The First Amendment argument is basically a backstop in case the CDA and SCA arguments fail, and then there's a Constitutional argument to appeal. ... There are exceptions, but generally speaking, the First Amendment doesn't like any law that blocks out speech entirely, even if it's commercial speech.
I honestly don't see how the First Amendment applies here. The problem isn't the speech (posts on a website) but rather the illegal commercial action (offering short-term rentals in violation of the law). Let people post whatever they want on a website, but if they act on it, they're breaking the law and the First Amendment has no grounds to protect them.
You want companies to stop doing stuff like this? Make it unprofitable to!
Pass a law that says that any company found to have obtained money through illegal business dealings faces a mandatory minimum penalty of 100% of the money obtained. You could even give it a snappy, memorable name. "The Crime Does Not Pay Act" comes to mind.
Then screw them. The idea that you can "own the rights" to culture itself is offensive on a far more fundamental level.
If Paramount said "we own Star Trek and so if you want to make a fan film, you have to pay us 5% and display a prominent notice that this is a fan work and not actually affiliated with Paramount," that would be one thing. But saying "no, you can't build on this, so shut the whole thing down" is crossing a line that no one should ever have the right to cross.
About the best explanation I've seen for why the jury decided this way in this case, was that the jury just liked Page and Plant more than the plaintiff -- Michael Skidmore -- who was the "trustee" of the estate of Randy Wolfe, the deceased musician who wrote Taurus. But, when copyright decisions are being made based on who's more likable, that doesn't sound like a particularly functional copyright system.
If I were on a jury, asked to decide a case like this, I wouldn't vote on likeability, but I would certainly be biased against the trustee on general principle. The guy who contributed to our culture is gone; go out and do something worthwhile yourself if you want to be rewarded for it!
Oh, obviously. Afterall, it's not like it's a well-known aspect of human psychology that people tend to be unwilling to admit they were scammed even in the face of all the evidence or anything...
And on a more objective note, wasn't the big selling point of Bitcoin that it's a decentralized system that can't be controlled by any malicious authority? When we consider that Bitcoin mining is so overwhelmingly dominated by a relatively small Chinese cartel that the actual Bitcoin developers are unable to fix widely-acknowledged bugs in the system because the Chinese don't want them fixed, is that not an objective sign of failure?
Techdirt has repeatedly criticized proposals for laws against bullying in schools, particularly of the cyber- variety, on the premise that the proposed penalties would ruin the bullies' lives. Well, this is what happens when bullies do not "get their lives ruined." They grow up learning that they can get away with it. As the branch bends, so grows the tree.
The ironic thing about it, though, is the way adult bullying leads to lives literally, not hyperbolically, being ruined. Businesses driven out of business by vicious monopolists. Life-saving medicines being priced at ridiculously unaffordable rates. Wives and children beaten and abused by a person who they should be able to trust absolutely. Police brutality. This is what happens when bullies grow up without being straightened out.
Given the choice between "ruining the life of" a young thug, or letting the young thug grow into an adult thug who's going to ruin many lives--and let's not delude ourselves into thinking that's not exactly what is at stake--the choice is obvious.
Flying cars will never be a thing until, at the very least, autonomous cars are a thing.
Don't believe me? Just try driving somewhere. Look around and see just how many idiot drivers there are out there who can't handle driving in 2 dimensions. Anyone who wants to give them a third dimension to drive recklessly in is someone whose brain is not braining properly.
Not to ignore the fact that it's a major company that should know better, the Government should have double checked if there was redundancy too.
...and then you end up with a fun balancing act. The more copies of your data that exist, and the more places they exist in, the more likely it is that one of these copies will be the subject of a data breach at some point. When dealing with sensitive information, this is something that has to be taken into account.
I have to wonder about this. I'm not an IP lawyer, but it sure seems to me that what a person doesn't have can't be taken away from them.
In other words, if Dupont is not the copyright holder (because Ripoff Report is) then a court order transferring his copyright ownership of the post in question to a third party means absolutely nothing because he has no ownership to transfer, which helps to make the post more censorship-resistant.
How is this a bad thing? (Bearing in mind that people don't write reports like this for commercial purposes, so taking away his copyright interest on something he was never going to make money on doesn't harm him in any way anyway.)