If attorneys (and reputation management firms) hadn't gotten into the habit of sending orders to Google, rather than seeking out the online commenters behind the libelous statements, this decision wouldn't be so difficult to take.
No nonfraudulent defamation lawsuit is going to result in a legitimate Order/Ruling on defamation unless the attorney did seek out the online commenters. One needs to serve a party with a lawsuit to obtain a judgment (default or otherwise), and if the defendant can't be located, the attorney has to show efforts to do so before service by publication or similar means is allowed. So it's a real problem for any nonfraudulent lawsuits, as counsel can't just go an get an Order and send it to Google as the above implies. One has to go after the defaming party, and get a judgment against them first.
A couple of mainstream articles on this said Congress found that Backpage had altered ads to hide the fact they were for minors/sex. §230 immunity has been found inapplicable when the platform makes a "material contribution" to the posted content.
However, if that were true, one would think that "material contribution" would be the big point in the charges. Certainly not a secret point. So it may be any ad changes were really the automated system that kicks out certain keywords -- which would not be "material contribution" by the individuals, and thus not destroy the immunity. Smells bogus across the board.
Anyway, Harris had already lost my vote. Besides, her competitor "dabbed" at their debate this week. So there's that.
Having been a TD reader for many years now, and knowing its basic ethos, this must be a highly usual situation on specific facts. All we really know on this end is there were some federal lawsuits (PACER) that have now disappeared.
Yet, some commenters claim that the Regretful Plaintiff should pay for his acts regardless of the circumstances.
But ... say this plaintiff went to an attorney, who was a terrible attorney, or an attorney with their own agenda. Say this attorney gave Plaintiff some terrible legal and tactical advice. Say it was all entirely meritless, and the Plaintiff was pushed into this thing by an overeager lawyer who wanted to take on everyone it could remotely attach to the apparent wrong. Say Plaintiff justifiably relied on the terrible advise of his lawyer. Say it all went bad and person left holding the bag and all the bad press was the Plaintiff. A plaintiff who just followed the advise of counsel.
This shit happens. There are lots of terrible attorneys (of course there are lots of good ones too). Should the plaintiff really have to be the patsy for the potential straw-man agenda of his bad lawyer?
That said, this is an extremely troubling development, especially considering there appears to be no practical way to determine the extent of the problem, or legal means used to attain it. Scary stuff, really.
Thanks Zach. This is the first tl;dr I've seen on the subject that is informative to those who know what's going on, yet can be understood by those who don't.
Savvy readers will note that a DAO vulnerability doesn't mean the Ethereum platform itself was compromised (any more than a nasty bug in Photoshop means that everyone with Windows 10 is at risk).
In cryptocurrencyland, any shakeup tends to dramatically affect the markets -- like the the investors are unsophisticated traders or something. It's helpful if you pay attention. I bought more Ether when the price crashed, then it recovered rather rapidly (but is down some now again).
Plus, it's hilarious to buy something that by its name implies it doesn't really exist.
This DAO debacle is a good thing, as far as the next big DAO is concerned anyway.
Rolling Stone reported that the jury had to listen to versions of the songs played by some expert, from the "original" sheet music. (Which is ludicrous in that Zep didn't write songs in "sheet music." That's not rock-n-roll. Sheet music all happens after the fact.)
For about 30 years now I have been rewriting "Does Everyone Stare" by The Police. As a result of my attempts to "write a song like that" I have written maybe a dozen different songs that sound nothing like their song. It's got stuff I like, I go about trying to emulate it, and get something entirely new. That's how it works for lots of folk.
...there's absolutely no question that they took the original song Taurus for the opening guitar in Stairway to Heaven...
Dude, it's a chromatic walkdown, the other strings picked in such a way that one might pick them if there are where they are on a standard-tuning guitar, which they are. There are only 11 notes in Western music, and this is four of them, in order, downward. Yet, still picked differently by Zep than in Taurus. Not to mention that the riff doesn't appear in Taurus until after 45 seconds of mindnumbingly dull strings (I'm surprised anyone ever made it to the riff).
So I don't this is the circumstance to speak in absolutes .
1) Bitcoin Uncensored's MO is to grill. Going on their podcast and expecting otherwise is much like letting The Daily Show do a piece on you and expecting to be coddled.
2) Blockchain is the fundamental issue, and it's not terribly difficult to understand. So Ms. Boring (in the space for several years) should have a better grip.
3) Private blockchains, on Ms. Boring's radar and being looked at by the "real" money players, are antithetical to the concept of a true distributed ledger. If it's private, it's not truly a distributed network, and thus subject to tampering. "The whole point is lost ..." (to paraphrase Dr. Strangelove)
4) Redditors (where intelligent discussion of Bitcoin does take place) peg Ms. Boring as someone who can do more harm than good to cryptocurrencies, as she is trying to be a liason between the Bitcoin world and the govt. (aka lobbyist). One needs more than word-salad buzzwords. Regulators are confused enough already.
5) Ms. Boring followed up her threats by playing the gender card. Intelligent, articulate women in the Bitcoin space, of which there are plenty, were not happy about that.
6) The phrase "Streisand Effect" figured prominently in online discussions of this. Indeed. This was a small-subset issue (previously).
I could care less what happens to the main Gawker site, but the have a lot of related sites under their umbrella that I love; Kotaku, Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Deadspin, and io9.
This is the part where the "they got what they deserve because I don't like them" folks exhibit cognitive dissonance. I have never read Gawker at all, but Gizmodo, and especially io9 are regular reading for me.
Did io9, a fun, harmless, goofy, often educational science/sci-fi/entertainment site also get what it deserved?
And a driver has total control over where they choose to drive publicly, and even which route they choose to take to get there. What's the difference?
Oh, I dunno ... say you have finally gotten that appointment with that HIV specialist and have no other way to get there but your own car.
Or say you are active in a protest group that the government would like to take you down for, Constitution be damned. Lots of stories out there about The Man surveilling perfectly legal activism. And say a FBI agent asks you about it and you waffle, and he doesn't like it, so he says you lied to a federal agent. Then you can go to jail over for lying to a federal agent, just because. And you can't prove otherwise because it's his word/notes against yours as they don't record interviews... that sort of thing.
"...what is the difference between data-mining "the firehose" and building ALPR record databases?
In the aggregate, there is a big difference. Twitter posts track what the user chooses to say publicly. The user has total control over that.
But ... aggregated ALPR data can track a person's movements and locations, giving a picture of where and whom one deals with. This implicates privacy concerns (urologist office Wed 2:30; married coworker's house at lunch), freedom of association concerns (stop by local KKK HQ), including false positives (cousin borrows your car for a murder), and so on. Big difference.
This is, of course, entirely separate from trademarking "booking", which is is obviously generic.
Booking.com also tries to skirt the very big issue that TLDs like ".com" are not considered in trademark analysis. The determination is made on "Booking" which at best is descriptive, if not generic when referring to a travel booking site.
Booking.com's claim that nobody refers to travel sites as "booking.com's" [sic, why apostrophe?] is a disingenuous attempt to draw attention away from the fact that "Booking" is the mark that is being reviewed for distinctiveness. They certainly know that; so does the USPTO.