Palo Alto and the Bay Area have about three law firms on every block, but they had to go all the way to L.A. to find a lawyer wiling to sign this complaint. Are they specialists in entertainment law, I.e. fiction?
I looked a the ToS and really, if we can't post pictures of beheadings, what's the point?
As anyone familiar with telecom knows, running wires is a natural monopoly, or in this case duopoly since telcos and cablecos run slightly different wires. There are no legal barriers to overbuilding new networks, only economic ones. If you're aware of ways that NY state can change the laws of economics, I know a lot of people who'd like to hear about it. Actually there is a way, structural separation, but it would have to happen at the Federal level. It works great in Europe where there are zillions of ISPs sharing utility wires.
When you say "copyright isn't about protecting a musician's image," that is true in the U.S. but not in other countries. In 2000 Australia passed a moral rights amendment to their copyright act which includes Right of integrity of authorship:
derogatory treatment, in relation to a literary, dramatic or musical work, means:
(a) the doing, in relation to the work, of anything that results in a material distortion of, the mutilation of, or a material alteration to, the work that is prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation; or
(b) the doing of anything else in relation to the work that is prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation.
Given the facts in this case I'd say her moral rights argument under Australian law would be quite strong. Remedies include injunctions and damages.
I would bet serious money that no human looked at that initial letter before it was sent out. It is totally generic, and it is not signed by anyone.
Minor error: After Lotus v. Borland was decided by the first circuit, the Supreme Court divided 4-4 so it was upheld by default but didn't set a formal precedent.
I agree that everyone except Larry Ellison believed that the issue was settled decades ago.
Hansmeier appealed to the 8th circuit, which duly considered the arguments and decided, yup, decision affirmed. He still owes $1.5M restitution.
The first amendment puts higher or lower bars on various kinds of speech restrictions, but requiring someone to publish something, known as compelled speech, gets as high a bar as anything. Expecting 230 repeal to do that is impressively inane. I assume their legal advice is coming from the same dream team that's managing the Trump campaign's election challenges.
The "Biden" emails are clearly copyrightable. The question is by whom.
It's censorship because it hurt my feelings. Thanks for asking.
NDA's only apply if you sign them.
Ms. Trump may well be on the hook for damages. S&S is not.
As to why Robert Trump is the plaintiff, who knows, maybe the book reveals that he's even worse than his brother.
Rent is exactly the correct term. Extending the copyright term, particularly retroactively, is about as pure a rent-seeking activity as I have ever seen.
Your phone company knows where your phone is whenever it's turned on -- that's how mobile phones work. Even without GPS they get pretty close by what towers it's contacting.
The problem is that the telcos can and do sell that info rather than limiting it to network operations. If we had an FCC chair who understood the difference between a Verizon lobbyist and a regulator, the path to fixing this problem would not be hard.
I'm surprised they left a giant loophole for us unpatriotic people who live so close to the border that we enter and leave the US in our cars, or occasionally on foot or in a boat (all quite legally.)
I also am trying to imagine how they would do exit scanning of people in cars.
It is definitely not a bug in the GDPR that it makes it difficult or impractical to scrape data off the net and sell it. Everyone affected by GDPR had literally years of warning. If it turned out that the company couldn't afford to maintain their scraped database and comply, that is a failure of their business plan, not of the GDPR.
Surely you can do better than this.
I don't understand how a state law can work. Firmware like the stuff in a tractor is copyrighted, and there's unfortunate federal laws against breaking DRM even if it's technically easy to do so.
Federal law always supersedes state law. So why can't Deere just say too bad, it's copyrighted and you go to jail if you hack it?
The chalk mark runs down the side of the tire onto the pavement. It would take some pretty fancy driving to move the car and put it back with the tire and pavement mark still aligned.
To whoever said that the chalk can damage the tire, get real. Chalk is very soft; if it can damage your tire, I hope you never have to drive through a mud puddle.
I'm a Slate Plus subscriber. For the most part, I get the same podcasts as non-subscribers without the ads. But more to the point. I would love to spend all my time making high quality podcasts and giving them away, but I have to eat. There have always been a variety of business models on the web and it has been clear for a while that free content is often worth only what you pay for it, so I pay for all sorts of stuff, from the Financial Times to Questionable Content.
I think Slate's podcasts are worth $4/mo. If you don't, that's fine, but what's evil about paying for stuff if you think it's worth it?
I will be interested to see what the DPAs do with these complaints. It's not like the US, they prefer to negotiate and agree to undertakings, and they rarely fine unless the offender has been intransigent. Their version of intelligible is likely not the same as Schrems'.
The French DPA did just fine Google 50M€ on another Scrhems complaint, which is enough to get their attention but hardly going to put them out of business.
big data and small data
The reason their AI tags mass shootings and cockfights as car washes and paintball is that there are a lot more videos of innocuous stuff than dangerous or illegal stuff, and their training algorithms match what they're trained on. It's the same reason that facial recognition s/w doesn't recognize black people, because the training images are mostly white people.
Facial recognition is fixable because training images are easy to collect, mass shootings much less so.