I just don't see the ruling being overturned. Not only that but Google is arguing that it has a first amendment claim? First, Google has no standing to file the appeal, that should be filed by the film-maker, not by Google or Youtube. Not only that, but this isn't a first amendment issue, I would think it's more of a copyright issue.
By arguing against the order, Google is saying that actors, actresses and artists don't have the right to order takedowns of the content they either appear in or retain the ownership or copyright to.
The only way to prevent the NSA from collecting your data is stop using cell phones, landline phones, the internet and email to conduct your communications with other people if it's sensitive information.
Only morons would use communications platforms to discuss confidential or sensitive information that you don't want other people to have.
This is why I don't like using email and why I don't use my phone to talk to other people as I prefer face to face communications.
Someone needs to tell the German courts that unless it grants YouTube immunity from lawsuits over videos that YouTube isn't going to open itself to liability because the courts are crying over the "blocked" content message.
The thing is that I actually feel bad for the broadcasters. What people keep forgetting is that Aereo is taking free signals for TV broadcasting that they get for free and then turn around and charge customers of their service a feww for receiving those signals.
Aereo should really be compensating the broadcasters for using those signals. It's like if someone uses your property for a garage sale and then doesn;t compensate you for the use of your property.
I don't have any sympathy for Aereo because they are nothing but vultures who are charging people for content that should be free, since Aereo pays nothing for it.
If Aereo wasn't charging a fee, then I'd have sympathy for them, but they're nothing more than scavengers and looters.
The broadcasters are right to some degree. If Aereo win, we're going to see more and more of these type of services popping up and you'll see the end of free TV broadcasting. This country will become a nation where you have to pay for a cable subscription or get satellite.
While it won't be the end of broadcast television, it will simply evolve and create more cable companies in this country.
The White House, in particular, the Obama Administration (along with Congressional Democrats) are nothing more than "House Bit$#%es" for the MPAA and the RIAA. I don't care how pretty you dress it up as, nobody cares about these two useless and impotent organizations.
All they ever do is cry about their spilt milk and I'm so sick to death of hearing about how piracy is hurting their profits. Piracy increases sales on their product, it doesn;t hurt it.
I have to admit that I do those type of searches. But only because those kind of sites are very prevalent on the web. Doing a search for 'watch free ' are so common that it's hard not to find them.
The problem is that you need to be very specific in what you're searching for. While I don't feel this is Google's fault, nor that they could be held liable, why isn't the entertainment industry doing THEIR job and contacting the host providers of these websites or if the host provider info is hidden, sue those services that hide that info.
I think if the entertainment industry actually did its job instead of demanding that search engines remove links (what does that except create more instances where even more links pop up), it just creates a situation where websites simply change their domain name.
Kick Ass Torrents, Pirate Bay, Demonoid and many others have changed their domain name suffix so many timis that it would literally make your head dizzy.
I think there's more to this story than was reported in the article. But, Tim leaves out one important thing:
"crime and violence in the country is on a decline while crime and violence inflicted on Americans by police officer is on the rise"
I take exception to police violence being static. If anything, it's on the rise and rapidly growing out of control. I'm loathe to say this but if police officers keep randomly shooting Americans, because they have a quota on how many lawsuits they can get filed against their own police departments, then there's something seriously screwed up.
When I read that the complaint alleges that "Sniper's Hide" forum "bans free unbiased speech on his forum", I couldn't help but laugh. I run, own and operate a website/community message forum that deals with Japanese anime and manga and I can tell you that while I do ban all forms of personal insults and attacks including banning slander and libel commentary, I also have the right to ban anyone on my forums if they are engaging in conduct that either violates forum policy or that the user has offended me in some way.
"Bans free unbiased speech". LOLS Personal websites are not subject to protected rights as they exist, they are private property. You are only granted those rights that the owner/operator of the website or message forum grants you. Granted, 99% of the message forums are highly respectable and as an administrator of a popular anime community, every user is granted the rights that are afforded as "constitutional" or outlined in human and civil rights laws. But the fact that tactical Weapons is making the complete that a website owner bans free unbiased speech is so laughable that I'm wondering what fantasy world Tactical Weapons lives in.
Frank Galli, the owner and operator of Sniper's Hide, has the right to determine what he does and doesn't allow on his forums and he doesn't have to follow anyone's definition about what is or isn't "unbiased". From what I hear about tactical Weapons in this Techdirt article, I would ban TRI as well for being so obnoxious about it and creating drama over this issue.
Mozilla's legal counsel says Mozilla wants to bring "more value" to the user instead of being just a window to the internet?
First, the "value" is only the value of ad revenue that Mozilla will receive. Second, that's all the web browser is, a window to the internet. To pretend it's anything but that is just deluding yourself.
Second, I plan to ditch Firefox the first chance I get. Time to start looking for a different web browser. Guess it's back to Internet Explorer or even Opera.
I just don't see the FCC approving this merger. The thing is, the government is all too much aware of any one company gaining a significant advantage over the rest of the industry. Take a look at what happened to Microsoft simply because if their "bundled IE" software.
Matter of fact, it's more evident that with Comcast interested in purchasing Time Warner, they could open themselves up to Antitrust investigations by the Justice Department because Comcast would, quite literally, become the bully on the block.
And with all of the negativity focused on "too big too fail", Comcast is going to have a tough time trying to get this approved, especially after they acquired NBC/Universal and the fallout they continue to have over that.
Federal Grand Juries only serve to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial. They don't determine guilt or innocence of the accused but only if there is enough evidence.
The thing is, prosecutors only get one bite at the apple with grand juries. If a grand jury doesn't return with an indictment, I don't know what the procedure is, but any judge can refuse to allow a prosecutor to resubmit to the grand jury if they feel there is nothing changed in the prosecutor's desire to go back to the grand jury.
I have to agree that the prosecutor in carter's case misrepresented the comments that Carter had made. While, technically, he did make the comments, what the prosecutor presented to the grand jury was misleading as it didn't give the grand jury the full comment and the context in which it was said.
Where this prosecutor is concerned, while I don't know the full context of law, he created what can be explained as reversible error and made the grand jury complicit in the mad dash to get an indictment.
This is how innocent people get convicted because over-zealous prosecutors play games with grand juries in order to get their indictments. If the grand jury had been given the full context of the comment, as the prosecutor in this case was well aware, the grand jury would never have indicted.
Anonymous Coward, that's called a watermark and that is entirely different than what Pokellector is doing, which is placing its own logo on the face of the digital representation of the card in app.
Many websites often place the logo of their website over the image because they took the time to scan it in, and to prevent other websites from "lifting" the images that they scan. They're not claiming ownership or control over the image but rather staking their claim that the image is exclusive to their site.
Pokellector simply takes the image and claims it as their own. Many websites use "watermarking" to claim ownership over producing the image or having the exclusivity of presenting that image first on their website.
That's different than claiming ownership over the content that appears in the image.
While I abhor companies using their trademarks or patents to swat people down like it was Thor's mighty hammer from the gods in Asgard, in this case, I have to side with Nintendo, who owns the Pokemon franchise, last I checked.
Pokellector obviously tries to use the Pokemon brand name to sell its product and rather than actually license the rights from Nintendo. If this were merely parody, I would see a claim for fair rights under parody law, but this is not what it is. It would be as if someone made an app using characters that resembled the X-Men and simply renamed them as "Ex-Men" or "Men of X". It sounds ridiculous but I just don't see how the makers of the Pokellector app have any kind of leg to stand on. They appropriated the Pokemon franchise and tried to make money off it.
Timothy, the name of the company is Nintendo, NOT Pokemon. Pokemon is merely the name of the franchise. lols
Timothy suggests that maybe Nintendo should find this as an opportunity. Why should they? If someone misappropriated my car, robbed a bank, got injured, and then tried to sue me for damages, let's just say that I wouldn't have any sympathy for that person and would fight against it until every avenue was exhausted.
BTW, I seem to recall that the producers for the new Godzilla film did something similar. Producers Roy Lee, Dan Lin and Doug Davison obtained the rights for the Godzilla franchise, brought it to Legendary but then after Legendary decided it didn't need the help of the producers who acquired the rights, tried to preempt the producers by filing a counterclaim, demanding arbitration? While it's not the same thing, there seems to be a whole of misappropriating going on by individual people and by large companies.
Plus, Pokemon was the original "card game turned anime" series which inspired a lot of clones and pretenders to the throne. I just think that Nintendo is going to be the one winning in the end.