottled water brand might branch out into juice as well, which creates the likelihood for customer confusion, even if they aren't actually selling juice at the present time.
I don't see why anyone is talking about section 230 or "identity theft" at all, when there's something much simpler to charge him with: running a protection racket.
Victimizing people, then directing them to pay money to ChangeMyReputation for protection against the victimization caused by the people running ChangeMyReputation (who are the same people running YouGotPosted) is about as clear a case of a protection racket as I've ever seen, except that the victims did not know of the connection between ChangeMyReputation and YouGotPosted, which means you could probably make a case for adding a fraud charge on top of the protection racket charge.
Nothing in this implicates Section 230 rights in any way.
Trade secrets are an archaic concept that literally should have died out centuries ago. We've all seen plenty of stories on here about abuse of the patent system, but how many people are aware of where it came from?
Trade secrets are the problem that patents were invented to solve. That's literally how bad they are: the problem of people keeping their discoveries secret got so bad that the British government invented patents to put a stop to it!
Unfortunately, no one since then has had the good sense to follow through on it and officially abolish trade secret protection once and for all. Maybe it's time someone did.
This can be fixed with a very simple, straightforward law: If any company offers a purchased product that is dependent upon external hosted software for its basic functionality, and then decides to discontinue support for that software, they have the legal obligation to release that software, in its entirety, under an open source license, with the complete documentation necessary to allow users to establish their own servers and convert the product to use these servers instead of the obsolete ones, before they turn their servers off.
With all of the clever names and clever applications of old terms making their way into the modern lexicon, I'm really surprised that no one seems to be using the term "head in the clouds" for people who fail to think these things through.