Those other crimes certainly can cause fear as a result of the action, but the intent is usually personal gain.
Terrorism, as indicated by the word itself, is about the feelings of others (terror) more than the perp.
As an aside, there's not a reputable sports show on Earth who will intentionally show streakers or other trespassers in the field of play during a sporting event. They rightfully recognize that this would only encourage more of the same.
Murder is certainly more newsworthy, but isn't it about time the media starts asking itself if granting too much attention to those seeking attention is simply encouraging more of the same?
This sums up the thoughts I've been having lately, but couldn't put into words.
The proper response to "they hate our freedoms" is NOT to simply give up those same freedoms. They won.
Somebody was shot in Chicago every three hours last year. How many of those became international news for a week? The WHOLE POINT of terrorism is to spread fear, but it would be impossible without a willing media to help them at every step. Not only did they win, they used the western media and politics as their two most potent weapons.
Has the MPAA started a war with the Yellow Pages for publishing the addresses of pawn shops that might sell counterfeit movies?
It's no wonder the entertainment industry is decades behind in terms of innovation. They're still viewing the web through the paradigm of the 80's and 90's when CompuServe or AOL was the gateway, directory, ISP and one-stop shop of connected computing for the majority of people online. Only now, they've put Google in that role.
Cuba, stuck in the past, may actually be more up-to-date than Hollywood, AND have a better chance now of building on that lead.
OK, so the bar for trademark is even lower than copyright. It doesn't have to be unique or copyrightable. Just uniquely used in commerce to differentiate the brand. I'm generally very against the expansion of IP, but I'm not seeing how this particular image shouldn't be eligible.
And yes, there's the issue of trademark vs copyright, but a copyrighted image used in commerce is the basis of trademark, so in some cases, they can be closely related. If this image is eligible for copyright, then it probably should be eligible for trademark.
For the famous Obama 'Change' poster, many here agreed that it was a transformative work (the original photographer didn't even recognize it at first). So heavy photoshopping can over-ride the original copyright as fair use.
Does that mean the photoshopper gets the copyright on the new, heavily edited, work? Does it go into the public domain? Does the original artist retain some rights over it, if the uses of the edited version fail the fair use standards?
And in this case, does the original work being in the public domain change any of those answers? The source material for most of Disney's older works are in the public domain, but their specific expressions are protected. Would that not apply here as well? If the changes were deemed to be transformative, then this specific expression could be re-copyrighted, no?
You can either have targeted ads, semi-targeted ads, or generic ads.
Nobody uses generic ads, since they're useless. There's really not even an offline equivalent. You always know something about your audience, even if it's as little as where they are when they see the ad.
Semi-targeted ads are like a billboard, when you know the location it's being seen, or a TV spot where you have a good idea about the demographics of the viewing audience.
Targeted ads are usually thought of as online, but any mailers you get from retailers you frequent are basically the same thing. Or coupons that print on your receipt at checkout. They know what you bought previously and will push similar products.
Injecting identifiers, for the purpose of delivering advertising, is INHERENTLY targeting. Any attempt to claim it's not is a flat-out lie. And not even a good one. It's a three-year-old with ice cream all over his face telling you the dog did it.
Both companies proclaimed that the characters in their headers are rotated on a weekly and daily basis to protect user information.
W. T. F.
If a profile expired every day, or even every week, it would be WORTHLESS. The entire point of doing this is that it's trackable.
Claiming otherwise doesn't take big brass balls, it takes a small withered brain.
Making everybody look like a suspect isn't about being able to pull people out of line based on those criteria, it's about being able to use OTHER evidence (possibly illegally collected, or at least the type you wouldn't want to have to defend in court) such as phone records, racial profiling, etc.
That way you can use all the tools at your disposal, then just say, "well, he looked suspicious, and we were right to be suspicious, so you can't really argue it was unreasonable to be suspicious."
This is just another brick in the Parallel Construction wall.
This isn't just a matter of broken policies, this is a systemic flaw.
A new Director, or a new President could come in and put a stop to the illegal spying on the SIC. But as long as the capability remains, it's always going to be a threat to happen again. In other words, all the laws, and all the policy changes in the world won't be able to fully rebuild trust in the system.
Then again, that's exactly the same relationship the NSA has with the public at large, and the Senate seems to have no desire to change anything about that, so maybe this is really a self-awareness problem.
Oops, left off my closing argument: http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=IB.1:IEU (May have to change view to 3 or 5 days to see the recent trend) There is no spike in the price at the time of the tweet, and the only rise for the first part of the day was correcting for the previous day's downturn at the end. Once again, no story.
"Front-month Brent crude prices rallied from $110.40 a barrel at 10:20 a.m. EDT -- just before the Tweet -- to as high as $111.50 just after 11 a.m., as trading volumes rose. By 1 p.m. oil was up $2.68 a barrel to $111.74, its highest in a month."
If at one point was up 2.68 to 111.74, then it opened at 109.06. Further, if trading opens at 9am, then in the first hour - BEFORE THE TWEET - it was up 1.23%. In the hour after the tweet, it went up almost exactly 1%. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the tweet had any effect on the prices.
This seems like a 'blame the scary technology' article more than any real story. See also
Agree with this.
I'm certainly no fan of trademark bullies, but this is almost EXACTLY the sort of case trademark law is actually useful for.
Similar name, chosen specifically to evoke the good reputation of the larger company.
If somebody were to have a bad experience, or get sick from poor quality control (expired goods), it poses a risk of coming back on TJs.
Obviously the venue is a problem, and this could be handled more simply by refusing to sell to the guy, but brand confusion is the whole point of TM.
...in this day and age when you need a team of lawyers and judges to determine what the meaning if 'is' is. The greatest tragedy in all this, to me, is that a handful of old guys can sit around and pat themselves on the back for coming up with a legal parsing of 'Expectation of Privacy.'
If anything, the reaction to all this has shown that the people - drum roll please - expect privacy.
Consent of the Governed my ass.
The calls for him to get fired are coming from the people who bought overvalued Facebook stock. Those people are now, essentially, Ebersman's bosses.
To continue your analogy above, selling the painting for $10 billion to somebody who can only get $5 billion on resale seems like a great idea until you realize that not only did you sell a painting, you took the job to act as the agent promising to resell it later for more.
He should take his (considerable) payday, and move on.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by radix.