If you're talking about voice and data services over satellite then, yes, those would be common carrier-type services. DirecTV is more akin to a cable TV package. It costs DTV money to carry it, why should they be required to subsidize OAN's existence? Bandwidth is not unlimited, they can only carry so many channels on the satellites. Do you think Comcast should be forced to carry every single channel in existence? If not then why should DTV have to?
I don't know how old you are so maybe you weren't around for things then but the whole invasion of Iraq thing happened under George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Biden was just a Senator. He is no more culpable than any of the other 99 Senators.
(A) IN GENERAL.—A covered person may not provide online hosting services or back-end online services to any other entity that is not owned by the covered person.
It would basically make cloud computing illegal. Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc would all have to shut down their cloud computing divisions, they can't even spin them off as a subsidiary. A strained reading of it would potentially make the Apple/Google/Microsoft app stores illegal too.
Maybe if you're dropping hundreds of dollars on content it might be okay. The last time I made a purchase with Bitcoin about a month ago I made the mistake of sending it to my wallet instead of directly to the receiving address. When I tried to send it, it wouldn't let me because the network fees were going to be around $15 on a $30 purchase.
The concept of ex loco parentis probably applies here. Still doesn't make it right, IMHO. As the article notes, too many cops will look at it as permission to go on a fishing expedition. Intimate pictures? That's kiddie porn. Evidence of accessing a porn site where you had to certify you're 18? Enjoy your CFAA prosecution. Mentioned smoking weed in a group message with friends? Now everyone is getting their shit searched.
He can still veto it. If he does it goes back to congress and they have to pass it again with a 2/3 majority in each chamber. "Veto-proof" just means it passed with a least 2/3 of the members voting yes and they will (presumably) vote yes again.
I'm going to be honest here. It's obvious that libraries would never be allowed to exist if they were invented today, at least not without paying a ton more money to the publishers (a la ebooks), we know that. I'm not completely convinced that one or more publishers won't eventually decide it's worth the risk and start trying to sue libraries for lending books without paying for a license fee for it. It might not fly in the United States thanks to the first-sale doctrine but in other countries without that it might game on.
Any site that just published virtually everything users posted (that’s the true “First Amendment standard”) would be an unusable hellhole. No site is going to do that — and, again . . .
Amazon, Cisco, Google, Intel Corporation, Microsoft, Mozilla and Netflix
Yeah, I'm going to go with each of those (except maybe Mozilla) have much more money than Sisvel. That's to say nothing of patents able to be wielded as weapons.
Netflix: 205 (okay these last two are a little weak here)
By putting this on the table it raises the stakes for Chooseco if they choose to go through with this. They can continue the lawsuit and risk losing their trademark or they can settle out of court or dismiss the lawsuit entirely and their trademark, however questionable, is still intact for now.
Except that bands technically have no real say on if someone uses their music at a rally or whatever. They might not like it and they should definitely make it known that they don't endorse it and aren't okay with it but at the end of the day compulsory licensing means that as long as the venue is paying their appropriate PRO licensing fees they're free to play basically whatever music they want. Most candidates will back down when called out on it by the artist.
A bunch of hotels ARE being sued. So prepare for a bunch of ridiculous restrictions on hotel stays while they try to cover their ass. Want to stay in a room by yourself? Hmm, you might bring in a sex worker, can't allow that. Unmarried couple wanting a room? She might be sex trafficked, better alert the authorities to investigate before renting.
You have to go through a checkpoint to get into Canada or Mexico, right? So either they make a deal with them to have Canada do it and pass the information on or they expand their inbound checkpoint to cover both sides of the road and when you leave you have to stop and get scanned and then stop again at the Canadian immigration station.