Reminds me that, some years ago, then French president Nicolas Sarkozy asked some senior magistrates about the possibility of abstaining from publishing the decrees relative to a set of security laws in the "Journal officiel de la République française", France's government gazette. Even the (few) magistrates who were politically sympathetic to him found the idea absurdly preposterous. No statute in France is binding in any way if it wasn't published in the "JO", as it is commonly called.
This guy has no respect for democratic institution. I hope he doesn't manage to come back to power.
Georgia's constitution has no equivalent of the Copyright Clause (article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution of the United States). However, it states in its article I, section I, paragraph V: "Freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed. No law shall be passed to curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty."
Copyright is a restriction of Free Speech, an exception to it. The power to instate such an exception is only granted to the federal level. Georgia has no such provision in its constitution, therefore it doesn't have the power to instate its own version of the exception. Only the provisions of the Copyright Act can apply in Georgia to restrict freedom of speech on that basis. They only have that ground, and the Copyright Clause, as a basis to sue Carl Malamund.
See my first post in this discussion: this isn't possible because the USA's litigation laws are plain and simply INSANE. There has been proposals to institute a "loser pays" system, but they tend to be one-sided, with only a losing defendant refunding the fees to the plaintiff, not the other way around.
For more info about how sane systems work, se there.
Again, a demonstration that getting rid of the American Rule would bring a bit more sanity in the USA's litigation system. Not that it would directly help MonsterFishKeeper in this case, but it would somewhat deter patent trolls and (like in this case) brand hegemonists.
I've been consistently using the same pseudonym online for over a decade. It allowed me to voice my opinion on controversial matters, and it also lead me to be recognized over various websites (and other internet places), to the point someone, in a blog comments discussion, served me a quote from myself dating back to eight years before. It was consistent with what I was saying, I think my interlocutor was being meta-facetious, because the subject at hand was precisely the usefulness of pseudonyms.
So, online, I'm not really anonymous, but I do my best to be pseudonymous, which is different.
On the other hand, I've had to create a new nick recently, that one openly related to my civil identity, for use in tech areas, because in tech jobs, your online contributions in the domain are more and more looked at. I participated in tech talks over the years, but only as Schmorgluck, which is inconvenient for my carreer.
There's also forums, especially fandom forums, that gather people who, while not necessarily totally like-minded, share some common points of interest (at least one - the fandom at hand - but most likely more). When you add IRL meetings to this, it sometimes leads to nice encounters. I know of at least three long-standing couples that started like that, plus a handful that lasted a little while, just from one forum.
Really, the Greens can't be accused to jump on a bandwagon on these matters. There may be substantial differences reguarding the relevant means and the extent of changes needed, but the concerns that make up the backbone of the Pirate Party's revendications are shared by the Greens for a long time.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Schmorgluck.