Mike please... enough with - this - approach to keeping journalism alive. I can respect the focus on speech, journalism - even crappy journalism that on occasion stumbles onto real stories... but the verdict is just that - a legal outcome of a trial.
At the first level with a judge who is the most reversed judge around, and has already had her initial ruling against Gawker overturned on First Amendment grounds AND who spoke out about how she dislikes Gawker's style of journalism AND who blocked Gawker from presenting a bunch of evidence at the trial. So, yeah. There's a lot more to this case.
But, you're right that the Thiel issue is separate, but I still think it's an issue. Because Gawker offered to settle the case on terms that were completely reasonable and that anyone else would have taken ($10 million). But because of Thiel's funding, that was rejected and the case went forward. In other words, with Thiel's funding this no longer was about coming to a reasonable outcome, but about killing Gawker. Add into that the simple fact that Thiel has admitted to backing more than just this case, and then looking at the other cases against Gawker (all of which are completely nutty) and this is very much about Thiel looking to kill a publication.
I'm disappointed that you're ignoring the substance of the case which your site does such good work focusing on aka privacy. I would have expected you to be on the side of privacy protections, not standing in line and very much in tune with what from the outside looks like a concerted effort to discredit an individual for the sake of media's rights - which in this case is Gawker which lost in court because they violated an individual's rights.
I wrote quite a lot about the specifics of the case when the verdict came out. If there are any privacy issues, they're between whoever took the video and who was in it -- and there may be liability *there*. But that liability should not extend to a publication.
I keep trying to figure out a way to explain why you are wrong Mike, and I think I've figured it out.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion -- rather than most of the other people who are just like "Gawker bad, so this good."
I still disagree though. :)
If, for example, some anonymous troll and uploaded this video to a torrent or file sharing site and then say tipped Gawker off, then Gawker could have reported on this as news without repercussion.
Ok. I'm not sure that's true, but I'll grant you the premise to start.
Let's consider this more abstractly. Two individuals engage in a consensual sex act and the act is recorded. Later, the video is uploaded to the internet without the consent of one or both parties. Does this sound familiar? It should, this is essentially what revenge porn is.
Still with you.
Now, back to the case. This is not a criminal case, it's a civil case. If someone else had upload the video then Gawker's defense of "we're reporting the news" would have protected them regardless of how detestable the story was. If that had been the case then Hogan could have tried to find out the identity of the person(s) who were responsible for uploading the video and sued them. But again, this isn't what happened. Gawker uploaded the video and and took full ownership of that fact and then tried to make out that they were somehow reporting the news.
Here's where I lose you and let me explain why. I'm *with* you on the idea that there should be some legal liability for whoever TOOK the video without permission. I think there's a privacy violation inherent there. But once that person passed it on to Gawker, Gawker should not be the liable party.
Let me give a different analogy: Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the NY Times. That leak was illegal. But once the NY Times had the papers, they COULD and DID publish them for the public to see. The person who breaks the law may be the original leaker/videographer/whatever. But the PUBLICATION is a different issue, and once you get into regulating what someone can or cannot publish, you have a big First Amendment issue on your hands. That's the case here.
We get documents, and even audio and video, sent to us all the time. We have every right under the First Amendment to publish ANY OF IT. If someone got that information illegally, that does not change that fact. It may mean legal liability FOR THEM, but not for the publisher. That's how the First Amendment works.
Hogan won because Gawker was directly responsible for each step of this farce.
That's not true. It did not film. It did not leak the film. It merely published an edited version of the film. That's the key difference.
And, as noted, Gawker will almost certainly win on appeal, as the appeals court has ALREADY tossed out an earlier ruling in this case on First Amendment grounds.
There are no free speech concerns here. This isn't the government going after Gawker. Gawker is (relatively) free to publish whatever it likes. However, along with the freedom to publish what it likes it must also accept responsibility, liability in this case, for what it publishes.
This is, uh, wrong. If you're involved the court to silence a company then, yes, the gov't is involved, and First Amendment absolutely applies. It's why the appeals court in this case ALREADY tossed out the original injunction on First Amendment grounds.
People who defend Gawker in this instance are picking a real shitty hill to defend and, potentially, die on. If you want to make a lasting point about the problem you've got to find a better champion than Gawker.
You do realize that the history of defending free speech tends to involve those kinds of parties.
Section 230 wasn't designed to allow an online forum to avoid obeying a court order
If that court order leads to liability based on the actions of a user, then, yeah, actually, it was designed to do exactly that.
Section 230's over and done with.
Many other courts disagree with you.
Now the question is whether the court has the authority to order defamatory material removed, which there's no argument it does.
There's PLENTY of argument on that front. Not all courts agree, but many have found that an injunction is an inappropriate remedy for defamation due to 1A issues.
If you look back at case law, there's a long string of decisions saying that yes the courts can order a non-party to remove (to the best of their ability) material that's been found to be defamatory by the court.
There's a long string of cases finding the exact opposite.
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>