because it means that some mystery company out there has a profile on you, and that causes people to be very concerned about what that company knows about you, and who they share it with for a quick buck.
I wonder what would happen if those 'drug sniffing dogs' were asked to do a demonstration as part of a court case.
So how about this...all HTML creators add a comment to their HTML source that says "Mike Parson is a f*cking idiot, and according to him you just hacked this computer."
" .. putting me in a position where my site is at risk."
Why do I get the feeling that this was the entire intend of their letter?
Considering how loose T-Mobile is, that was probably the thieves themselves texting you to lure you into a false sense of security. "T-Mobile, where your data goes through 15 separate security checks." Sure, but how many of those 15 did it pass?
Because this is all performance headlines to being used to fundraise. He earns millions from sending out emails, as opposed to creating his own platform which would both cost $$$ and fail.
Is it maybe time for just everyone sharing code to block the IP range of the RIAA? Or maybe just add the TOS that "This site is not for use by anyone affiliated or associated with the RIAA." Not this this would have any legal bearing, but then again, neither do most RIAA claims.
So if twitter had allowed the sharing of the link to the NYPost article, and it was later revealed to have been mostly fabricated, or based on lies, would that too be deemed as "Election interference" by the GOP ?
So if I buy the $751 shirt, can I write that off as a business expense on my 2020 taxes?
Whenever Hawley says "Conservatives," I mentally replace it with "Liars," and you know, it does not sound so alarming anymore.
I can see an argument where unintentional creative contribution would be sufficient. As an example, you are taking a picture of your parents on a street, and while preparing the shot, you accidentally take a random picture that shows a crime in progress. You did not intend to take that picture, but you did, and should therefore hold the copyright on it.
In this case, the person is clearly filming for several seconds before the camera goes free fall, so at what point does the video move from copyrighted by the photographer, to not copyrighted? I can press Record on my video camera and not be behind it, yet I still own the video since it was my direction that recorded whatever scene the camera captured. Whether it was intentional or not.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, so anything resembling common sense here is sure to be ignored by most in the Justice System.
... that cable companies don't honor this, but charge a base "fee," ($10 infrastructure) then some outrageous price (price per channel basically equals the monthly fee for whatever cheapest tier has that channel in it). That way they "honor" the law in word, but certainly not spirit. . .I'm not giving them ideas am I?
I am hoping that the book and subsequent made for TV movie covering this tale is titled "Dark Stupidity."