I completely disagree with this drivel of a comment. It does nothing but complain. I am an attorney and took the bar. I found that it challenged me to be familiar with the subjects I would likely encounter. The test was grueling - 8 hours/day for 3 days. Finger print and facial recognition proof required to enter and on demand. Any equipment used had to have no memory capacity. I sat with some 9,000 others in a huge hall. A number we’re forced to leave for apparent cheating.
They did the best they could during the pandemic. You did not have to take the exam when and as you did. You could have gone to any state you qualified for. You could have delayed. Stop complaining so much and get on with it.
I honestly believe the court over reacted innocently. All hearings are transcribed and there can only be 1 “official” transcription. The court reporter is employed to provide this. The over reaction was most likely a poor attempt to preserve this archaic system.
First, I have never liked the way that the ECJ writes its opinions. They always are couched in a form of language that seems over-the-top formal and difficult to read.
That being said, the author of the article clearly does not understand jurisdiction. The case involved jurisdiction over the "person" - in this case Facebook. Because Facebook was subject to the court's jurisdiction, the court is able to order Facebook to do what the court wanted Facebook to do - as long as that order was valid in the same jurisdiction. Thems the rules. Here, the court ordered Facebook to do stop publishing materials. It does not really matter where the materials were "available". As I read the ECJ opinion, the bit about social network distribution is really about the fact that publication in areas outside of Austria would likely continue to have an impact inside Austria.
Best perhaps explained by example. Let's say you were a French citizen back in the day. You were know for killing English knights. You were arrested in England and brought before the King. Because you were arrested in England you were subject to "personal" jurisdiction of the King. The King could order you to stop killing English knights anywhere in the world. Is this enforceable? Yes. The question is where? If you went back to France and continued again took up your habit of killing English knights, it is likely that no French court would care. BUT, if you EVER returned to England, the King would have your head.
In this case, if Facebook failed to honor the court's order, it would be subject to sanction in Austria because it continues to be in Austria.
I do not necessarily agree with the analysis of the article in terms of "re-applying" liability. However, even if it did, liability existed, it would be to the user and not the RiAA. And, of course the user has agreed to the TOS which no doubt waive any claims as against Twitch. So, not a great result for the public but perhaps an understandable choice by the company.
Funny, I was just speaking with my 17 year-old about this. He was just as frustrated. While I share the frustration, I tried to explain to him that there are valid business decisions that support the take-down treatment. adopting a "cooperative" mode would require Nintendo to create and manage the resources to do so. They would have to essentially not only investigate to discover, they would have to investigate to see if it was of sufficient quality to cooperate with.
And, to the extent such product become seen as any form of "official" Nintendo project would require Nintendo to invest in the people necessary to manage such an operation and maintain quality control, etc (something excused when dealing with a fan-mod but not necessarily when dealing with a large studio). The fact that they have moved away from litigation also shows a disinterest in investing - litigation is an expensive way to play "wack-a-mole".
So, while I agree with the sentiment, I can also see the side that says, "no, sorry, it's not worth our time to invest...".
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.
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.
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................
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.
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.
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.