It's the wrong approach entirely and a clear misapplication of the law. And this case, while frustrating for the lawyer, doesn't nearly rise to the level of disclosure necessary where some sort of redaction would seem warranted.
But I can guarantee you, there are cases out there of Person A and Person B discussing Person's C very private information that is now being served by Wikileaks. Maybe the address of someone being stalked, discussion of a medical procedure, or other information that could be damaging if widely-- all "shared" without Person C having anything to do with it.
Maybe it's a pure hypothetical. In those cases, what is the appropriate remedy? I no more want all my personal information spilled on the internet than I want the NSA to vacuum it up. Should anything be done in egregious cases?
Anyone can get duped, that happens. What baffles me is that Techdirt would publish an article giving any credence to a lawsuit (at $150k or $1.2M) for playing a song in public even with Huckabee paying a license. I was expecting this t show up on Techdirt with an explanation of why the copyright suit would get thrown out.
Here's the thing: none of us are in a position to demand Facebook do anything. If the campaign to get them to not do something is successful, it's not clear that Facebook or anyone else will pick up the baton for subsidized access. In any case, it will certainly take longer to provide that access.
But for people that already have the real internet, getting Facebook to not provide a dumbed down version is a win, right? After all, the poor in developing country shouldn't be allowed the option of accepting Facebook's Internet.org offer. We know better what the developing poor want than they do.
"And two, if Facebook is so very concerned about the poor, it should put its money where its mouth is and shift to a subsidized model that gets Facebook out of the way and provides access to the real Internet, free from obvious interference, censorship, privacy and neutrality concerns."
I imagine providing the real internet for free will cost a little more than Facebook is willing to spend. Who's going to step up & spend the rest?
Maybe sites should just offer 1% for the developing world. 1% of total revenue is used to subsidize internet access. You guys should get it started!
Google Voice costs $0 because the end user has already paid for internet access.
Try using Google Voice without paying for internet access.
Obviously layering VOIP on top of already paid for internet access costs pretty much zero.
So yes, if someone pays for internet access-- maybe Facebook, maybe the government, maybe the tooth fairy-- then VOIP is easy to add on.
But you're living in a fantasy world if you think ISPs or Facebook are going to provide unlimited, uncapped internet access for free. And without that free internet access, there is no $0 Google Voice.
No go ahead and take some new bit out of context and make another attempt at a cogent argument.
Item 3 costs far less than item 1, because only low bandwidth services are allowed in item 3.
There's no economically sound one to enable item-- free internet for all. The only way free service can be provided is either with massive government subsidies or by instituting limits on either total data or the type of sites allowed.
If the ISPs are giving away access, it seems that have a few options:
1) provide uncapped data to any website, effectively providing complete Internet access for free. Not a great business plan. 2) provide capped data to any website for free. 3) provide uncapped data to a limited number of sites for free.
Option one simply won't work from a business perspective. It comes down to 2 or 3. Either way, in no economically viable universe are the local ISPs in developing countries going to provide substantial VoIP or video streaming services for free.
I'd like to know the alternative is that will provide those services without providing massive government subsidies.
Fairly good case. Even if the photographer owns the copyright (probable) and licensed it for use (highly doubtful), I think there's about a nil chance that the couple signed a release broad enough to include featuring it on the cover of a book, e or otherwise.
But I reckon Amazon et. al., are on pretty firm ground due to Section 230. The author? Not so much.
The key here is consumers benefit because Google shows results from their vertical search products, reducing the need to visit any specialized search engine, be it from Google or a competitor.
A Modest Proposal would be for Google to do some A/B testing while they are still allowed to operate their own search engine. In Bucket A, Google. In Bucket B, the version of Google that the EU & its corporate backers have promoted-- no product search results, no map on the results page, no dictionary definitions, no calculators, etc.