To be fair, the Motion in Limine is just preemptive evidentiary objection -- a way to alert the court that opposition may try to introduce prejudicial or otherwise inadmissible evidence. Because if it comes up for the first time before a jury, and the judge rules it inadmissible, then it's hard to "unring the bell" in the jury's mind. (They might go look at the blogs, which is improper and grounds for a new trial if discovered anyway.)
And I don't see how these third-party anti-troll blogs (which I read) would have much in the way of admissible evidence anyway. 1) It would all be hearsay, so likely inadmissible for the truth of the statements in the blogs. 2) Courts generally want the focus on the parties' acts in this case, not their behavior outside (unless directly relevant). 3) To the extent the blogs reference court rulings, those rulings can admissible as the subject of judicial notice. But a blogger's take on it would generally not be admissible.
So ... not defending Malibu Scumfuck Media in any way, the Motion in Limine is probably a prudent tactical move (assuming there is actually a trial on the horizon).
As noted elsewhere, courts don't like to operate in a vacuum, and would likely defer any decision until getting more info on potentially proffered evidence.
I went to a presentation last night by the guys building OpenBazaar.org. It will be a decentralized P2P marketplace utilizing bitcoin (for now). They are building the open source core, that like bitcoin core, can be built upon by anyone. Users download the core program, and they are their own server and can sell anything they want directly to anyone else they want. If they want to use cloud servers to handle load, fine. If they want to build their own storefront on core, groovy, here's the API.
OpenBazaar's Brian Hoffman kept being asked if they would be adding this or that feature. Answer, probably not. Let other devs do that. The core features will be pretty standard: ratings, comments, friends. They are specifically staying out of being any kind of middleman in the traditional sense, to avoid any of the liability issues.
AND, if you want moderation, you can pay a bit for a neutral moderator/arbitrator to act as multisig escrow, or resolve disputes, etc. Anyone can do that job too, they'll be rated like the rest, so reputation matters.
If you want a curated space, they'll be available. Or build one. If you want to dive into the wild unregulated jungle, that will be there too. If you want to build an ad-based OpenBazaar search engine, awesome. It's brilliant.
Also there were some folks from blocktech.com, who are building Alexandria -- essentially the same concept for digital works, rather than goods.
Decentralized protocols are coming, and fast, because these people really want to build something that the govt. cannot shut down, because it's nowhere and everywhere at the same time.
(... this question always happens: "Don't you feel a moral obligation to keep people from using it for human trafficking?" Er, it's useful software; if others use it for bad, we can't stop that. [Auto makers aren't liable for drunk drivers either.])
Aside: Tech issues preclude this working on Tor, so if you're going to use it for bad, the IP address will be broadcast anyway, for now.
Short answer: Blockchain is an public ledger that cannot be altered unless you have more computing/hashing power than everyone else on the decentralized network combined; e.g., virtually impossible. So basically anything you can think of that can go in a ledger sheet could be done with blockchain tech, and nobody can realistically mess with the numbers.
This is a great way to encourage sites that already monitor for terroristy stuff to stop monitoring their sites before the law passes. Then they can say, within the law, that they aren't bound by it; and F-U very much if you don't like it.
It's all a subtle psych. Eric sounds like Erich and there were some Nazis named Erich (e.g., Traub, Priebke), so when people hear "Eric Snowden" they will subconsciously think of Nazis and be subliminally repulsed.
Assuming MPAA gets its default injunction with overbroad relief intact, the main risk is that ISPs and other parties given notice will think it applies to them. But except in cases where parties are shown to be sufficiently connected to the defendants, the Court has no jurisdiction over parties who aren't before it in the action. So go ahead, show me that Order so I can ignore it.
I had a nice quiet sincere acoustic guit version of U Got the Look that was on YouTube 4 years, 20k views. It recently got yanked by Prince's enforcement crew AND they hit me with a strike. And that's what you get for appreciating Prince.
"The question is whether people beyond innovators and early adopters who place a high value on privacy are enough to drive adoption."
I think post-Snowden, there are certainly more -- including myself when I saw the part about how the NSA can decide whether to read attorney/client communications it has collected. !?!
I think the big adoption of cryptocurrency is likely to happen predominantly by the 3rd-world and disenfranchised classes... those with smartphone and no bank account. See, e.g., Kenya. Once ensconsed, I doubt it's going anywhere. (Even banking on it, as they say, to some extent.)
Being currently involved with bitcoin, I see many articles about how it's dead. The pundit always traces back to banks. They don't like it. IRS thinks of bitcoin as property ... nice for now.
While the transactions are transparent, in most non-web wallets the addresses hierarchically change during use, and you can have wallets not tied to you. It's easy enough to create a wallet on blockchain's hidden Tor site with no personal info whatsoever, bounce transactions through a tumbler/mixer or through other wallets, and effectively engage in virtually impossible-to-trace transactions never tied to you personally. No amount of legislation will stop that.
And since the software is open-source and the meta-software continually being improved worldwide, it'll only get better and more secure. And more widely adopted.
Ludicrous. Every time I see something on this case I am reminded of Todd Rundgren's album "Deface the Music" in which every single song directly cops the feel of a particular Beatles song. Each of Rundgren's songs is wholly original, while it's glaringly obvious which Beatles song it is modeled after.
With a title like Deface the Music, obviously he wasn't making a secret of it. The Beatles didn't sue... perhaps because it was homage? Perhaps because it's not copyright infringement.