Techdirt whining about something they don't understand and pushing tinfoil hat nonsense. I'm so surprised. Not.
Let me explain how this works: if you think we're wrong about something, *you provide evidence* and *explain why we're wrong*. When you just say "wrong" and add an ad hominem attack, it doesn't increase your credibility any.
Multiple experts have now written about this amendment raising concerns, including law professors and law enforcement folks. If you have an alternative take, please provide it. Otherwise, it's difficult to take you seriously.
It seems quite plausible to me that we are talking about unauthorized photographs that were not publishable due to violating venue rules and/or personality rights.
1. No. 2. You don't get to claim copyright if you don't have the copyright. End of story. 3. Even if they had violated the venue's rules, the ONLY remedy is that the venue could then refuse future service, not get the posts removed. 4. If there was a publicity rights claim, that still doesn't make it okay to lie about the copyright.
Rose being able to have them taken down is not really all that much out of line.
Please look up prior restraint. Thanks.
And he's using the simplest and easiest available tool with least repercussions for that, a DMCA.
You mean misusing or abusing a tool for censorship without having a legitimatet claim. That's not okay.
That's pretty much a no-brainer
Abusing the law for censorship is a "no brainer"?
It involves misuse of a tool only to be used for copyright violations, but it's easy to use under any circumstance you want to without serious danger of repercussions for the necessary perjury.
So you admit that there's no real punishment for abusing the DMCA to censor content you have no right to censor?
In other words, this is how the laws are intended to be applied according to their most important corporate sponsors.
It's a dog-bites-man story, not really newsworthy. You can have hundreds of them each day.
Nothing is hidden. They're not a "front group" for the RIAA. They publicly acknowledge that the RIAA is a member.
Let me get this straight. Your argument is that I'm dishonest in calling an RIAA front group a "front group" because they admit that they're funded by the RIAA? Yikes.
The issue is not whether or not they admit the RIAA funds them. The issue is who actually runs the show and whose positions CA will always take. And it's not the "artists" that CA pretends to represent. It's the RIAA/MPAA. That's what a front group is, though it's amusing to watch you try to pretend it's not.
Any experience using the Asus outdoors? I notice the latest AOC is brighter which I'm leaning towards because of that.
I have used it outdoors a few times, but it's like most laptop screens, honestly, and not a great outdoor experience. The hood suggestion in that other comment may be a really good idea if you need to use it outdoors frequently.
You'll struggle to find one, but these mean you can be the guy who can actually print anywhere. Slow, noisy, mono, but who cares? It's battery powered and supports bluetooth for //blackberry// otherwise you can print A4 by USB. And it contains a 20 page print roll all in a teensy package.
As I mentioned in the post, I used to carry a different, but also tiny thermal printer. But I never used it. The one I had is so old I can't even find pictures of it on the internet. So, not really that interested in getting another.
As for a scanner, honestly, these days just using a smartphone camera to take a photo is good enough.
Just doing some searching on this, it appears that one company has made a stand just for portable monitors like mine, but the reviews are pretty mixed, and it looks like it's more designed to place it vertically over your laptop screen, which isn't what I want.
Consider something like this for your unsatisfactory stand. Weighs about 2.5 lbs, and fits nicely in my backpack (though I mostly use it for sitting or standing on -- especially when I need to get over a crowd for photos).
Anything that we're talking about in terms of pounds is too heavy. Needs to be ounces. That folding stool is already bigger and heavier than the Aerotray which is already too big and too heavy. I'm looking for something that's tiny and well less than a pound.
My thought on that would to be start with a backpack frame, made with telescoping or folding legs, and in built folding shelves, with the laptop,screen and keyboard attached. Basically erect it as a lean against the wall shelving unit. A clip over cover with pockets can carry the small stuff. Try your local hacker space and see if anybody there would be prepared to help you with this. This way the standing desk is the bag, rather than fitting in a bag.
Unfortunately, ruling of law in other countries have absolutely NO jurisdiction or impact on laws or cases in the United States. In other words, copyright ruling that happen in other countries would not affect copyright or "fair use" in the United States.
Can you point to where I claimed it did? Because I never said that, nor even implied that.
If another country says that fair use doesn't violate copyright law, morons in the United States can't take that ruling into court as a defense because it has no legal effect in the United States./i>
If it is a new copyright then can't anyone come along and "remaster" the original to create their own copyright? Three separate "versions" of the same song by different companies?? According to their argument, these are all now different. Be careful what you ask for...
No, it's still a derivative work. So you still need authorization to do the remastering. But then you can get a new copyright on the remastered version.
Still no comment from Mike on the law surrounding the publication of private facts? Just going to shift your position from "well, sex tapes are newsworthy if a celebrity talks about his sexual prowess" to "well, there are multiple lawsuits so clearly this is just some rich asshole exploiting the legal system to attack totally legit operations", as though judges don't get pissed at groundless suits and toss them with regularity.
Not sure what you want me to comment on? I made my point earlier. All indications are that it will be overturned on appeal, and the earlier rulings of the appeals court suggest they recognize that this is protected speech. We shall see.
Just so y'all know: The woman who is the subject of this post is not Anita Sarkeesian. And she has nothing to do with gaming, or game development, or gamergate. I mean, you can comment about all that stuff if you want, it's a free country, I just thought you should know that that was not the actual topic of this post.
This is correct. It has nothing do with gaming at all. And I'm disappointed that people are so focused on trying to figure out who it is, rather than focusing on the story.