I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can get away with pretty much anything so long as you claim to be doing it in the name of copyright. Extortion, censorship, gutting the public domain and sabotaging cultural growth, destroying the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty'... it's all good as long as it's in the name of protecting the holy 'copyright'.
Less irresponsible or insane, just apathetic. They don't care, so long as they get people to watch. If that means handing some assholes all the fame they could ever want, then that's an acceptable price to them.
Lipscomb & Co, as they did many times before, poorly redacted the document and exposed the defendant's name in violation of the protective order.
Yeah, if they've 'accidentally' exposed the names of defendants before, in direct conflict with orders from the court, I'd say it's time to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. They're either incredibly incompetent, or doing it on purpose as part of their scam to add pressure to pay up.
'Accidentally' revealing the defendant's name like that should be grounds for immediate dismissal of the case, with prejudice. Maybe having a few cases gutted would teach them to actually pay attention when the court tells them to not do something.
When they start treating even city mayors like this, you know they've reached the point where they don't believe they answer to anyone, and can do whatever they want.
That said, I hope this happens more often, not less. Let those in positions of power get a taste of what it's like for those without the shield of position or money to protect them, maybe then they'll consider doing something about the problem(though most likely that would just entail adding laws that make them exempt from searches).
At this point this has nothing to do with 'protecting' their stuff, they're just making an example out of someone who can't fight back, simply because they can.
I can't help but suspect that if he was able to fight back, by retaining a lawyer, they would be a lot less bloodthirsty, and a lot more willing to just drop the matter now that the party has been killed off. But with no lawyer, they know they can make whatever claims they want, and he has no way of knowing whether or not they're valid.
Oh but I'm sure they'd be glad to set up an extor- I mean collections agency to handle that sort of thing. And if they can't or aren't interested in finding the actual photographers to give them their money, why I suppose they'd just have to keep that tiny amount of money all for themselves, what else could they do with it?
You'd be wasting your time if you were crunching the numbers for any reason other than curiosity. The ones pushing for ContentID and similar things care less about money than they do control(if for no other reason than they believe, not without reason, that control results in profits).
Even if they were shown, flat out and with no room for mis-interpretation, that their actions were costing them more than they were gaining, so long as the 'better' solution gave them less control(and it would) they would still oppose it.
Life plus 70 years, where have I seen that before? Ah yes, that would be the copyright duration in several other countries, leaving me wondering if this is yet another example of a country trying to slip in changes to the law prior to a 'trade' agreement being passed, so they can lie and claim that the agreement had nothing to do with the law changing.
Well, either that or a few palms were greased, some not insignificant amounts of 'donations' changed hands, and a few politicians are pushing the law for the ones who bought them.
What tripped him up, and he really should have seen it coming, is that he foolishly thought that they wouldn't lie to him if they thought it would help them and/or they could get away with it.
He foolishly thought that what they told him was the truth, acted accordingly, and was screwed as a result, and is now faced with the prospect of paying an insane amount if he wants his property to have an internet connection.
Their actions are sleazy, and their excuse is laughably bogus, but I don't see them breaking any real laws here by not selling their competitors' products. The idea that a company without a monopoly position could be forced to sell certain products is not a precedent I think I'd care to see set.
But you recognize that that does not occur here. You recognize that Facebook dictates—and the user accepts.
Yes, and once again for emphasis:
Because it's Facebook's site/service.
If a potential user doesn't agree to the terms set forth by Facebook, or any other site/service, then the response is simple, don't use the site/service. They do not get to use the service, accepting the TOS of the site/service in order to do so, and then try and dictate terms to the site/service after the acceptance of the TOS. The user has no bargaining power here because it's not their site/service, they are just using it, and they either accept the terms as offered, or don't use the site/service.
I can't help but think that you're reaching here. Facebook is allowed to dictate terms to those that use their service because it's Facebook's site/service. Users are not allowed to dictate terms to Facebook because it's Facebook's site/service, they are only using it.
By using Facebook's, or any other site, you agree to any TOS they may have(how enforcable the TOS is is a discussion for another time), and while I'm sure Facebook or any other site would just be thrilled to hunt through every single attempt by a user of their site/service to offer their own terms, accepting or rejecting each individual 'offer', that's not how it works. If a user doesn't like the terms the site/service offers, then they can go elsewhere, they don't get to change the terms just because they want to.
Apparently Comcast believes its users are collectively too stupid to realize this, and that by simply fiddling with basic definitions (it's not a usage cap, it's a wholesome family consumption calculator!) the public will nod dumbly and graciously accept one of the biggest rate hikes in Comcast history.
I'm not so sure that it's due to thinking that their customers are idiots, so much as knowing that most of their customers flat out have no other option. You can do whatever you want, treat your customers as abysmally as you feel like if you know that there's no competing company/service that they can go to.
I imagine they use the word-games primarily for PR purposes, so that they can at least pretend not to be screwing their customers as much as possible if a government agency/representative comes looking. If they didn't have to worry about that they'd probably call them 'what are you going to do about it?' charges and laugh all the way to the bank.