The Florida court seems to say one should presume a blog qualifies as a media outlet unless proven otherwise. This puts the onus of disproving a blog is not a media outlet on the plaintiff not on the defendant blogger.
Actually a very poor analogy, Section 230 exists so that registrars, ISPs, and hosting companies do not need to actively review any content. This removes them from needing to ask or knowing what the site owners do. Otherwise, they would need to police third-party content with all potential liabilities.
The knockout game is supposedly when a group of thugs try to see who can knockout a bystander with a sucker punch to the head. It probably does occur (how often I have no idea) but it is already a crime (assault and battery?, possibly criminal conspiracy, plus probably a couple of other charges). So passing a bill to outlaw something that is already a crime is senseless.
The other probably is the media will hear about something like the knockout game and then make sound as if it happens on every street corner. I remember the media hyping carjackings many years ago and to this day I have never seen or been involved a carjacking. But the media made sound as if I walked done the street I would see two or three occur in a few blocks.
Also politicians love to pass retrospective laws that really do not criminalize anything; the activity was already on the books under another crime. Often in the course of their grandstanding they confuse the issue with their own ignorance.
On point 2, I would suspect most of the owners of revenge porn sites do not much in assets. So if someone one won a judgement the assets are not likely to cover the amount. Godaddy, or most other hosting companies do have a decent sized bank account, whether they are at fault or not. Many of the lawyers (shysters?) are more interested in the cash not justice.
On point 1, any attempt to determine a site's ownership will take some work and possibly a few subpoenas, which costs money. This is money that someone has to front.
Tom Lehrer's attitude is more realistic than most. There are new fans and fans who want to keep his work alive. But is he not likely to make any serious money from them. What he has grasped is most works have a shelf life of a few years. Most artists need to continually create new works to make more money and hope the public still is willing to buy them.
In Tom's case, much of his satire was topical to events happening in the late 50's and early 60's. So unless you understand the reference, the humor will be missed.
The key about permission is whether is it verifiable by non-hearsay means. This article, while documenting his attitude, would likely be considered hearsay. But an email or letter from him to someone giving permission is direct evidence.
I was involved in a similar issue were the author died before we finished the project. The copyright passed to the author's brother who knew about the project and give his written permission to continue as we originally planned. There were some documents from the author which a lawyer said would stand up in court as showing intent.
The issue about extended family depends on what verifiable agreements have been made before the artist dies and what the will says about the IP issues. In Tom Lehrer's case it appears there are verifiable agreements were he waived any royalties. These agreements would be binding on the estate.
Part of the problem is most normal people will say something out of anger such as "X deserves to die because X is a Y" or "I should terminate with extreme prejudice X because X did Y" without any intention of carrying out the implied threat. This results with hypersensitivity in people being charged with some form of terrorism when they were just venting anger. Add that any comment made on the Internet can potentially be seen by the entire world.
Also, other judges and US Courts will read this opinion and take note that venue shopping will be frowned upon. The footnote strongly hints that they did not find the evidence of a crime persuasive but mostly based on the AUSA engaging in shystering.
Other than cross indexing like a library, these documents are often available via a Google search for free. I can get the relevant sections of the various regulations and documents via Google and if I expect to referring to them regularly; bookmark the relevant pages.
The problem is there are numerous agencies that live on after the original reason for existence ceases to be valid. These agencies must create mission creep to justify their continued existence.
When Canada actually balanced their national budget in the 1990's their experience was the best way to balance their budget was wholesale elimination of agencies and realigning duplicated efforts into fewer agencies. Their observation was often the agencies improved their services and the public did not notice any major problems with services. Analogy here is the fact so many agencies have their own internal police department and swat teams which duplicate other agencies. This inevitably leads to turf wars over who has jurisdiction.
Read the retraction notice (http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812). The journal explicitly states there were serious ethical and legal problems with the paper. The principle on was the implication of a psychopathology by the authors on those they considered deniers without any real evidence of any pathology of the "deniers".
The journal also has stated they tried to get a revised paper that addressed the issues but the authors apparently refused to rewrite the paper to address the issues.
The paper was sloppily done and may be libelous to many who are not convinced that humans have that much effect on they climate. There are at least three groups: believers in AGW, doubters in AGW (a large number of scientists are actually doubters), and deniers. The doubters are concerned about modelling verification, inaccurate predictions, the very limited data, etc. They tend to believe models that are any good should be able to model correctly the observed data. And the current models overestimate the warming.
Upgrading or changing OSes can be a minefield because of various hardware, software incompatibilities. Windows to Windows has problems and Windows to Linux has another set of problems. Both are solvable but require proper planning.
RedHat is still around and doing very well. They are still selling support and maintenance for a free product.