Dammit robots, knock it off, first you come here and take our menial labor jobs, now you want my medical right to take my (future) seeing eye dog anywhere I please? What next, are you going to take away my ability to drive me and my seeing eye dog around by ourselves?
I was thinking almost the exact same thing. Usenet was the free speech haven [sic] until google somehow ended up controlling it and turned it into groups and drove it into the ground. Irc is still very much alive, but not really the same sort of forum flavor that usenet had (I can still find articles I posted to usenet 20+ years ago).
If I did not know any better, I'd say this is a precursor to Comcast filing a civil suit against Netflix since "They helped create Netflix." I'm sure they are entitled to at least 50% of Netflix's profits.
Wine and beer are as distinct as bottled water and soda
Have to disagree here, or maybe not. Consider the Wine Cooler -- for sales purposes, most wine coolers are labelled (and sold) as beers, having dropped the "wine" portion of their name years ago. So the distinction between wine and beer does have some grey area, and I can understand why a winery with a trademark would be concerned about "another alcoholic beverage" with the same mark. Just like I can understand why "Royal Crown" would be concerned about someone selling "Royal Crown Flavored Water." In today's market the distinction between flavored water and sodas is pretty thin, as it is between alcoholic beverages.
Copyright expert Kimberlee Weatherall says it is difficult to predict if the bill will be used by copyright holders to argue for an injunction against a VPN service because it lacks clarity regarding services and sites whose primary purpose is not copyright infringement, although may be being used for that purpose.
No, that is not a difficult prediction to make. If passed, copyright holders will argue for injunctions and lawsuits against VPNs. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. Ms Weatherall just won't admit that because she does not want to bite the hand that feeds her.
I just do not understand the logic here...bad things were done by the US Government. A private citizen blew the whistle on them, so now a person wants to sue the whistle blower to repay the US government the cost of cleaning up the mess, a mess that would not exist had the US Government not done anything bad in the first place. Have I got that right?
I do fully understand that logic is not the issue here; this is a lawsuit being made for more of an anti-liberal attack than anything else. But how blinded by your own ideals do you have to be to go to this length? Probably about as blind as the US Government was to its own misdeeds.
Using "Hollywood Defendants" in a legal document is about the same as going to the middle of Times Square and pulling out the spray bottle of "Bat Shit Crazy," spraying it all over yourself, then urinating into that same bottle and repeating the process, all the while confronting anyone who walks past you as being the source of all your earthly problems.