Still, it must have been at least slightly jarring to see Sky essentially forget to strip out Addic7ed's signature for its own work. Using someone else's work as one's own by way of copying it is about as close an analogy to copyright infringement as one could get.
To be fair, though, it's possible they didn't forget at all. If they had used it and deleted the signature, that would potentially have been clear-cut copyright infringement, depending on the terms under which the fansub was released. Here, though, they've taken something that was made available for free, used it as it was intended to be used, and provided proper attribution for the person(s) whose work they made use of. There's an irony-angle story here ("oh look at how these guys thought fansubs were soooooo evil until they found out they could be useful!") but I don't see any way this is a "they did something wrong" story.
This article does say how: rather than forcing interoperability, let interoperability be a defense to antitrust suits.Yeah... that's not actually a solution, given how toothless antitrust law has become over the last 3 decades or so.
Memes are sort of new and the internet spread of memes are certainly a recent phenomenon
Huh?
The term, in its present usage, may be relatively new, but people have been creating and sharing image macros on the web for decades now. It's by no means a new phenomenon.
I've argued an even better solution is not just about forced interoperability, but moving to a world of protocols instead of platforms.
Yes, you've said that many, many times on here. What you've never said is how.
How are we going to get the platforms to take this action that runs directly against their self-interest? Is there anything, other than extremely heavy-handed government regulation, that would make this outcome even remotely plausible?
To be perfectly honest, I can see a legitimate case for the idea of the merger improving competition. It hinges on this idea being based on a mistaken premise:
The DOJ, for example, seems a bit sheepish on signing off on a deal that will reduce already semi-tepid US wireless competition by 25%.
That statement would work if AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile were all approximately equal in size and power, but... come on, you know that's not true. The reason Sprint's been trying to get this merger to happen for so many years is because they're painfully aware that they're just not big enough to stay relevant without it. And T-Mobile has caused a lot of interesting changes over the last few years with their "scrappy underdog" competitive tactics, but that's the thing about underdogs: they are, by definition, at a big disadvantage when it comes to size.
The simple truth is that AT&T and Verizon are first-tier mobile phone providers, while Sprint and T-Mobile are second-tier mobile phone providers. They're well-known names, but they're just not in the same league as the Big Two. The question is, would the hypothetical "SprintMobile" company be big enough to be a legitimate first-tier company that could compete on the same level as AT&T and Verizon? If so, it's quite possible we could see improved competition as a result, because it wouldn't be "going from four providers to three" but "going from two first-tier providers to three."
(Please note that I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case; I don't know how big "SprintMobile" would be compared to the Big Two or how much overlap there is currently between T-Mobile and Sprint that would become redundant. I'm just saying that it's plausible, and worth considering from that perspective.)
Should the lawsuit fail, the onus lies with voters to 1) purge Congress of Luddites and telecom lackeys that have repeatedly made it clear that the public interest and Democratic process does not matter to them,
You want a lower-case D there...
some artists and an advertising agency created a deep fake of Zuckerberg saying a bunch of stuff about controlling everyone's data and secrets and whatnot
Why would they need a deep fake for that, given the sheer quantity of things along those lines that he's legitimately said?
Any company that takes a longer term view of things would recognize that if the platforms optimize in a manner that creates serious problems for the world, that can't be good for long term business
Welcome to the world of publicly-traded companies. It may be a bit of an exaggeration to state that they are legally or contractually incapable of long-term thinking, but not a very big one!
Comcast's little gambit was certainly profitable: the court ruling declared that Comcast netted more than $73 million in errant fees over a five-year period by signing up customers for the worthless service plan they never asked for.
Comcast, whose historically terrible customer service is already the stuff of legend, will be required to refund nearly 50,000 customers and pay a $9.1 million fine to make up for years of misleading behavior. And while that sets a Washington State record, that still likely falls well short of the total net profit Comcast made from scamming Washington State consumers.
Which is why I say we need a law to cover such scenarios. Allow me to propose The Crime Does Not Pay Act: Should any business be found to have earned money through a violation of the law, they shall be fined a minimum of 100% of the gross revenue earned through their illegal business dealings.
You want companies like Comcast to stop treating fines for illegal behavior as "the cost of doing business" and profiting anyway? Make it impossible to profit therefrom.
Either proposal would be engaging in 'prohibiting the free exercise'.
Umm... huh? The only place that those words appear in the First Amendment, it's immediately followed by the word "thereof", making it clear that it refers to the thing that was discussed immediately prior, which is religion, not speech.
(You're not wrong about this being a likely violation of the First Amendment; only about how it applies here.)
They must have been taking lessons from European news publishers!
No. That was a completely wrong interpretation when Thad said it, and it's still wrong when you say it now. The correct paradigm from which to understand the idea of geofencing Europe is the notion of quarantine. Right now, any given European user may or may not be a carrier of a deadly malady known as "liability", and you have no way of knowing until they infect you. From a simple self-preservation perspective, the only rational decision is to quarantine Europe--lock it down entirely until the disease burns itself out.
There once was a man from Japan
whose limericks never would scan.
When told it was so,
he replied, "yes, I know,
for I always try to fit as many words into the very last line as ever I possibly can."
Insofar as the interests of stockholders and users diverge, the officers and directors of these companies may be put in the untenable position of having to violate their fiduciary duties (to stockholders) under Delaware law in order to fulfill their fiduciary duties (to end users) under the new body of law that Balkin proposes.
I'm no expert in corporate law, but I would imagine that this is not a legitimate contradiction. There has to be some law (or case law, or probably both) that clarifies that it's not a breach of fiduciary duty to refuse to take some action that, while profitable, would also be illegal... right? That's just common sense; otherwise we would see shareholders suing companies to force them to violate the law in the name of maximizing profit.
So now can we all agree that something must be done to punish Intuit for this?
Depends. Have their shenanigans reached the point where they meet the legal definition of fraud yet, or is it still just de facto fraud that they can legally get away with?
From there, the case when to the CJEU
"went"
and (2) Once cases get to the CJEU, experts and public interest advocates can’t intervene to explain the missing info
So the CJEU has no concept of an amicus brief?
Sure, but fake click-wrap "contracts" that cannot be negotiated (EULAs, website Terms of Service, etc) didn't. Plenty of places in the world don't recognize their legitimacy, and with good reason. Unfortunately, the USA is not one of those places. It needs to become one.
On its surface, many of these actions aren't all that surprising. After all, experts have noted for a decade than US antitrust enforcement has grown toothless and frail,
A decade? I think the first time I personally heard complaints about this was in the late 90s, over 20 years ago, and they were describing it as a "long-standing" problem.
Re: Re:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. That's why I said "the term in its present usage".