Facebook has a security hole, the government has found it, and they are using their powers to keep Facebook from fixing it.That's not what the article said. It said that the government wants to require Facebook to create a security hole that does not currently exist.
Except that software patents aren't considered valid anymore.
Your question assumes that arguing against it is a desired outcome. :P
Can we just geoblock all of Europe already and get it over with?
At this point it's starting to look like it's going to be like ripping off a band-aid: it will hurt no matter what, but it has to happen, and the faster and more abruptly you do it and just get it over with, the less pain you end up with in the end.
You... completely missed that this is not a position I'm in any way advocating for, didn't you?
Because under copyright maximalist logic™, what else could it possibly be?
As I've been saying pretty much since day 1, it's a service that's full of Twits.
Not exactly. What it says is that you have three months of "grace period" after publication to register as an exception to the rule cited above that:
The Copyright Act does not permit recovery of statutory damages or attorneys’ fees for “any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration.”In other words, if I publish something today, and tomorrow Bob infringes on it before I've had time to register, I still have three months to register and be able to bust him for it. But if he waits three months and then infringes, and I still haven't registered by that point, then I can't seek damages. But if I register after three months and then Bob infringes on my work, I still have a valid case.
That's because the underlying story is unfinished. We'll likely get the rest once (at least some of) the legal drama has run its course.
Hey, leave the noob alone before I pick him up and throw him at you! :P
Yeah, claiming that something embarrassing from your past was "just a joke" is a classic deflection tactic.
Wow, projecting much? I didn't immediately believe anything. I took my time, waited for more evidence to become available, and considered the entire picture in context. Immediately believing things is how we get into messes like this in the first place!
Are you even aware of what the profile link you're reading means? (Here's a hint: why does Mike Read have one and you don't?) Once you've laboriously worked out what's blindingly obvious to the rest of us, you'll understand why everyone else thinks these innuendos you keep dropping about gaps in comment histories are full of crap.
This would indeed raise reasonable doubt if we accept that Karl is a Google mouthpiece. But you've provided no proof of that, therefore any statements predicated upon it are worthless.
Prove that the characters "Karl Bode" connect to THIS oneIt's been a while, so I might be misremembering, but I believe Karl mentioned back when this all started that it had not only his name but also his address on it. Or possibly his email address. Either way, there was indeed information there that uniquely identified it as our Techdirt writer and not some other guy named Karl Bode.
Yes.
The ideology being expressed, about promoting "freedom" for the rich and powerful, and conflating corporate power with individual rights, is the very core of libertarianism.
regulate publishers to prevent harmThis is literally the entire point of copyright, as originally conceived. It was a good idea then and it's a good idea now. It's a shame that we've gotten so far away from it in the intervening years.
Re:
Which is why we need to push back, roll back bad laws, and withdraw from treaties if necessary. Create divergence, make it clear that we're not going to tolerate the ratchet anymore.