It's actually extremely easy to argue that Amazon isn't the publisher due to it being on their servers and them taking a cut. Unless you're also arguing that B&N, or WalMart, or any tiny little mom&pop bookstore (if those still exist) is also a publisher. After all, they get a cut of the sale price and the book is "hosted" on their shelves...
I can't imagine a reverse image search would turn up the original, in this case, as the image you're searching for is the cover, not the clipped-out picture of the couple.
Actually, Violynne's argument makes perfect sense for all the "little guys" she claims to speak for, just not so much for her particular situation. More power to her I suppose for getting herself into that sort of situation, but as you pointed out yourself: The vast majority of artists have nothing like that arrangement. As for the Lars Ulrich comparison...maybe a more accurate statement would have been "Taylor Swift is the female non-asshole version of Lars Ulrich." I'm sure she means well, she's just misguided. Unfortunately, a lot of people listen to her. Yes, I mean that both ways.
Why is it that everything out of Ajit Pai's mouth reads like a try-out for his next job as Telco lawyer or lobbiest? Oh...because it is, obviously.
Tim must be a Cubs fan. This "hack" seems more of a gotcha aimed at the departed front office guy than an attempt to cheat. That doesn't make it any more right, or any more legal, but I don't know how else to explain the "anonymous" leaking of that info.
Must be a slow day in Mother Russia, no, comrade? No Putin threads to comment on today?
You (the author) seem fixated on the fact that the defendant was posting about Bitcoin, as if that's what got him busted. Given that he apparently did have direct communication with ISIS people and helped arrange for someone to travel there and join them, I feel reasonably certain it wasn't the Bitcoin discussion that caused any of this.
Higbee & Associates: The Jiffy-Lube of attorney firms. Wait, Jiffy-Lube is probably trademarked...
Higbee & Associates: The Jiffy-Lube of attorney firms. Wait, Jiffy-Lube is probably trademarked...
Nice try, dipshit, but that was a quote from the original NYT reporter, not Karl.
I really don't have a problem that they left out a few specific examples, in order to end up with a perfectly clear one-page order. It is ridiculous to think that, if someone is trying to get around the spirit of that order, you're going to list and specifically prohibit all possible ways to do so. As someone else already stated, the key is going to be enforcement of the order. Adding a few specific examples will simply make it easier to say "Look, this thing that I did is not on the list of forbidden ways to thwart the public, therefore it's OK."
The same thing that happens when the person in case 3 is acquitted because the cops cut corners. This is why they are supposed to follow procedures and carry out actual legal investigations, in order to stop this type of behavior.
I'm going to agree with the (apparent) minority here, and say that this wasn't really much of an over-reaction. You're definitely overstating how common it is to find a car parked and left with a propane tank and pressure cooker inside, especially in a place like the capital mall. Also, you make the "controlled disruption" of the "device" sound like the resulting explosion was in some way similar to what you would get if an actual pressure cooker bomb had been set off, and that's simply not true. I also agree with the poster who wondered how the owner could be charged with operating a vehicle when he was nowhere near the area. Perhaps he copped to it, but if not, no way that stands.
Richard Prince is a no-talent hack. I thought so in the previous case, and I think so more now. I see nothing new or original or transformative in what he's done. It feels more like he's poking the whole fair use discussion right in the eye. I'm not sure how I feel this should be treated, legally. The real problem, however, is that there are people who will pay for this crap. I guess if he can skirt the boundaries of the law and find people who want to give him large sums of money, more power to him...but I like the idea of the original authors finding a way to beat him at his own game, and I hope they're successful.
I hate the argument that, because someone downloaded a pirated copy of a movie, they clearly would have put on pants, drove to the theater and plunked down $20 or whatever to watch it had the pirated version not been available. How does this hold water for anyone? Most certainly, the majority of those people would not have done so. The key is how to reach those people downloading it for free, but the studios are too married to the old school ways to see the answer, even though they practically stated it themselves.
Have you not been paying attention? We are in the surreal and heavily under-reported, in the mainstream, situation where the Democratic president and the Republican judiciary want the same thing. They're both apparently embarrassed about this. The article is not wrong, it just doesn't state that the portion of the party references is in Congress, not the executive branch.
I know for sure that the next time I get hit by a vehicle manufactured by GM (or John Deere, although that seems unlikely) I'm adding them to the lawsuit. I mean, they're the owners, right? That software they own allowed the accident to happen...
As soon as I saw him announce the week's main topic, I thought This is just getting ridiculous. Time to fess up and admit that John Oliver is on the Techdirt staff.
(You know, I've never seen Masnick and Oliver at the same time. Has anyone???)
Re: Public Records Request on old System
Public records request for info on the old email system? Sure...that will be $79,000. Will you be paying cash?