Actually, the Ostipows should sue the Sheriff's Office -- Not the Sheriff, the BUILDING.
Under asset forfeiture theory, any property used to aid in committing a crime is guilty until proven innocent, and not only that, but the owner must prove they deserve the property on top of that. Since any violation of constitutional rights by a group that you can win a federal rights violation lawsuit over is also a felony under federal criminal statutes, and without the building, cars, guns, etc certainly aided them in committing those felonies.
The FBI has the power to do so (they have the responsibility of investigating criminal violations of the constitution) but are generally too busy framing the mentally disabled for terrorist plots these days.
Supposedly, any group of people subjecting someone to cruel and unusual punishment -- such as psychological torture -- under color of law has committed a felony. If that torture drives the victim to suicide then that felony becomes a capital crime (18 USC, 241).
Committing a felony is grounds for a court martial and dishonorable discharge, possibly incarceration in a military prison under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It certainly violates the oath to defend the constitution, since anyone who would commit acts of torture upon a prisoner meets the definition of a domestic enemy of the constitution.
Isn't it ironic that the people who are supposed to be protecting us from evils like that are the people committing them, and only getting away with it because they and their entire chain of command are hopelessly corrupt?
Do you feel safer, being 'protected' by that military?
If your house is robbed or your car stolen, should you have to pay $500 to report the crime? If someone hacks your email account, should it cost you $100 to get the ISP to look into the problem and return the account to you?
Of course not. That would be absurd.
That's pretty much the argument the MAFIAA would use against a proposal to make them pay people to comply with the law. IMO, a more reasonable (and likely to succeed) approach would be to post a bond that the takedown notice is proper -- forfeited to the people the notice is sent to if it is not proper.
Anyone sending takedown notices is given the benefit of the doubt until counter-notices on their notices reach a certain threshold, then their notices start triggering manual reviews. Any counter-notice should result in a review of that specific alleged violation. If it is provably in error, the bond is forfeited.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes it a serious crime to access a computer without authorization. Various wiretapping and eavesdropping laws make it a serious crime to intercept electronic communications and electronic devices.
Most of these laws have law enforcement exemptions, but those exemptions require that law enforcement have a valid warrant to qualify for the exemption.
So either we have a case of unequal enforcement of the law (unconstitutional) or use of an IMSI device is not in fact a violation of any of those laws in the United States.
If it is in those terms, then HP may have legally shot itself in the foot.
There's this thing in contract law called a 'materially adverse change' -- basically, the idea goes that if the contract you are bound to is changed in a way that would have caused you to have rejected the product entirely if that contract term had been part of the deal when you signed the contract, then it forms an escape clause for the contract.
Normally, this applies to escaping from contracts without an Early Termination Fee, but in this case we're talking about an ongoing licensing contract for a physical product, so it might be possible to return the printer for a refund due to this DRM stunt.
If our courts weren't so corrupt, they would dismiss charges when it becomes clear the prosecution is breaking the law to get a conviction.
That's what a plain English reading of the laws (common, statutory and constitutional) would indicate they require.
Alas, our courts are so corrupt that they don't even think of it as corruption anymore. As if bribery were the only form of corruption possible, and as long as they avoid bribes they can't possibly be corrupt.
No, there is no fair use issue here, even if it were in a country that had fair use. But this is in Austria.
The core issue here is a fraudulent ownership claim. FPO claimed those video snippets were theirs not the actual owners, and sued the owners to get a court to declare that FPO were the actual owners -- whether by judicial fiat or by running the actual owners into bankruptcy so a default judgment would find in favor of FPO.
Fraudulent claims of copyright ownership are NEVER fair use.
Ratified treaties have the same force as national laws. But those nations retain their national sovereignty, even in the EU. That;s the POINT of how the EU is set up in the first place.
Nations are perfectly free to change their minds and pass new laws. If that causes them to violate a treaty, that is between the nation that violated it and the other signatories.
Individuals and corporations who obeyed the laws of the nation they are in are not responsible for that any more than a janitor working for a corporation can have his savings account seized because the CEO broke a contract with another corporation.
I run fairly heavy security on my browser, and when I encounter a site that will not load, I just move on.
I mean, really, if the only way to access content is to turn off all my security, I have to wonder what sort of malware ridden crapsack that site is. Good sites that are worth reading have good security and are compatible with the security of others.