And the first example was "We are the champions" by Queen (and the late Freddie Mercury who oddly remains dead rather than coming back to life to attack Trump...)
The real amusing part of the whole video is the choices of music & performers by the RNC. Queen? Rolling Stones? Can't they at least support _American_ musicians? "Can't get no satisfaction"?? Really?? Was that a prediction?
While watching the show with my family I pointed out that I thought that it was wrong: you just purchase a license and "your fine" -- for values of "fine". If you are going to use a specific song/anthem for your campaign, however, it would be stupid to not approach the musician/author to head off/avoid the Drop Kick Murphy response.
The musicians can't stop you from using their song, but they can certainly give you bad publicity.
Once again the real question is can the MPD actually hold copyright on anything? It is a government agency; is there some distinction in Minnesota that allows them to hold copyright? By statute the US Government can't, I recall California municipalities can't (not sure what the limits are on that, but certainly not on committee meetings published on YouTube); is there an overall guideline on state-related agencies and their ability to produce3 copyrighted materials?
Dealership? I wouldn't expect them to know anything. Their advertising department (and they tend to spend money on advertising!)? Yes, I'd not only expect them to know but I would expect them to also know about licensing images and copyright. It is their *job* for which they are getting paid (or, I hope, it *was* their job; maybe they can switch to sales staff...).
In Robert's Rules of Order it is called a "vote to reconsider". If he saw that it was not going to pass, he would vote with the winning side, such that within three days (*= standard rules, not sure what the rules of the senate are) he can ask for a "reconsideration" since as a prevailing voter he has reconsidered and would like to re-vote; the vote to reconsider only requires a majority (i.e. not 60) so it will pass, followed by a revote of the original motion (in this case a cloture vote to end discussion); presumably at that point he, and the person he strong-armed will vote yes, the discussion will be closed and the motion can be voted on (and presumably will pass since it had 60 votes to get to that point).
I can just see the FBI shopping for a tame judge located somewhere/anywhere in the US who would be willing to sign any warrant put in front of him/her. Bad judges of that ilk were limited in who they could effect, but not anymore; now they will have a reach covering the entire US (and possibly further!)
So they created a website that held exactly the same content; did they then remove that site after the DMCA notice took down the "original"? Otherwise all those complaints about BuildTeam are still there in the web and should be found by Google's crawler.
They've effectively doubled the instances of the complaints on the web.
I actually subscribe to the *paper* (gasp!) edition of Wired. It provides something for my teenage boys to read on long drives that is, to a certain extent, enjoyable (and sometimes quite funny).
I had (note tense) wired in my RSS reader, but once they implemented the "block users who block ads" rule I simply dropped them. Now I learn about things a bit later (a month or two), but I eventually get it, although I might not renew the paper subscription since my boys are aging out of it, and since I don't see it every day I don't think of it as much.
At least ArsTechnica hasn't switched; *that* would annoy me to have to turn off.
Wired has every right to implement their business model the way they want to. More power to them, even. That doesn't mean I have to do business with them.
Yahoo fought with pretty much every appendage tied behind its back. An unsuccessful challenge was a foregone conclusion. But, if nothing else, its long tangle with the NSA dragged some of its so-called secrets out of the shadows.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
pretty much defines "States Rights." But the commerce clause of the Constitution permits the US Government to control/manage interstate commerce. I can't think of anything more interstate (in both political meanings of the word "state") than broadband access, so "states rights" does not apply. The states should not be intruding on the domain of the FCC.
2. Yea, right. The broadband companies can donate relatively huge amounts to state legislators, helping their campaign war chests, and hand them the words to use in their bills. The legislators get resources they need to be re-elected, and the broadband companies get the right to do things like defining "broadband" as whatever they can get away with. Until funding of elections is reformed, anyone who wants to "petition their representatives to change it" can pretty much expect nothing.
And suing due to material damage? That depends on whether the broadband company has forced you to agree to arbitration...
Just because the FCC, until Tom Wheeler (I hope), has ignored it's duty for decades and let the states tilt the playing field, doesn't mean the FCC can't now step up and insist that there are lines which should not be crossed.
I hope it gets better, but the states should have very little say in this; it is an FCC matter.