PRK’s Techdirt Profile


About PRK

PRK’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 10th, 2019 @ 4:15am

    Non-democracy in Spain (as Paul Keating)

    As much as I would love to influence my EU representative he/she is not dependent upon my votes. In Spain they are appointed by the respective political parties in proportion to the number of representative seats they have won in the general election.

    Indeed in Spain there is no requirement that any "representative" actually be from your area and those "winning" the seats are in fact nominated by the relevant political party based upon their votes garnered in the general election. The parties may fire the representative and replace them with anyone else from their party. The parties control all aspects of the representatives including how much they can earn. So, in Spain a representative is more interested in keeping their seat than doing anything of importance for the public.

    The entire vote for the party concept is ridiculous. In such a system there is no need for actual representatives (since they only tow the party lines). Rather, we could all save a huge amount if a single representative from each party showed up and was able to vote that number of votes that they represent.

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 3:13am

    The TYPE of speech matters (as Paul Keating)

    Courts have long differentiated between commercial and non-commercial speech when viewing the impacts of laws and regulations. I really see no difference here. The issue clearly involves a commercial transaction. I do not see it as over reaching to require that property owners provide documentation confirming that they have in fact registered their property for use on the platforms. Indeed, the platform could easily confirm registration directly with the governmental authority.

  • Sep 18th, 2018 @ 9:51am

    Frontier Copyright Police (as Paul Keating)

    You obviously have not heard. There is a new agency - the FCP - who also searches the boxes of unsuspecting expats who move out of the US to another country. The confiscate any book or other material that has not been authorized for distribution in the country of destination. They are nice enough to place a card inside the box informing you that if you wish to recover their confiscated items you can change your mind about moving................
  • Sep 28th, 2017 @ 5:38pm

    Removing Corporate Sovereignty in Trade Deals (as Paul Keating)

    By removing the CS provisions from trade deals is the EU now opening themselves up to a Corporate Sovereignty claim based on the fact that the provision was removed?

  • Sep 13th, 2017 @ 4:41am



    I can only wonder why Slater would agree to an obligation to report all income from the image. Net result: PETA - who had no real standing has now obtained a contractual right to a perpetual royalty stream. I can only imagine the "demands" Slater will be receiving in the future to have his finances audited for compliance.
  • Jul 31st, 2017 @ 5:16am

    Canada is Correct Legally

    Most comments miss the real issue here - jurisdiction. Google was indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts. As such, Canada could order Google to do whatever the court was legally permitted to order under the laws of CANADA. The fact that this required Google to undertake actions outside of Canada is irrelevant.

    What this case does show is that while the Internet is global, the judicial system is inherently linked to specific jurisdictions. In several areas treaties were created to deal with similar issues - an example is maritime shipping.

    Here Google's only available option is to go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and obtain court orders that actual prohibit Google from undertaking the action within each specific jurisdiction.
  • May 16th, 2017 @ 6:01am

    Informs ??? (as Paul)

    What does informs mean? It could be "sorry nothing here to see, move along". It could mean we looked but there was just so much shit in the files we could not find anything......
  • May 2nd, 2017 @ 3:43am

    Chris Dodd To Run New Copyright Office (as Paul Keating)

    NEWS FLASH ------

    The MPAA in conjunction with the White House announced today that Chris Dodd has been nominated as the director of the newly minted Department of Copyright (a/k/a MPAA East)..........

    And now for other news.....

    Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along.
  • Apr 21st, 2017 @ 3:53am

    Waiver vs Assignment (as Paul)

    He may have waived his moral rights. HOWEVER, even if he neither waived nor assigned his moral rights, he ASSIGNED all of his "causes of action" which would include any right to recover anything. This was extremely clear from the language:

    TRANSFERS and ASSIGNS ..... all right, title and interest to the Sculpture and all materials related thereto ..... including but not limited to the copyright therein, and any CAUSE OF ACTION that Tobin may have with respect thereto.

    One can retain all rights BUT also assign the benefits of a claim based upon those rights.
  • Mar 21st, 2017 @ 5:36am

    Re: Goodbye Politicians, Too bad you are criminals (as Paul keating)

    I think this is a great law!! Think if the roar of silence. No more politicians promising shit they can and will never provide. No more PACs. It would be truly wonderful. And with the politicians and PACs silenced there is no reason for Joe or Joan public to publish anything. So no risk of harm to the masses.

    Sort of like a law that obligates advertisers to state "claims not independently substantiated" if they cannot link to an I dependent laboratory proving the product performs as advertised.
  • Feb 8th, 2017 @ 9:25am

    Defaming a famous person (as Paul)

    In the US he has to show malice because his allegations for damage admit she is.

    He filed in the US to obtain discovery that he can then use in the U.K. action - the U.K. Does not require malice to be proven and in fact imposes the burden upon the defendant to show truth.
  • Jan 20th, 2017 @ 5:44am

    Transparency # Voluntary Disclosure (as Paul Keating)

    Duh.......Its all about timing. People who claim to be transparent do so only when it is beneficial OR it is mandated by some authority. If you remember that rule it is easy to understand Chicago's belief that it is "transparent" and at the same time requiring each request to proceed to litigation.
  • Jan 20th, 2017 @ 5:39am

    Measure 2 times - cut once (as Paul Keating)

    Before we launch into creating rights we need to fully understand what we are actually addressing.

    AI - this is as yet a largely undefined term that means anything from generating responses based upon rapid search metrics and the ability to adjust those metrics based upon observed input. This is not "intelligence" IMHO. This is repetitive behavior no different than a mouse learning to navigate a maze based upon rewards.

    Sencient. When is anything deemed to be sentient and under what standards?

    Robot. And exactly what is a robot? Is it any machine or a machine that has human-like features?

    GO SLOW. This is an area where we need to go it slow. We in the US are still reeling in many respects from court decisions granting "personification" to corporate entities (e.g. Family United and political contributions).

    Some point to the difficulties in making the "creators" responsible for behavior of an "AI" ("Is it Microsoft's fault? They just created the base AI. If later interactions teach it bad behavior, that's not their fault. No more than they're responsible for crimes committed using Windows or Word.). In my view the current legal structure already provides for this. MS may be at fault if it can be shown that they should have inserted protective programming limitations (just as any manufacturer could be responsible for not building in protection devices or a pharma company could be responsible for adverse reactions to drugs).

    Going slow may result in more moderate advances in this field. However, if we have learned anything from the LOT craze it is measure 2x and cut 1x.
  • Jan 16th, 2017 @ 5:35am

    Seeds and First Sale (as Paul)

    I had always thought that generically altered seeds would produce sterile plants.

    I don't understand how a patent can apply to prevent seeds that have been created by the plant. The seeds are not a derivative work and the farmer did not "create" the seed as a copy. How can infringement occur? If Monsanto did not prevent the 1st generation plant from producing seeds that could germinate that seems to be its own decision not to interfere with the natural reproduction system of the plant.

    There must be a contractual obligation created in the purchase agreement for the underlying seeds. However, as a contract it would be subject to the laws of the various jurisdictions (or the jurisdiction specified in the contract). It would be interesting to see if the underlying agreement clearly specifies this AND whether is properly presented so as to be enforceable against farmers who I (ignorantly) presume to be illiterate.

    How would this stand up with other genetic uses? For example, I sell you genetically altered sperm for a bull and you use it to artificially insimonate a cow. How does this restrict the use of any offspring of the 1st calf who was given birth by natural processes?
  • Jan 12th, 2017 @ 6:08am

    Contributions to Litigation (as Paul Keating)

    Mike, I would like to offer whatever services might be appropriate. I am a California licensed attorney and am happy to help with strategy, drafting etc in connection ith your defense. I can be reached at
  • Sep 24th, 2016 @ 11:48pm

    Ugly baby (as Paul)

    She must have been an ugly baby.
  • Sep 24th, 2016 @ 11:46pm

    Photos of my child (as Paul)

    I am the legal guardian of my minor child. As such I may (and in many cases must) exercise his legal rights. I may (and in many cases must) approve or consent to the waiver of his rights. This should include the right of privacy as noted in the daughter's lawsuit.
  • Sep 14th, 2016 @ 9:31am

    ISSA. APPLE. IRELAND (as Paul keating)

    So I wonder if Apple isn't planning an ISDA claim to recover the billions it must pay in taxes?????
  • Jul 4th, 2016 @ 10:43am

    Foreign travel (as Paul)

    Using a burner phone also makes for a far better reason to search you upon return. Who uses burner phones except terrorists.....
  • May 19th, 2016 @ 10:32am

    Not so fast (as Paul)

    The main issue with is that it preserves the underlying hamlet and NOT the actual image. Thus html code that "calls" another file from another location will display whatever that file currently contains. An example is a d date code call.

    A far better solution is which captures an actual static image of the homepage. While it doesn't capture other pages it does a great job of showing how tha ho epage actually appeared.

    So, is evidence? Yes. BIT it is open to a great deal of attack in depending on what the archive actually contains and whether or not there have been changes.

More comments from PRK >>

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it