Who are these people who say they'll pay more money for a bag check, yet the theaters aren't checking people's coats and pants? What happens when a guy wears a trenchcoat full of weapons? Now, granted, the chances of this happening are slim, but still.
Don't forget that Manning is also being punished for being a trans-gender, low-ranking officer. Compare this treatment to what happened when General Patreus (a straight, white male) gave secrets to his mistress/ biographer, who then published it in a book. So which jail is he in for leaking secrets?
Okay, I understand that Vimeo can't or won't read DMCA requests, but how in the world can a video that was uploaded in 2006 be infringing on a movie made in 2015? Can't Vimeo apply some logic to these takedown requests?
And like I've said before when these companies issue takedowns for their own stuff, I say remove it. If Entura wants Vimeo to remove the official "Pixels" trailer that Columbia themselves uploaded, then fine: Vimeo should take it down and put a black mark on Columbia's user account. If Columbia tries to upload another trailer that Entura doesn't like, then Columbia should be banned.
What if we approached this tax from the opposite direction, meaning: once the tax is collected, who is it going to? Artists? A publisher? Does the company have a method in place for distributing the tax it collects to all the artists or publishers who have been slighted or offended by the technology? How can new artists sign up to get a cut of this money?
Oh, the company doesn't have any of this information? So it's just going to collect the money, call it a "tax", and keep it all for themselves?
... when a website has to give the user detailed instructions on how to and disable the browser's security settings to watch a movie. Really, there's nothing wrong with our plug-in. Trust us, turn off your security settings.
What would happen if IMDB complied with the studio's fraudulent takedown notice and actually replaced the movie's page with a big notice saying "This page was taken down due to a notice from the studio"? Would all the people who worked on the movie complain... you know, the people whose jobs are at stake when movies are pirated, but who now don't credit for working on a movie because the site has been taken down by the movie's owner.
It's interesting that no one seems to blink at minimum agreements lasting for years. I guess we're all so used to it and we don't care.
But here's a question: if Comcast is a monopoly in any given area and they're the only ones offering high-speed service (okay, that's another monopoly), then there's no other place someone can go for service. So why the minimum 2 year agreement? If a company has the best product (or the only product) then it shouldn't be afraid if people cancel.
So the only reason to have minimum agreements is because they know a certain percentage of people will get poor service or get tired of paying the monthly fees. For these people, the choice it to keep paying every month or pay the termination fee. Either way, the company keeps making money.
I think this is the question that needs to be answered first. Like the article says, one person's "bullying" could be someone else's aggressive debating.
And what happens if the "bullied" person goes along with the aggressive debate, but the automated system flags the comments as bullying? In other words, it doesn't account for think-skinned people. Or what if you and I don't think a comment is bully comment, but the automated system does? So now the system is being too thin-skinned.
So like one of the commenters says, the researchers should go back to their labs until the "close enough" system can take every situation into account.
Here's a better example: suppose I was looking for a lawn edger/ trimmer. I go to Home Depot or Lowe's and the people there take me to the lawn edger section of the store. I ask for a "Black and Decker" brand and they show it to me.
Now compare this to a search on any website: I type in "lawn edger" and was shown some edgers, some lawn mowers (um, I don't need a lawn mower), and string for lawn edgers (okay, fine, but I need an edger before I need string). So I type in "Black and Decker lawn edger" to narrow the results and I'm shown lawn edgers that are black. So I try "Black & Decker"... sorry "&" is a reserved keyword. Okay, "Black + Decker"... sorry, no results found for a lawn edger with a black deck.
The average TechDirt reader responds: That's a brilliant work around. Thanks for the code.
The average Windows 10 home user: What's a dollar sign doing in front of the word echo? Do I type this into Word or Google? Honey, just call your 12 year-old nephew to see if he can make sense of this.
There a few problems with moving a site's comments to Facebook:
1) By tying into Facebook, the site is blocking any comments from people who won't or can't get a Facebook account.
2) Yes, there are a lot of people who won't comment on a site because the comment is tied to their Facebook account... for good and bad. It probably won't stop the worst comments since those kinds of people don't care what everyone else on Facebook things about them. Instead, this affects the people who try to keep a civilized account at Facebook and who may not want their friends to know that they're posting a critique of a "My Little Pony" comic book.
3) And like some other posters are saying, what happens when people move to another site, such as how people moved from Friendster to MySpace to Facebook? Or should all the sites switch to yet another comment platform?
Yes, but you have to admit that there's a huge difference between robocalling parents from the school that their child goes to and randomly calling people about "fixing their credit" or trying to collect a debt from someone who's long gone.
You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but why is it that every time there's a mass shooting, someone or something changes the subject away from the one thing we should be talking about: gun control.
Ever since the Sandy Hook (or maybe before), President Obama has said that mass shootings will not become the "new normal". Well, guess what, without any real discussions about gun control, this HAS become the "new normal". Slate did a piece a while back trying to track all the shootings that occurred after Sandy Hook, but gave up because there were too many.
Now there's yet another shooting and we're banning a flag?! Where's the outrage over guns? How come Wal-Mart hasn't stepped up to say they're not going to sell guns any more because the killer used a gun? Oh, right, "2nd amendment rights".
Why is it not possible to live in a country with 2nd amendment rights AND not have mass shooting all the time? Why aren't more legitimate gun owners stepping forward to help prevent mass shootings?
Is Taylor Swift the most powerful woman in the tech industry? No, especially when there's always a reason why a company like Apple decides to negotiate. But it's a good story and most media outlets are falling over each other for the best click-baity headline.
No, the real problem is that the media is playing up how this is a "win" for artists. One local news station said this problem is best exemplified by how Spotify played Pharrell's "Happy" around 43 million times in one month, yet his royalty payment was only $2,700. Um, isn't there a HUGE step missing? Like, how much did Spotify pay his label and why the label only sent him $2,700?
Nope, it's an easier story to tell when it's a female, teenybopper singer versus a multi-billion, multi-national corporation.
I'm all for ending revenge porn, but I think Google de-listing any site is a stupid idea, and this includes the "right to be forgotten".
It seems like most people, including Google, have forgotten one important thing: Google is the Internet version of a card-catalog (and this is very important): removing something from a card catalog does not remove the source. Okay, sure, removing something from Google makes it harder to find, but people will still find it if they look hard enough. And making something harder for everyone to find makes it harder for law enforcement to find and arrest the people breaking the law.
So by all means, de-list the revenge porn sites and force them onto the dark web, where it's even harder to find the people who run the site.
Seriously- at what point do these regulations become so unwieldy that companies stop doing business in these countries?
If Germany tells Amazon to create a "only after 10pm local time" filter, why can't France or China? Should Amazon have to create rolling filters for each country and time zone? What about competing sites? Will a smaller bookstore now have a competitive advantage if they don't have these filters (though risking legal action)?
Of course it didn't take long to apologize. The real question is why companies keep repeating the same pattern of: 1) Accuse someone of infringement. 2) Watch the accusation hit the tech news sites and make the company look bad. 3) Issue an apology for something they shouldn't have done in the first place in an attempt to save face.
Why would CBS or Paramount want to help support this when they're pouring money in the rebooted version? Yes, everyone knows Nimoy played Spock in the old series, but I'm sure the studios would prefer to promote Zachary Quinto as Spock.
The problem with trying to sue for libel is that the case won't get anywhere. The media reporters make sure to use weasel words like "accused felon" and "alleged criminal", both of which are factually true since the person has only accused at that point. And since people's criminal history is public record, that's factual also.
The problem is that the media shouldn't lead with these kinds of statements... and they have no reason to stop since it gets views and it's all legal.