Given the novel definitions of defamation Murray's lawyers are operating under, wouldn't their statements about Oliver's journalistic proclivities (for want of a better word) also constitute defamation if those theories are in any way accurate?
Well, in a legal sense: no. Legal filings are granted absolute privilege, so you can't argue that a legal filing itself is defamatory. Second, even if these statements were made outside of a legal filing, I think it would be quite difficult to argue any of them are truly defamatory. But, yes, perhaps if you were working under the warped definition of defamation used in this filing, and it was done outside of a filing, THEN in that non-existent theoretical world, there are bits that might be defamatory. But, thankfully, we don't live in that world. Though, I get that you're just making the ironic point...
Re: Post WWII Germany? Really? That's your comparison?
What you are witnessing with this article, and with the recent elections, is the complete collapse of the Leftist agenda, including the anti-Patent, anti-Copyright anti-Government agenda of this site. It's falling down all around you.
I'm curious how one argues that anti-patent, anti-copyright is somehow a "left" agenda. After all, patents and copyrights are centralized government monopolies and subsidies handed out to individuals and companies. That sounds very much like a "leftist" ideal. Whereas "the right" claims to be about less centralized government and a free market -- something that copyright and patents directly oppose.
This is some A+ trolling. It gets multiple facts wrong, accuses the wrong party, and totally gets the law wrong (in hilarious ways). Kudos for some top notch trolling.
I love how these "Tales from the Public Domain" are not even in the public domain. Classic Techdirt.
I'm confused. Where did we ever suggest all things need to be in the public domain? Or that writing about the public domain needs to be in the public domain? We have not suggested it, so disproving the strawman in your head doesn't seem to make the point you think it makes.
Re: Re: Marketplace making choice beats bureaucrats doing it for us
Watch it... Bureaucrats are a favorite around here.
You keep saying this, despite the fact it is objectively untrue, and the fact that we regularly criticize bureaucrats.
Why?
It seems that your so focused on misunderstanding what we write, that you constantly post nonsense. Yes, we support net neutrality, as a kind of first amendment/anti-slapp law for the internet (and, remember, you've now claimed you like anti-slapp laws). We don't "support" bureaucrats -- we regularly mock and make fun of most of them.
I don't understand why you feel the need to constantly misrepresent stuff. It's something you should look into.
Just to respond to these two points you raise, neither of them is true.
We did not ask Pissed Consumer to remove anything. If they removed them, it was due to PC's own decision making. We also did not ask PDF to remove comments -- as you well know since they told you directly that the links in your comments caused them to be flagged, and they were released as soon as they were noticed. And they are still available on the video (again, as you know).
See! I do not hate all regulation despite what many of you claim!
You're the one who claimed to hate all regulation and you scream at anyone here who suggests there may be some cases where regulation makes sense.
Mayhaps you could treat others here with a bit more respect when they disagree with you about which regulations make sense instead of screaming at them in an insulting way that they're too stupid to understand that regulation is all bad -- because that's what you normally do.
Yes, anti-SLAPP regulations are good. Yes, plenty of regulation is bad. There are adults who can disagree about why one is good and why one is bad without being insulting and making broad generalizations -- as you frequently do. If you did that, you might not have so many people mocking you so constantly.
Re: Wikileaks would have scrubbed the documents properly.
/always have someone who understand technology and security on staff
For what it's worth, the Intercept employs two of the most well-respected security experts in the world : Morgan Marquis-Boire and Micah Lee. This wasn't for lack of having people on staff who know this stuff. Those guys know. It's not clear what happened here exactly.
The question is actually pretty simple: Is a music streaming service really that different from a radio station or for that matter a juke box?
If that were actually the question, then the above case would have ended differently, becuase neither radio nor jukebox operators pay mechanical licenses...
So... not sure your point?
At the end of the day, Spotify (and other online music services) would be hard pressed to come up with any argument that would make them exempt.
Well, since you've already falsely claimed that radio and jukeboxes pay mechanicals, I find it kind of hilarious that you now claim Spotify couldn't exempt itself from the same requirements. If Spotify had the same requirements as radio it would pay SIGNIFICANTLY LESS.
"on the internet" doesn't mean "shirking responsibility" or somehow being deserving of an unfairly sloped playing field.
On the internet means paying many more licenses than the examples you gave.
Amazing number of folks here supporting selective enforcement of the law. Apparently we've given up on being a rule of law society and now it's the ends justify the means. People hate Trump so much they will forget and/or ignore the law as long as it's against him.
Um, as noted in the comment above, we made the same complaints about Obama. This has nothing to do with whether we support the President or not. This has to do with the fundamental problem of going after whistleblowers.
The First Amendment does NOT give anyone the right to do so. Just like you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater, a government official can't break the law and reveal classified information or allow it to be stored insecurely.
Oh. You're one of those poor saps who thinks you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. I have some unfortunate news for you:
It's great that people are finally waking up and calling this shit out, but sad that the same was ignored for 8 years just because the president was a democrat. Can we stop trying to gloss over history on Obama's behalf?
Um. Who are you claiming ignored this issue during the Obama Presidency? Because it better not be us.
And that's just the results on the first page of a quick search I did. There's a lot more where that came from. So don't go playing fucking partisan pattycake and pretending we didn't make the same claims about the previous administration. We're not that kind of site.
Re: why do people trust indiegogo when indiegogo is not relaible?
Even techdirt themselves talked about how indiegogo is not kickstarter and doesn't even vaguely check that a project is legitimate before taking your money.
Clearly they do check on projects, as this one was canceled, right?
I've backed a bunch of projects on Indiegogo and haven't had a single one turn out to be a scam.
We're already seeing that people barely use voicemail at all any more (especially younger people). Texting has replaced voicemail for many. I rarely listen to my voicemails these days and know that many people never even set up their voicemail at all.
I think if this becomes a thing... it will only be that much more likely that voicemail dies completely.
Karl, aren't you assuming that Pai did not orchestrate the fake astroturfing campaign? What makes you reach that assumption? I think there is every reason to believe he condones it, and very likely helped implement it.
That's not happening. There are enough problems in the world without making up bullshit conspiracy theories. As much as we disagree with Pai, there's no way that he has anything to do with faking comments. That's not even within the realm of possibility.
Is this actually a thing? I've never heard of any kind of limit on the ability of government agencies to reverse past decisions.
Yes, it's very much a thing. The Administrative Procedures Act, which controls how government agencies make regulations says that you cannot make willy nilly changes:
Specifically, the FCC (and other agencies) have run into trouble in the past for changing regulations in a manner considered to be "arbitrary and capricious." So, for the FCC to change the rules here they have to show a clear, supportable reason that things have changed since the previous rules were put in place 2 years ago. That's... going to be difficult.
the FCC caused this problem, a full shut down along with all of their rules protecting business is better than them staying alive where the rules now only protect the business.
Um. Sort of. But not in the way that you think. Much of the success of the early internet was BECAUSE of rules not unlike today's rules (in fact, even stronger) under Title II. The "issue" came when we moved off Title II, which was an FCC decision.
But now we're back, and your argument is "just do away with them all" which -- given the existing market -- is not just nonsensical, it's suicidal.
TD is becoming a poster child for "Those who run face first into their destinies in vain attempts to avoid it!"
I apologize that we actually understand the law and technology and the nuances, and you want to pretend the world is simplistic and two-dimensional. One day, I hope you will learn that things are not so simple.
The moment you turn to a politician to save your ass, is the moment you give it away!
Yes. Damn those politicians who created the Constitution. We should just do away with it all.
Go ahead, keep ignoring history, you will only repeat it!
Uh huh. Do you expect people to take you seriously?
The only thing history teaches is that people are terrible at learning from it!
No offense, but your statements suggest that you are incredibly ignorant of history.
Other than the money, I really have to wonder why the FCC would be so adamant about gutting privacy protections, Net Neutrality principles, and basic consumer-friendly oversight. If there is a good reason for doing those things that does not involve large sums of money, I sure as shit cannot figure it out.
It's a fundamental principles thing. To Pai and O'Rielly, they simply don't think the FCC should be regulating these issues at all. At best, they think of the FCC as a spectrum management agency. At worst, they think the entire agency should be shut down.
So when you view their actions through that lens it makes sense in a manner that is not corrupt. They simply believe the simplistic concept that "regulation bad" (as one of our vocal commenters here also believes), and thus they look to undermine restrictions on telcos at all opportunities, not realizing, of course, that that is a form of regulation in its own right that does much greater harm to innovation and consumers.
On the post: Bob Murray's Lawsuit Against John Oliver Is Even Sillier Than We Expected
Re: Defamation of Oliver?
Given the novel definitions of defamation Murray's lawyers are operating under, wouldn't their statements about Oliver's journalistic proclivities (for want of a better word) also constitute defamation if those theories are in any way accurate?
Well, in a legal sense: no. Legal filings are granted absolute privilege, so you can't argue that a legal filing itself is defamatory. Second, even if these statements were made outside of a legal filing, I think it would be quite difficult to argue any of them are truly defamatory. But, yes, perhaps if you were working under the warped definition of defamation used in this filing, and it was done outside of a filing, THEN in that non-existent theoretical world, there are bits that might be defamatory. But, thankfully, we don't live in that world. Though, I get that you're just making the ironic point...
On the post: White House Plan To Reduce Drug Prices... Is To EXTEND Patents?
Re: Post WWII Germany? Really? That's your comparison?
What you are witnessing with this article, and with the recent elections, is the complete collapse of the Leftist agenda, including the anti-Patent, anti-Copyright anti-Government agenda of this site. It's falling down all around you.
I'm curious how one argues that anti-patent, anti-copyright is somehow a "left" agenda. After all, patents and copyrights are centralized government monopolies and subsidies handed out to individuals and companies. That sounds very much like a "leftist" ideal. Whereas "the right" claims to be about less centralized government and a free market -- something that copyright and patents directly oppose.
On the post: Tumblr Goes Radio Silent On Net Neutrality After Verizon Acquisition
Re: Verizon is right to limit
Wut?
On the post: Coal Boss Files Total SLAPP Suit Against John Oliver & HBO
Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Says You Can't Ban People From The Internet, No Matter What They've Done
Re: What about the Cox decision?
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 127: Copyright, Music & 'Theft'
Re:
I love how these "Tales from the Public Domain" are not even in the public domain. Classic Techdirt.
I'm confused. Where did we ever suggest all things need to be in the public domain? Or that writing about the public domain needs to be in the public domain? We have not suggested it, so disproving the strawman in your head doesn't seem to make the point you think it makes.
On the post: 80% Of Cord Cutters Leave Because Of High Cable TV Prices, But The Industry Still Refuses To Compete On Price
Re: Re: Marketplace making choice beats bureaucrats doing it for us
Watch it... Bureaucrats are a favorite around here.
You keep saying this, despite the fact it is objectively untrue, and the fact that we regularly criticize bureaucrats.
Why?
It seems that your so focused on misunderstanding what we write, that you constantly post nonsense. Yes, we support net neutrality, as a kind of first amendment/anti-slapp law for the internet (and, remember, you've now claimed you like anti-slapp laws). We don't "support" bureaucrats -- we regularly mock and make fun of most of them.
I don't understand why you feel the need to constantly misrepresent stuff. It's something you should look into.
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of A SLAPP Suit: My Story
Re: Re: Re:
We did not ask Pissed Consumer to remove anything. If they removed them, it was due to PC's own decision making. We also did not ask PDF to remove comments -- as you well know since they told you directly that the links in your comments caused them to be flagged, and they were released as soon as they were noticed. And they are still available on the video (again, as you know).
On the post: California's Anti-SLAPP Law Saves Another News Publication From Bogus Lawsuit
Re:
See! I do not hate all regulation despite what many of you claim!
You're the one who claimed to hate all regulation and you scream at anyone here who suggests there may be some cases where regulation makes sense.
Mayhaps you could treat others here with a bit more respect when they disagree with you about which regulations make sense instead of screaming at them in an insulting way that they're too stupid to understand that regulation is all bad -- because that's what you normally do.
Yes, anti-SLAPP regulations are good. Yes, plenty of regulation is bad. There are adults who can disagree about why one is good and why one is bad without being insulting and making broad generalizations -- as you frequently do. If you did that, you might not have so many people mocking you so constantly.
Be an adult, join the conversation.
On the post: How Document-Tracking Dots Helped The FBI Track Down Russian Hacking Doc Leaker
Re: Wikileaks would have scrubbed the documents properly.
/always have someone who understand technology and security on staff
For what it's worth, the Intercept employs two of the most well-respected security experts in the world : Morgan Marquis-Boire and Micah Lee. This wasn't for lack of having people on staff who know this stuff. Those guys know. It's not clear what happened here exactly.
On the post: The Music Licensing Swamp: Spotify Settles Over Failure To Obtain Mechanical Licenses
Re: Not Complex in this case
The question is actually pretty simple: Is a music streaming service really that different from a radio station or for that matter a juke box?
If that were actually the question, then the above case would have ended differently, becuase neither radio nor jukebox operators pay mechanical licenses...
So... not sure your point?
At the end of the day, Spotify (and other online music services) would be hard pressed to come up with any argument that would make them exempt.
Well, since you've already falsely claimed that radio and jukeboxes pay mechanicals, I find it kind of hilarious that you now claim Spotify couldn't exempt itself from the same requirements. If Spotify had the same requirements as radio it would pay SIGNIFICANTLY LESS.
"on the internet" doesn't mean "shirking responsibility" or somehow being deserving of an unfairly sloped playing field.
On the internet means paying many more licenses than the examples you gave.
Now... let's see if you'll admit to being wrong.
On the post: DOJ Officials Express An Interest In Prosecuting Leakers And Whistleblowers
Re:
Amazing number of folks here supporting selective enforcement of the law. Apparently we've given up on being a rule of law society and now it's the ends justify the means. People hate Trump so much they will forget and/or ignore the law as long as it's against him.
Um, as noted in the comment above, we made the same complaints about Obama. This has nothing to do with whether we support the President or not. This has to do with the fundamental problem of going after whistleblowers.
The First Amendment does NOT give anyone the right to do so. Just like you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater, a government official can't break the law and reveal classified information or allow it to be stored insecurely.
Oh. You're one of those poor saps who thinks you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. I have some unfortunate news for you:
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are -enough/
Any time you cheer on a law breaker, try to remember that we all rely on the law every second of every day to keep this society functioning.
So, were you for or against Wikileaks sharing the DNC and Podesta emails?
On the post: DOJ Officials Express An Interest In Prosecuting Leakers And Whistleblowers
Re:
It's great that people are finally waking up and calling this shit out, but sad that the same was ignored for 8 years just because the president was a democrat. Can we stop trying to gloss over history on Obama's behalf?
Um. Who are you claiming ignored this issue during the Obama Presidency? Because it better not be us.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141014/17395328832/obama-administration-has-put-media-leake rs-jail-nearly-50-times-as-long-as-all-other-administrations-history.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com /articles/20130620/18182823551/obama-administration-has-declared-war-leakers-claims-any-leak-is-aidi ng-enemy.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130807/01005424091/victim-obamas-crackdown-whist leblowers-says-calling-leakers-spies-is-modern-day-mccarthyism.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/artic les/20130802/14032124047/its-dangerous-free-speech-when-we-confuse-leakers-with-spies.shtml
https:/ /www.techdirt.com/articles/20130722/01430523882/architect-obamas-war-whistleblowers-its-good-to-hang -admiral-once-while-as-example.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/00451614941/latest- attempt-obama-administration-to-punish-whistleblowers.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141 213/07013429424/irony-alert-doj-leaked-to-press-decision-not-to-force-reporter-james-risen-to-reveal -who-leaked-info-to-him.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161022/06200835855/despite-admini strations-promises-most-government-transparency-still-work-whistleblowers-leakers.shtml
https://www .techdirt.com/articles/20140812/17175128196/whistleblowers-should-be-allowed-public-accountability-d efense.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/17194923087/what-national-security-risk-evi dence-suggests-embarassment-drove-doj-spying-ap-phone-records.shtml
And that's just the results on the first page of a quick search I did. There's a lot more where that came from. So don't go playing fucking partisan pattycake and pretending we didn't make the same claims about the previous administration. We're not that kind of site.
On the post: Titan Note Continues Trying To Sell Its Questionable Device; Its Own Actions Keep Raising More Questions
Re: why do people trust indiegogo when indiegogo is not relaible?
Even techdirt themselves talked about how indiegogo is not kickstarter and doesn't even vaguely check that a project is legitimate before taking your money.
Clearly they do check on projects, as this one was canceled, right?
I've backed a bunch of projects on Indiegogo and haven't had a single one turn out to be a scam.
On the post: RNC, Chamber Of Commerce Want Robocallers To Be Able To Spam Your Voicemail Without Your Phone Ringing
The end of voicemail
I think if this becomes a thing... it will only be that much more likely that voicemail dies completely.
On the post: The FCC Doesn't Care That Somebody's Spamming Its Net Neutrality Proceeding With Fraudulent Comments
Re: Assumptions
Karl, aren't you assuming that Pai did not orchestrate the fake astroturfing campaign? What makes you reach that assumption? I think there is every reason to believe he condones it, and very likely helped implement it.
That's not happening. There are enough problems in the world without making up bullshit conspiracy theories. As much as we disagree with Pai, there's no way that he has anything to do with faking comments. That's not even within the realm of possibility.
On the post: Sorry East Texas: Supreme Court Slams The Door On Patent Jurisdiction Shopping
Re:
Does the purchase of a bull still count?
I debated if I should mention the bull with the ice rink, but wasn't sure how many people still remembered that one.
On the post: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public, Votes To Begin Dismantling Net Neutrality
Re:
Is this actually a thing? I've never heard of any kind of limit on the ability of government agencies to reverse past decisions.
Yes, it's very much a thing. The Administrative Procedures Act, which controls how government agencies make regulations says that you cannot make willy nilly changes:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706
Specifically, the FCC (and other agencies) have run into trouble in the past for changing regulations in a manner considered to be "arbitrary and capricious." So, for the FCC to change the rules here they have to show a clear, supportable reason that things have changed since the previous rules were put in place 2 years ago. That's... going to be difficult.
On the post: FCC Commissioner Wants To Ban States From Protecting Consumer Broadband Privacy
Re: Re: Re:
the FCC caused this problem, a full shut down along with all of their rules protecting business is better than them staying alive where the rules now only protect the business.
Um. Sort of. But not in the way that you think. Much of the success of the early internet was BECAUSE of rules not unlike today's rules (in fact, even stronger) under Title II. The "issue" came when we moved off Title II, which was an FCC decision.
But now we're back, and your argument is "just do away with them all" which -- given the existing market -- is not just nonsensical, it's suicidal.
TD is becoming a poster child for "Those who run face first into their destinies in vain attempts to avoid it!"
I apologize that we actually understand the law and technology and the nuances, and you want to pretend the world is simplistic and two-dimensional. One day, I hope you will learn that things are not so simple.
The moment you turn to a politician to save your ass, is the moment you give it away!
Yes. Damn those politicians who created the Constitution. We should just do away with it all.
Go ahead, keep ignoring history, you will only repeat it!
Uh huh. Do you expect people to take you seriously?
The only thing history teaches is that people are terrible at learning from it!
No offense, but your statements suggest that you are incredibly ignorant of history.
On the post: FCC Commissioner Wants To Ban States From Protecting Consumer Broadband Privacy
Re:
Other than the money, I really have to wonder why the FCC would be so adamant about gutting privacy protections, Net Neutrality principles, and basic consumer-friendly oversight. If there is a good reason for doing those things that does not involve large sums of money, I sure as shit cannot figure it out.
It's a fundamental principles thing. To Pai and O'Rielly, they simply don't think the FCC should be regulating these issues at all. At best, they think of the FCC as a spectrum management agency. At worst, they think the entire agency should be shut down.
So when you view their actions through that lens it makes sense in a manner that is not corrupt. They simply believe the simplistic concept that "regulation bad" (as one of our vocal commenters here also believes), and thus they look to undermine restrictions on telcos at all opportunities, not realizing, of course, that that is a form of regulation in its own right that does much greater harm to innovation and consumers.
Next >>