Well, well, Koby. You just came out and said it, huh? You want Facebook to stop moderating and leave everything up. Why are you so fond of terrorists and child pornographers, that you wish for them to do their business undisturbed on facebook?
Increasing the bottom line isn't inherently evil. It's only awful and repulsive because it's being done while:
Of course, by "violate the constitution," in both cases I meant "infringe on your rights as a citizen and/or resident of the United States." Which isn't that difficult to not do. I go entire weeks without violating people's constitutional rights, and I expect no less of public servants.
Because, technically, the action was a clear violation of the Constitution.
If a bill is vetoed as unconstitutional, it was blocked on a "technicality."
If cops violate the constitution when they arrest and interrogate you, your conviction is tossed on a "technicality."
But it sounds bad to say, "Our cops and legislators don't respect the Constitution they are sworn to support, preserve and defend," so they call it a "technicality."
Anyways. I can see where they are coming from, but it's their own damned fault. It's only due to massive efforts on the side of manufacturers (of all types, not just cars) that there is any confusion about whether these particular vehicles are representative of the manufacturer's intent/opinion. It stemmed from the invention of product placements and such, but only because they have fought back when "truth in advertising" campaigns tried to make product placements be disclosed (FTC says it's unnecessary). So the (cultivated and encouraged) belief in the general public is: if you can see a logo, it's a product placement, and that means someone paid to have it there. If not for their efforts to muddy the waters, there wouldn't be public confusion about media needing permission to have a logo showing (they don't). There wouldn't be nonsense like Mythbusters putting stickers over Diet Coke and Mentos labels, then saying "because lawyers." Because those things were legally purchased, and that should be the end of it. And now, because of their long efforts to reinforce the belief that somebody has to get paid for everything (twice, sometimes!), a stupid lawsuit like this exists. And they thankfully failed, but only because not enough people were confused. So I expect to see their efforts to confuse the public to mount ever higher, because all the money just isn't enough.
I'm pretty sure you're just a colossal asshole, but I'll answer just in case you are simply horrendously and shamefully uneducated: It doesn't. It simply outlines that one person's constitutional rights stop where another person's rights begin. According to law, and upheld by the Supreme Court, a person has a right to not be discriminated against for their race, age, color, religion, gender, veteran status, disability, being pregnant, or national origin. That right is where a business's right to refuse service stops. Business owners can still tell people to fuck off for being in a different political party, having bad breath, not wearing a protective mask, passing bad checks, or driving the wrong brand of car.
If a mall refuses to let you have a demonstration in their food court, people who go to the mall will, in fact, not be able to hear you speak at that mall. It does nothing to keep you from saying your piece at a different mall, outside of the mall, on your website, in a letter to a newspaper, in a phone-calling campaign, or any of many ways of expressing yourself. The mall has not censored you. They have exercised their right of association (recognized as part of the first amendment by the Supreme Court) and told you to get off their property. Because it's NOT A PUBLIC FORUM. It's PRIVATE PROPERTY. Even if these platforms get treated as publishers, they still don't have to let you say ANYTHING. Because they are PRIVATE PROPERTY. If you want to get nit-picky and claim that "corporations aren't people, they shouldn't have rights!", then fine. The editors and/or owners of the platform have Constitutional rights that include refusing you service for any reason that isn't one of the categories protected by the Civil Rights Act. Stop equating Constitutionally protected activities performed by private companies, owned by private individuals (whether singly or in a collective, aka "corporations"), with actions performed by a government official or body.
Well, for one, you care, or you wouldn't be so quick to try to downplay the ruling's significance. For another, even if people don't care, that does not mean it isn't important. Every fair use judgement is important, whether it reduces fair use boundaries, increases them, or just reinforces them. All three outcomes change the way art is created in the United States: weaker fair use rulings reduce art produced, because speech that was legal last week isn't this week; stronger fair use increases art produced, because artists can support themselves by selling art that they were previously afraid to publish; even confirming current fair use limits increases art production, though to a lesser degree, since artists can be more confident of what kind of speech is or isn't legal.
I got about 10 hours out of it.
No. That's a affirmation of our constitutional right to free speech, a free press, and freedom of association - the right to tell people to fuck off and remove themselves from our property, and take their hate with them.
There's no need to make any guesses about the guy who got arrested - because this story isn't about him. It about cops getting (properly) called out for an unconstitutional arrest. This guy could have had evidence on his person that he was the Zodiac Killer, and because they arrested him unconstitutionally, he would have to be released, and that evidence would have one of two fates: never able to be submitted, or struck down on appeal. Cops acting within the constitution keeps crooks from escaping justice. Because even convicted crooks have rights, let alone the merely accused.
Those are points 29 and 39, respectively. Markdown decided to renumber for some reason, even though they were non-consecutive.
Leonard did, indeed, come up with the "original" design, but the current version (the one in contention) isn't the original. Nike kept sending him different versions of the logo, altered from the one he gave them, and it is one of those designs that is in use.
From what I understand of "derivative works," Nike can't use it if they don't have a license (I have no idea if they have or have had one), but as it is a derivative work that Nike created, Leonard sure as heck can't use it without their permission. Effectively, the current version of the logo is dead. Leonard can't take it, Nike can't use it.
Long live copyright.
With way more proof than there is for whatever this is "revenge" for.
I've lost track of which nebulous "crime" this is about.
...No. No, you are wrong. I will state this simply, just in case you are actually ignorant, and not willfully spreading misinformation: Nobody, NOBODY, is required to defend their copyright to retain ownership of it. Everyone in the world can pirate Nintendo games for decades, and as long as it's within the allotted copyright time limit, Nintendo will be able to halt production and distribution of copies, and sue for actual damages (only their statutory damages will -maybe- be blocked). As for the trademark, just like the Mouse, there is NO THREAT to their trademark. Nintendo is in NO DANGER of becoming generic. Almost everyone in the world born since 1960, and most born before that, know that Mario is a Nintendo property. Even villagers in Africa with literal grass huts know Mario and Nintendo. And all of this would be moot if Nintendo was willing to write a letter to the modder, giving a limited-purpose license for the mod. That would invalidate any problems, and the project by this insatiable fan would still exist. Instead, they have chipped away at their fan base and it's enthusiasm once again.
It will, inevitably, be some variation of "common law," where common law means "what I wish was law" instead of it's real meaning of "jurisprudence."
But think of the children! How are they supposed to protect the children by arresting people on accusations of having child pornography and then dropping the charges when asked to cross-examine the "witness", unless their code is secret?
Are you kidding me.
If a person gets mugged in Walmart, you go after the mugger, not Walmart.
If someone steals a TV from a car at Best Buy, you go after the theif, not Best Buy.
If someone is selling cocaine near the candy aisle at Walgreens, you arrest the dealer, not Walgreens.
Hell, if the pharmacist is selling painkillers illegally at Walgreens, YOU ARREST THE ACTUAL CRIMINAL. Why is the concept of personal responsibility so antithetical to your beliefs, especially since you have long spouted your SovCit ideologies?