In fairness, you can't compare this to Weird Al. As I understand it, Weird Al ALWAYS gets permission first.
Considering Marcus Carab WORKS FOR TECHDIRT, I would expect him to be on this website all day. It's kinda his job.
I'm giving you an insightful for this because I learned a new bit of archaic english.
You're still wrong above, but I do appreciate archaic english.
That it wasn't downloaded isn't relevant. That it was available for download is.
The fact that the (shady!) "security firm" downloaded it means it was downloaded by at least one person who wasn't supposed to have it.
Well, you're wrong. Good news though, you're allowed to be wrong. As long as the owners of techdirt don't mind it, you're even allowed to be wrong HERE!
There's one other reason it's different... the first argument mentioned in the article.
Attorney-client privilege is a legit reason to argue they are exempt. The second argument is... creative (which is my polite way to say it should be rejected, and those who support it should receive a stern talking-to).
maybe, but we're talking about a copyright claim, so as such let me ask you a question: Does seeing the five words "If I Only Had A Heart" substitute for actually hearing the song?
If not then it's hard to argue that it's actually violating the copyright. Five words are just not enough to qualify as copying a song, let alone an entire film.
Any company that would have such poor HIPPA compliance that they would let patient data out on Limewire should be closed.
That said, there is no point in continuing to go after them. figure out how to move the data their clients need to another company and purge everything this company has, and move on.
Oh the spoofs you could film... I'd atleast like to see some shorts spoofing this law. Lolita with the title character played by a 80-yr old man.
well not only did they not attribute it, but they clearly violated CNN's trademark!!
What the talking heads don't seem to understand is, while most people think congress is dysfunctional and needs replaced, most people ALSO think that THEIR congress-critters are the exceptions that prove the rule.
This is why congress changes so slowly, while the bum in the white house changes more dramatically.
Yet he still wasted his money filing this frivolous suit.
Frankly, Goudreau should have been awarded attorney's fees.
The major issue with end-to-end verification is doing in such a way that the voter is still not individually identifiable. We've all seen "anonymized" data become identifiable.
I think you forgot to mention Ayyadurai didn't invent email.
Wouldn't it be nice if one of the two people who will win tomorrow actually respected the damn First Amendment?
Remember, Gary Johnson is still on the ballot in every state...
*adjusts tin-foil hat*
It goes that investigators at the FBI have shown a propensity for revealing these types of things. Comey revealed the emails to give HRC a chance to rebuke them, and his own office enough time to plausibly say "they're nothing" before the election, preventing those in his office from getting the opportunity to use them to do real damage.
Is that what really happened? I don't know, but it's the only theory I've heard that makes any sense.
I think you're missing the point, the key word there is "unsolicited." If you have ever done business with a company then email from them is not "unsolicited."
While it's not UBE, solicited bulk email is still colloquially referred to as "spam."
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, in practice, you are wrong. Facebook is not the only way to post your opinion. You could start your own website. Don't believe me? How do you think this vary site came into being? Mike Masnick decided to setup a web server and start putting his thoughts out there. Facebook isn't stopping you from doing the same thing.