Tanner Andrews’s Techdirt Profile

tanner_andrews

About Tanner Andrews




Tanner Andrews’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 25th, 2016 @ 4:59am

    The Mayor May Well Be Correct

    The public records law [Ch. 119, generally] only applies to records made or received as part of the entity's business. Unless there is some action on the part of the city's governing board authorizing, or use of city resources supporting, the mayor's facebook page, I think he has a strong argument that it is his and not the city's.

    Officials do not lose all rights to act as themselves during their time in office. You do not get to review the mayor's personal check register, either, nor do you get to review his contributions to his church to see whether he tithes.

    I have not seen the suit, but presume that there are some allegations trying to tie the facebook account to the city. I am of the view that it will not be an easy case.

  • Oct 20th, 2016 @ 1:36am

    Just Waiting

    One of these days, someone whose video is subjected to a takedown notice is going to file suit for a declaration of non-infringement. The sender of the takedown notice is likely to feel sad as a result, especially if the court awards fees to the prevailing video author.

    One or two of these will probably not stem the tide of invalid notices, but it could start a trend.

  • Oct 20th, 2016 @ 1:13am

    Not Perjury

    [I do believe that knowingly filing a false court document counts as perjury]

    The courts do not agree. For perjury you need a knowing false statement of material fact under oath. But thank you for playing.

    And points off for whoever broke the HTML ``blockquote'' feature.

  • Aug 23rd, 2016 @ 6:00am

    Re: Re:

    they make less money if they give accurate advice

    That conflict was resolved long ago. The lawyer's duty is to the client. Lawyers are expected to warn clients that proposed actions are losers.

    Also, however, they should distinguish sure losers from likely losers. There may be some reason to fight where loss is likely but not certain.

  • Aug 23rd, 2016 @ 5:14am

    Re: A new chapter in the Big Business of Identity Theft

    [portfolio recovery associates, anchor receivables]

    Well, I never thought I would say that these companies are legitimate. I can say, however, that at least Portfolio are a buyer of used debt. They then try to monetize it. I am not as familiar with Anchor but would be unsurprised if they were similar.

    Some of the used debt is time-barred, and some of it has other problems, so it is generally worth defending. If you get a call from these people, tell them to send a letter and stop calling. If you get a letter, you or your atty can send an appropriate dispute notice.

    If you get a notice for court, take it to a lawyer right away. Do not ignore. If you do not know what you are doing, paying a lawyer will generally result in a better outcome at lower cost, even in small claims.

    There is often a fee-shifting provision. This may make the cost of the lawyer even more reasonable.

    Disclaimer: The law in your state may vary. I am not your lawyer. Go away.

  • Aug 23rd, 2016 @ 5:02am

    Re: Re: He's got a job to do, and he's doing it.

    But will he get paid for it?

    Not really any of our business. That is between him and his client. He might be handling it pro bono, for instance, because he is a big believer in their type of publishing; there would probably be an assignment of fees in such a case.

    He may also be getting paid every month as he sends bills to the client. Or he could bill irregularly because he is busy with other things. All of that is between him and his client.

    With all that in mind, I do remind people that the atty should not take an interest in the litigation itself. The rules on this can get complicated, however, because of legitimate contingency fee arrangements in tort cases and unconstitutional fee restrictions in worker comp cases. And things are at least somewhat different in your state.

  • Aug 22nd, 2016 @ 7:16am

    Re: Re: If you are still using PayPal...

    As a consumer the only way I can deal with some businesses is Paypal.
    That's why there are other businesses.

  • Aug 22nd, 2016 @ 1:51am

    Collaborative Effort

    The vendor did more than furnish a tool. It was an active participant. It is as though Smith and Wesson were handing bullets to a guy operating a single-shot rifle so that he could more quickly fire at his victims.

    Here, the ``tool'' worked only with the active participation of the defendant Awareness. Awareness knowingly and intentionally, as part of its product, collected intercepted data. At least that appears to be the allegation of the complaint; it remains to be proved.

  • Jul 31st, 2016 @ 3:29am

    Re: What EXACT free speech is being violated

    In the same manner that I don't have access to the coding of this website (I can only see the results, not the code driving it), I don't have any particular rights to code that may exist as part of an item

    The situations are not analogous. I have may have no useful rights to a video of my neighbor reading a book, but if I purchase the book I have rights to my copy.

    I can repair that book. I can take it apart and re-bind it as the old binding wears out. I can furnish new covers if I want. The author's rights to the words printed inside it are undiminished, but the rights to the particular copy are mine. I could, should I choose, rip out chapter 3 (the one with the nasty bits about Judge -- and the banking cartel).

    I can highlight some of the remaining chapters. I can scribble notes in there. I can pass my copy along to a buyer, complete with my notes and the missing chapter 3 if I still have it.

    Likewise, if I purchase some device, I gain no rights to the code inside it. I cannot sell copies of that code. But I can surely sell my device. Or open it up and repair it. I can rip out the offending chapter 3, the part which says ``do not work when vendor sends a disable code'', should it please me to do so.

    All this works because I have the rights of ownership of my copy.

  • Jul 30th, 2016 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Taking lessons from the Erdogan School of Thin-Skin I see

    It's entirely plausible that the documents were provided under a non-disclosure agreement, and that L+G has legitimate reasons to want them to not be public

    In such a case, you do not provide them to the public. The government is, at least in theory, merely the face of the public.

  • Jul 9th, 2016 @ 8:50pm

    Re: (city decides to incorporate someone elses work)

    What happens is that the city decides to incorporate someone elses (sic) work into their law without consultation with or payment to the standards body

    It is not quite as you describe. The standards agencies actually urge the adoption of their standards as law. See, e.g. Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, 293 F.3d 791,794 (US 5th Cir. en banc) (SBCCI urges local govts to adopt its standards as provided).

  • Jul 9th, 2016 @ 11:47am

    Re:

    If you can have secret courts, why can't you have secret cases too?

    Secret courts are an obvious evil. For the same reason, secret cases so qualify; I have one of those pending now and to date the court does not appear sympathetic to my views.

    What is wrong with it? Well, I agree with the court in R. v. Sussex Justices, 1924 K.B. 256,259 (K.B. 1924) that it is not enough for justice to be done, it must also be seen to be done. And if it is not seen, you can be fairly confident that ultimately it will not be done, for as Justice Brandeis said, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant, electric light the most efficient policeman.''

  • Jul 9th, 2016 @ 11:41am

    Re:

    I'll respect Techdirt's decision not to release the name, court, judge(s), and attorneys who violated America's justice system,

    Why? Techdirt has become complicit in protecting a court and its judges from the appropriate public disapproval.

    Since we have very little chance of more directly influencing judicial behavior toward the good, it seems to me that cooperating with the bad behavior is itself a bad thing.

    I will metaphorically fart in Mike's general direction, if this decision is not reversed at least as to the court, judges, and case number.

  • Jul 9th, 2016 @ 11:07am

    Re: Ethical rules - trial publicity. There ARE rules.

    Ethical rules - trial publicity. There ARE rules.

    Yes, there are rules. And the judge acknowledges that the rules were not violated. None the less, an outrageous sanction is imposed for expressly not violating the rules.

    My personal impression from reading the order is that the judge was not impressed with the plaintiffs' cases. To the extent there was judicial discretion it would be exercised in favor of the defendants. The court even reduced the judgment to only twice the belated offer from the defendants, plus fees.

    The judicial conduct in question appears to me likely to increase disrespect for the courts and the judiciary. However, it is in Ohio, and so it is possible either that the general regard for the courts is low, or they do not require judges to act in such a way as to encourage public confidence in their courts. I am not familiar with the law of Ohio, though I have spelled the name of the state on multiple occasions.

  • Jul 4th, 2016 @ 12:27pm

    Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shitgibbon

    I think you have a correct use of the trade mark.

    A trade mark is intended to assist consumers in distinguishing particular products and their origins. If I were to sell a snack under the Cheeto name, it would be infringement; the same is true if I were to sell malted battery acid under the Pepsi name. But if I were to say that I want a lunch consisting of Cheeto snacks and Pepsi malted battery acid, I should be correctly using the marks.

    Here, the writer is correctly using the trade mark to identify a particular product from a particular vendor. That is the intent of trade marks.

    Sure, Pepsi could say that it does not want to be associated with a Cheeto-faced ferret-wearing shitgibbon, but that is a political issue largely unrelated to the question of whether the use of the Cheeto name is correct to identify a particular product from a particular vendor.

    Assume also that I insult Cafe Press at this point.

  • Jun 30th, 2016 @ 8:18pm

    (untitled comment)

    I say paintball guns rather than real ones

    I expect that, eventually, some bright fellow will have a high school kid climb up the pole and simply apply duct tape across the lens opening.

  • Jun 30th, 2016 @ 6:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Nobody is arguing

    which law and regulation exactly are they ignoring

    Many [all?] Uber drivers are operating cars which are licensed as standard personal transportation rather than carrying taxi licenses. Moreover, they are insured as personal transportation rather than as liveried carriers.

    When one gets in an accident, I expect to see some interesting responses from the insurance company.

  • May 27th, 2016 @ 6:29am

    Injunction Not Granted, says Original Article

    At this point, the injunction doesn't appear to have been granted

    It happens that "muckrock" disagrees with you, and claims that they have are subject to such an injunction. Sure, we all know the trial court got it wrong. Most of us also recall that prior restraint is generally disfavored in the U.S.

    The good news for the smart meter company is that the Muckrock website appears to have been created by a genius web developer, so it renders in such a way as to be absolutely useless. Someone thinks they know way more HTML than average.

    In the future, they should not be allowed anything more complicated than wet string. In the mean time, however, when the injunction is reversed, the meter company will have the consolation of knowing that the documents are still made largely inaccessible.

  • May 22nd, 2016 @ 6:05pm

    Re: Society disrupted by technology.


    We as a society will have to learn that everyone makes mistakes. Everyone has pasts. Everyone has teenage nudes on the web somewhere.

    Not quite. Some people are so old that their teen years had passed long before car phones had cameras, and taking actual photos on actual film was a much bigger deal.

    It did not tend to happen as often as kids taking improper pictures of themselves happens today because the barrier to entry today is so much lower. Of course this does not stop state's attorneys from treating it as being every bit as much a problem as it would have been when they were born.

    The results are sometimes silly: a kid who takes a picture of himself is now a felon, and also the victim, and, yes, the law does appear to be an ass.

  • May 18th, 2016 @ 1:45am

    Congress can Ask Questions of Anyone, But May Not Receive Answers

    There is a newspaper downstairs from my office. They have a web site. Do you really think that Congress can ask them questions about how their stories are chosen?

    Now try to distinguish Facebook, Fox, &c., in some First-Amendment-neutral manner and founded on something within the power of Congress to regulate.

More comments from Tanner Andrews >>