Another side of the problem is that certain purported defenders of the First Amendment look at the copyright as an indulgence to do what their free speech beliefs otherwise would prohibit. Take Marc Randazza, who was proclaimed as a First Amendment hero by many influential people. I don’t even mean his copyright trolling past: today Marc doesn’t mind using copyright to censor unflattering information about him from the net. And other First Amendment big names behave as these shenanigans never happened, thus reinforcing the trope that Almighty Copyright trumps everything, including First Amendment, common sense, and basic dignity.
Re: Re: Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
I'm personally with you — I flag posts sparingly, mostly outright spam. However, it is understandable that the community tries to weed out intellectual dishonesty.
In my observation, opposing views presented honestly are pretty much tolerated here. What is frowned upon is rhetorical card-shifting. For example, in the first flagged comment above the author disingenuously substituted "copyright is brain damage" with "creators are brain damaged." I'd call it "rotten red herring": this type of "argument" nullifies any grain of otherwise legitimate disagreement.
There is one pet peeve that annoys me often: if I check the "Email me when there are new comments on this thread" checkbox and then click "Preview," the check on the preview page is gone: should be carried over.
Malibu doubles down and opposes Verizon's MTQ, claiming that... since the requested information was not about defendant’s cable TV viewing, but his Internet usage only, the Cable Act doesn’t apply. I'm not kidding.
Since I observe a great interest in the report that claims "military grade spoliation," I'm posting it. It is currently officially not accessible. Lipscomb & Co, as they did many times before, poorly redacted the document and exposed the defendant's name in violation of the protective order. After I notified defendant's counsel, the document was removed from both ECF and archive.org. It will be eventually refiled, but for those who can't wait, I did my own redaction:
I do want people to discuss the report before I write about it. It is suspicious, starting with the simple fact that such massive spoliation was not detected by the purported expert during the first pass. WDS mentioned the "Asus wipe," which comes bundled with Asus laptops, etc.
The report lacks supporting evidence, while legal conclusions are abundant, which is not appropriate for a forensic expert to make: this is not only my opinion: it also raised many brows among lawyers.