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.
Keeping this on the down low was key to the success.
I get that point. But if counsel were (smart or) really trying to keep this on DL, he would have made the timelines look a little more realistic. I suppose a scumbag attorney still has to balance the interests of his client's desire for quick results with his own hope of hiding his douchebaggery and subterfuge. What a choice to have to make...
Of course the burden will still be on those wronged by the courts. They will have to file a lawsuit to point out to the courts that these were bogus cases ...
But who would have a cognizable claim? If the "defendant" was bogus as it appears, then he's not harmed (he may be the lawyer's nephew, who knows). Consumers would have a hard time showing standing to sue for not seeing bad reviews about the companies at issue. If consumers were harmed by bad behavior of these companies, they may have other issues to sue over. I don't see where Google would have much to claim over fraudulent delistings, or would bother. Pissed Consumer would have the same tough sell on whether it suffered any damages.
It's victimless fraud... except for, well, the public and the court system itself.
... the defamed party apparently knew the defamer (found him in one day!) but still chose to go through the court system, rather than have the defamer provide a notarized letter to Pissed Consumer directly to get the original review taken down, rather than just the Google search results.
I'm guessing the reason they go after Google rather than directly to the site is that Ripoff Report is in the mix as well. Ripoff Report famously does not remove posts, and has extensively litigated that issue. Since Ripoff Report is immune from liability for 3rd-party posts per §230, they are not a proper party to the defamation lawsuit, thus Courts have no way to force it to remove posts, even with a court Order against the "defamer."
So for consistency among the various gripe sites, it's off to Google for delisting instead.