The NFL's lawyers in particular appear to have been muzzled by whoever in the league is negotiating with broadcast partners, because ESPN's mark is just begging for opposition.
My bet isn't that they were muzzled by the negotiators but that they really don't want to set a precedent. If the NFL challenged the trademark, anything they say to argue against that trademark would almost certainly be brought up in any lawsuits against their own ridiculous trademarks. They don't want to rock the boat.
The only thing I'd add to this is that a civilian who's involved in an incident with the police should be able to obtain a copy of the video without having to hire an attorney and seek a court order. There will be little or no deterent to police violence if they know I have to jump through all sorts of legal hoops to get the video if they boot me in the head. Many of the victims of police violence can't afford to pursue the issue if it takes even a minimal outlay of money.
But you have to think of the children! Oh, wait, I'm sorry. No, don't, don't think of the children!
Have you dug into how this works at all? The CDNs are "embedded Open Connect Appliances." The exist ON the ISPs network. That's what "embedded" means. You say "There's nothing preventing you from [building your own cdn]." But how likely is BigCellCompany to allow me to install an appliance inside their network?
Mike may or may not hate IP law but he's clearly biased against kale. "Tasteless leaves?" Kale is certainly not tasteless and if the dish served is in fact tasteless that's clearly an issue with the cook preparing the dish, not an inherent issue with kale. Let's put the blame where it properly belong and leave personal biases and prejudices out of the discussion.
I was coming here to say much the same thing. The whole concept of what constitutes "net neutrality" is a bit slippery, as was noted on a recent article here. But one of the major complaints against violations of net neutrality is that they lead to an unlevel playing field. If BigCellCompany Video Service gets a last-mile fast lane and Netflix does not, Netflix is at a competitive disadvantage - their services are slower and less reliable than BigCell's and so less desirable to the customer, all other things being equal. Doesn't the same apply here? If I start Dan's Video Service and my video has to traverse the Internet while Netflix has a CDN sitting at the ISP edge, they have a huge advantage over my service in terms of speed and reliability.
It's likely not only the assailants themselves. There appears to be a large block of their supporters in the local community. The reason she committed suicide was because of the horrible way she was treated and "slut shamed" after the pictures were distributed. After she died, there were reportedly posters put up supporting the assailants.
While the government clings to the Third Party Doctrine and the assertion that the public "voluntarily" turns over this data, the courts have noted that the dynamic has changed. Cellphones are utilitarian at this point, and not some sort of purely voluntary luxury the public can do without.
I'm a network engineer and I'm on call 24/7. I'm required by my job to be reachable at any time I'm not officially on vacation. My company provides me a cell phone and I have to have it with me at all times. There are many other professions with similar requirements. What part of that sounds "voluntary"?
The lack of knowledge, both for the layman trying to gain an insight, as well as from our lack of understanding the complexities of the genome is on par with making a howto guide available on how to build a nuclear device on the kitchen table and not expecting that some of the hactivists polute their environment with nuclear waste.
And when it isn't about probabilities -- if it is certain that you will develop a disease, possibly a devastating one -- there's a strong argument that counselling needs to be made available when that information is given to the person affected.
No, there isn't. There's a strong argument that a counseling would be beneficial. You can even say that there's a justifiable requirement that a doctor provide counseling if they disclose the information to an individual. But to claim that there's a strong argument that the FDA can actively take steps to prevent an individual from gaining that information on their own unless counseling is provided is horse crap.
Finally, someone gets it. This is a case of lawyer-speak running wild, but they're not trying to say you can't remember the information. They're saying (or at least trying to say) you can't take the test, memorize some or all of the questions, and then pass them on to other test takers. There's a huge market for test questions on all sorts of qualification exams. Want to pass a test? Pay a membership to one of many websites that specialize in distributing the test questions, study the questions enough to recognize the correct answer, even if you have no real understanding of what the question is asking or why that particular answer is correct, then go pass the test. This devalues the certification and puts unqualified people in positions that should go to those who've taken the time to actually learn and understand the material. Yes, it's a stupid way to phrase it but the intent is reasonable.
This is more like he was administrative head of a cancer hospital, he retires and six months later announces he has miraculously discovered a cure for cancer.
From the report:
A Tasmanian aboriginal language center demanded the removal of the English Wikipedia article on 'palawa kani', claiming copyright over the entirety of the language. We refused to remove the article because copyright law simply cannot be used to stop people from using an entire language or to prevent general discussion about the language. Such a broad claim would have chilled free speech and negatively impacted research, education, and public discourse—activities that Wikimedia serves to promote.
I don't see that. First, you can always make an argument that money spent should be spend elsewhere. Arguably, money spent to provide 'net access would be better spent providing food to those who are starving. Huge numbers of people don't have access to safe drinking water. I don't think anyone has the right to criticize where someone else donates their money.
Second, I'm not sure what company you're pointing at in reference to looking like the "good guy." To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia IS a good guy. I'd perhaps quibble with some of the editorial choices but disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong and thus "bad." Wikepedia is a non-profit and they provide a very valuable service.
If he wanted Jim Clapper to commit a felony, and reveal something that was appropriately classified, Senator Wyden should have acted like a man and revealed it himself, rather than trying to "trap" a career public servant into what for him would be a criminal act.
So Wyden should have been a man - like Edward Snowden? I see all the praise you're lauding on him for his actions.
What about the cases where info from FAA was fed to cops and the FBI with instructions to conceal the source of the info? Wouldn't that also be a case that proves the lie of the statement to the Supreme Court?
I don't know why he didn't countersue under the same law. After all, a traffic ticket is a written communication and it sure annoys the hell out of me when I get one.
Yeah, but you're missing the big point. (For a rarity, it appears Mike did too.) Fee-shifting is entirely in the control of the judges. The whole point of this article, written by one of the chief judges who caused this whole mess, is to say "Yeah, there's a small problem here but it's not that big a deal and besides, we already have the tools to fix it. There's no need for any pesky additional legislation or for Congress to get involved. We got this. Nothing to see here, now move along."
So, it's my device. If I wish to Block 100% of the ads on My Device, I can & will.
And it's Google's Play Store. If they want to remove the ad blocking app, they can and they will. So what's the problem?
That argument is essentially the same as saying that TV viewers shouldn't be able to skip commercials when they DVR and they can't leave the room or mute the TV or change the channel when commercials are playing live.
No, it isn't. Google isn't forcing you to view ads on your Android device. They're not saying you can't avoid them. They're simply refusing to assist you in doing so.