Yet now oil has drastically dropped yet fuel has barely budged down.
Within the last year or two I was paying $3.50 or $3.75 a gallon, and now it's $1.90. Your local prices may vary but for me at least it has been a drastic drop. And incidentally I have seen diesel prices even lower than gas, which I hadn't seen in many years. I don't know the explanation for that.
They are probably arguing that even if the font is a small part of it, if it's used on thousands of copies of products, and TV shows, etc. it adds up to a lot. Plus they're probably not expecting to actually get as much as they ask for.
that may be pretty critical to understanding actual moral responsibility (not necessarily legal).
Morally, it seems unbelievable that Texaco had no idea the mess wasn't really cleaned up. They knew perfectly well what the situation was, and whether through incompetence or corruption, convinced a government to look the other way so they could save millions or billions of dollars on cleanup. And it looks like it's worked out well for them.
If silly French politicos want to tell us what we can do with URLs, they're really telling us all we can actually rely on is dotted quads, as in pre-DNS.
It seems like you're jumping too far. Nothing in this law (if I understand it right) would prevent me from typing a domain name into my browser, therefore there would be no need to fall back to IP addresses. There's a difference between a link and a domain name.
This story is about banning links without authorization, and then you're talking about going back to typing in IP addresses rather than domain names. I don't see the connection. If Google and others were not allowed to link to Techdirt without permission, the domain www.techdirt.com would still work fine.
I had the impression that Mr Masnick was grasping for any straw he could to defend these guys.
He's not defending "these guys", he's defending this one thing that they're trying to do*. You'll notice nowhere in the article does Masnick praise the Fine brothers' character or anything of the sort.
PS: Mr Masnick himself has shown no difficulty in taking extremist positions when it suits him, such as on the topic of free speech, where he's openly said that more-or-less anything goes, as far as he's concerned, just so long as there's a right to reply.
I disagree, unless in the "more-or-less" caveat you put things like fraud and true threats. He recognizes that there are types of speech that do not get protection.
* I do not intend to defend either the people or their plan, as I know hardly anything about either