It would seem to me that Niantic and The Pokemon company made this idea public with the release of Pokemon GO in 2016, five years before the patent was filed. It would truly be ironic if the patent was invalidated because the patent holder's game was considered prior art.
If publishers do manage to kill off libraries, they will be out of business within a generation.
Most of their customers are people who love to read, and learning to enjoy reading takes lots of practice at reading. Having to buy books to get that practice is prohibitively expensive. For most people, their love of reading came from the library, not the bookstore. If books become pay to read, only the insanely rich will be able to afford to read much, and that market is way too small to support a publishing industry.
For decades the cash cow that made newspapers profitable was the classified ads. They could count on being able to print page after page that was paid for by the word.
That's gone away because of online competition, but it's not the obvious targets of Meta and Google that are taking all those advertising dollars, it's sites like Ebay and Kijiji.
News organizations can either adapt, or die. So far, I see very little evidence of them being willing to adapt.
An EV tax is probably not a solution to anything other than lack of revenue.
A better approach might be to start with a weight tax on ALL vehicles, with the tax increasing exponentially with vehicle weight. That would discourage the purchase of heavier vehicles by making them much more expensive.
As a second step to improve road safety, redesign roads to reduce vehicle speeds. Narrower lanes, barriers just outside the lane, and weaving lanes back and forth within the road allowance have all been proven to reduce vehicle speeds without need for police enforcement.
If Texas follows the same lead as many other jurisdictions, the officer may find himself shut down anyway, purely by accident.
I suppose this would actually be a valid case of banning TikTok over privacy violations.
The list of duties the police would rather hand off to someone else is a long one. For the most part, I agree they shouldn't be the first people responding to these calls.
On the other hand, once the police are no longer responding to these 'distractions' from 'real' police work, there are going to be awkward questions asked if there isn't a matching increase in solved crimes.
The disadvantage of the crowdfunding model is that it makes it impossible for the publishers to work as gatekeepers and keep all the value for themselves.
Of course, this means that the current gatekeepers are going to use every sleasy trick in the book to kill the crowdfunding model.
Overthrowing 230 would return Internet to the good old days of Compuserve where anyone could say anything they’ve wanted (within limits set out by law, not some TOS or Community “guidelines”) without fear of getting banned for speaking his or her mind.
Not quite. The case that ended 'The good old days of Compuserve' was Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co. In that case, it was decided that the first amendment granted a website owner the rights to moderate the website in any way. However, it was also decided that should a website decide to do any moderation, they then assumed liability for anything that was left on the website.
Section 230 simply means that they are not liable for the results of any mistakes they may make in moderation. Without it, websites would be forced to either have their legal team evaluate every posting before it goes on the website, or else not do anything at all.
Can you imagine what Twitter and Facebook would be like if you post something, and it doesn't go on the site until a week or so later when the legal team approves it? The 'anything goes' option already exists. Just look at 4chan, although apparently even they have their limits.
QI has it's place, and there is a need for it.
It's just that it was put in backwards. Right now, an officer can use QI as a defense, and the victim then needs to prove that it should not apply.
Instead, let the officer claim QI, but along with the claim, the officer then need to present a court precedent showing that the officer's actions were legal, and part of an officer's duties.
the US government is always going to want to punish Julian Assange. Whether or not he actually broke any laws, he did commit the one unforgivable sin. He embarrassed those in a position of power.
Section 230 doesn't make it possible for web sites to moderate. That's taken care of by the First Amendment. What Section 230 does is protect them from legal liability if, or more likely when, they make a mistake in their moderation. Unfortunately, many people seem to equate "A moderation decision I disagree with" with "A moderation mistake", and don't like the fact that section 230 protects the moderators from legal liability for those too.
While the 'format shifting' may be legal under copyright law's fair use provisions, the DMCA contains no such fair use rights. Unless your activity falls under one of the very limited, and temporary, exemptions to the DMCA, ANY bypassing of the DRM is an offence, no matter what the reason. This is one of the big flaws in the DMCA, but it's one that the publishers absolutely love, so don't expect to see that change any time soon.
I don’t think that Nazis who support coups deserve the right...
If you are happy to remove someone's rights based on their political viewpoint, then you are equally happy to have someone else remove your rights based on your political views. If not, you don't want a democracy, you want a dictatorship with you in charge.
I think we should indeed be using copyright and other tools to stop Nazis from making money.
Copyright is a literal monopoly on who can write a given set of words. As soon as you start using it for more that the very limited purpose it has in the constitution, your copyright law starts to violate the first amendment.
I wouldn't abolish qualified immunity so much as change it around. Allow the defendant to get the case dismissed only if there is a preexisting case where the action at issue was found to be legal.
If there is no such issue, then the defendant gets to have their day in court, just like everyone else.
As far as paying any fines, I would be more than happy to reduce the fine considerably, as long as the defendant was prohibited from accepting reimbursement of the fine from any third party, be that the government, a union, or a gofundme collection. The fines shouldn't be large enough to bankrupt the defendant, but should be large enough to be a painful reminder not to screw up like that again.
The problem is that there is no bright line between 'hate speech' and 'speech critical of me'. This allows the wealthy and/or powerful to use the courts as a club to beat at critics.
Sure, you'll win in court, but that's cold comfort when you're spending the rest of your life paying off the legal fees.
Actually he does have a valid point. If the requirement for a permanent recording creates a racial bias to copyright, how can copyright be changed so as to eliminate the permanent recording requirement, yet still have it possible to prove infringement in court?
Alternatively, is there another way to re balance copyright so as to eliminate the racial bias? Perhaps removing or altering the Public Performance section of copyright so that performing a derivative work is no longer infringing on the original copyright.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Chris Mouse.
It would seem to me that Niantic and The Pokemon company made this idea public with the release of Pokemon GO in 2016, five years before the patent was filed. It would truly be ironic if the patent was invalidated because the patent holder's game was considered prior art.
If publishers do manage to kill off libraries, they will be out of business within a generation. Most of their customers are people who love to read, and learning to enjoy reading takes lots of practice at reading. Having to buy books to get that practice is prohibitively expensive. For most people, their love of reading came from the library, not the bookstore. If books become pay to read, only the insanely rich will be able to afford to read much, and that market is way too small to support a publishing industry.
For decades the cash cow that made newspapers profitable was the classified ads. They could count on being able to print page after page that was paid for by the word. That's gone away because of online competition, but it's not the obvious targets of Meta and Google that are taking all those advertising dollars, it's sites like Ebay and Kijiji. News organizations can either adapt, or die. So far, I see very little evidence of them being willing to adapt.
An EV tax is probably not a solution to anything other than lack of revenue. A better approach might be to start with a weight tax on ALL vehicles, with the tax increasing exponentially with vehicle weight. That would discourage the purchase of heavier vehicles by making them much more expensive. As a second step to improve road safety, redesign roads to reduce vehicle speeds. Narrower lanes, barriers just outside the lane, and weaving lanes back and forth within the road allowance have all been proven to reduce vehicle speeds without need for police enforcement.
If Texas follows the same lead as many other jurisdictions, the officer may find himself shut down anyway, purely by accident. I suppose this would actually be a valid case of banning TikTok over privacy violations.
The LAPPL may end up regretting this at some point.
The list of duties the police would rather hand off to someone else is a long one. For the most part, I agree they shouldn't be the first people responding to these calls. On the other hand, once the police are no longer responding to these 'distractions' from 'real' police work, there are going to be awkward questions asked if there isn't a matching increase in solved crimes.
The disadvantage of the crowdfunding model is that it makes it impossible for the publishers to work as gatekeepers and keep all the value for themselves. Of course, this means that the current gatekeepers are going to use every sleasy trick in the book to kill the crowdfunding model.
the US government is always going to want to punish Julian Assange. Whether or not he actually broke any laws, he did commit the one unforgivable sin. He embarrassed those in a position of power.
Section 230 doesn't make it possible for web sites to moderate. That's taken care of by the First Amendment. What Section 230 does is protect them from legal liability if, or more likely when, they make a mistake in their moderation. Unfortunately, many people seem to equate "A moderation decision I disagree with" with "A moderation mistake", and don't like the fact that section 230 protects the moderators from legal liability for those too.
No, it's not legal.
While the 'format shifting' may be legal under copyright law's fair use provisions, the DMCA contains no such fair use rights. Unless your activity falls under one of the very limited, and temporary, exemptions to the DMCA, ANY bypassing of the DRM is an offence, no matter what the reason. This is one of the big flaws in the DMCA, but it's one that the publishers absolutely love, so don't expect to see that change any time soon.
I wouldn't abolish qualified immunity so much as change it around. Allow the defendant to get the case dismissed only if there is a preexisting case where the action at issue was found to be legal. If there is no such issue, then the defendant gets to have their day in court, just like everyone else. As far as paying any fines, I would be more than happy to reduce the fine considerably, as long as the defendant was prohibited from accepting reimbursement of the fine from any third party, be that the government, a union, or a gofundme collection. The fines shouldn't be large enough to bankrupt the defendant, but should be large enough to be a painful reminder not to screw up like that again.
The problem is that there is no bright line between 'hate speech' and 'speech critical of me'. This allows the wealthy and/or powerful to use the courts as a club to beat at critics. Sure, you'll win in court, but that's cold comfort when you're spending the rest of your life paying off the legal fees.
Actually he does have a valid point. If the requirement for a permanent recording creates a racial bias to copyright, how can copyright be changed so as to eliminate the permanent recording requirement, yet still have it possible to prove infringement in court? Alternatively, is there another way to re balance copyright so as to eliminate the racial bias? Perhaps removing or altering the Public Performance section of copyright so that performing a derivative work is no longer infringing on the original copyright.