I wouldn't call them victims either, they're the very lucky winners of the music industry lottery.
Yeah, they are the ones who generally get at least some royalties out of the bizarre calculations of various collections societies. The far greater number of "lesser artists", on whose work performance royalties are paid, but who are "too small" to be paid themselves, effectively additionally subsidize the big names. Hm, who are the victims here. Do many of the big ticket winners ever whine much about that?
Never mind some of these acts could buy back their copyrights. That doesn't alter mechanical rights, though.
Sometimes, or maybe most of the time - i don't pay attention because - those results summaries suck. And so does search, often enough to notice. (No matter how i modify operators.) But LOL dude. Dude. Duuuuude.
Whether or not they are hosting the actual DB containing this data, which is apparently not the case. They link to it. But it sure seems the emails themselves are just a lot of "average person" emails, also containing personal information. Like if you took some partial dump of some random accounts off gmail and hosted it as a "leak".
No, this is specifically about incorrect legal claims of copyright infringement. I don't know if the moral rights clauses in some European countries would cover this (generally the same countries where you cannot sign away your copyright), but this is the US. You can make a moral argument about it, but it isn't relevant to what was said, nor to the actual law, regardless of what any lawyer has to say about it from either side.
Further, I don't know how this sounds remotely like shilling for Trump, regardless of how much you dislike Trump or the facts about copyright. A Trump lawyer could shill or not all they want, the musicians have zero case. They are certainly free to say how much they dislike having their music used. I mean, I'd probably be irritated.
The attribution is on the immediate left,with the posting time, for every article. In this case, it is Mike Masnick, the man who "hates it when copyright law is enforced", according to the wisdom of some Annoynymous Dude. So you will probably find him shilling for the public against wholly ridiculous copyright laws which benefit large corporations and rarely benefit creators much.
Ha. no, it's up to these dancing monkeys to prove they need any such thing in the first place. What it really boils down to is giving law enforcement another way to intimidate and harass people. You know that any decryption scheme is just going to end up as some sort of general use tool that every nut who likes to rifle through people's phones for no reason other than voyeurism will have. Because emergencies. Too complicated and time-critical to need to get a warrant or take it to some theoretically more tightly controlled decryption office.
Considering that they were apparently not ready to just seize the phones, anything is reasonable to offer, and i don't think she showed up with a planned and researched "dodge". She merely said she would prefer to speak to the phones' owners about it, and that is seemingly too much trouble somehow for them.
How i long for the good old days when cable was throttling users because they over-sold internet in an attempt to monetize extra bandwidth on their lines, but not actually provisioning anything more on the local loops.