Pure schadenfreude makes me want to see the Copying is not Theft shirt brought back first, just to tweak the people who threw fits over it last time, and Home Cooking is Killing Restaurants would be a good second choice.
For a new addition, inspired by an old trend that seems to be cropping up in the comment section perhaps a Curse you spam filters! shirt?
My guess is that he had to access several databases to collect the information, and either had to submit a justification for why he was doing so or if he didn't need to do so someone noticed what he was doing and asked why. Union gets word of what is happening and throws it's tantrum.
I mean we're not talking about serious crimes like copyright infringement here, I'm sure that after a stern talking to they learned their lesson, no need to go overboard and impose some sort of punishment for what really amounts to harmless pranks.
I'll preface this by stating that I can't seem to find the article that covered it, so the details might be off, but the closest I can think of was a case a few years back where either the FBI or another group sent someone to play 'terrorist recruiter' in a mosque in the US, the people there got suspicious and tried to report the agent, only to have pressure brought to bear on them in an attempt to turn them into unwilling informants.
Like I said though, I can't find the article so the details might be somewhat off, though trying to force people to become informants and punishing those that refuse is S.O.P. for the FBI, so it's likely to be fairly close.
Because those 'protections' have more holes than a target at a gun range hosting a 'Free bullets' day, to the point that it is effectively impossible for them to trigger, barring the accused literally admitting in court that they knew that they were filing a bogus DMCA claim and did it anyway, and even then I wouldn't put good odds on their being punished to any real extent.
The fact that the law theoretically requires a statement made under perjury, and bots, which cannot do so are allowed to send DMCA claims should be all the demonstration you need to show how pathetic the 'protections to prevent fraudulent claims' are.
The law was meant from the get-go to be entirely one-sided, it's 'legal' because it's working as intended.
No, 'unfair as hell' would be blaming a site for what their users do because a) you're too lazy to go after the user, or b) you can't find them.
'It's too hard/much work to do it right' does not give you the right to place the burden on someone else and screw everyone over in the process.
Put bluntly, the free speech rights, including anonymity(something which you yourself are taking advantage of), of the public far outweigh the hurt feelings/reputations(justified or not) of the individuals that might find themselves at a dead-end because even after going through the song and dance of court the most they can get is the removal of one or a few posts at a time.
The cost to prevent anonymous people saying mean things by requiring site to pre-screen everything is a cost far too high, causing real and significant harm for a comparatively insignificant amount of gain, so while it may suck for those frustrated by being told 'No, you are not in fact allowed to sue the site because someone who uses it said something mean/bad', that's just too bad for them.
A 'Fair Use' issue made by someone who is attacking the very concept of fair use?
Clearly he's just too lazy and uncreative to come up with his own words to explain the concept, and has to steal them from other people, taking money out of the pockets of those he could have paid to come up with something simply because he's too cheap to do so.
And, perhaps more importantly, the character that Lohan is desperate to associate herself with for the purposes of this lawsuit is one that is depicted engaging in sex acts in a public setting and being photographed doing so. I'm struggling to understand why one would want to engage in this kind of legal reach under those circumstances.
The funny thing is, while people may not have associated her with those sorts of things before this lawsuit, after spending years telling the courts how similar the character is with her she really has no grounds to complain if people make that connection now.
Exactly. This was never about solving the problem of age discrimination, as that would force them go go after the wealthy studios who are throwing lots of money at politicians, it was about going after an 'easy' target and pretending that doing so is solving the problem.
And without that analysis exploring the First Amendment implications, we now have the RIAA, MPAA and their friends trying to make the powers to censor even stronger, which is quite ridiculous coming from two organizations that often highlight their commitment to the First Amendment.
The RIAA and MPAA are 'committed' to the First Amendment in the same way that a drunk is 'committed' to the beer they're holding. They'll gush about how much they love it and declare it's the best thing ever... right until it no longer does what they want it to, at which point they'll throw it in the trash without a moment's hesitation.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
More stuff is being created than ever before, much of it in spite of copyright law(especially copyright law according to the AA's), but to admit that would be to admit that copyright does not in fact need to be constantly ratcheted up, and could in fact do with some reduction, which would undermine their whole argument of 'More copyright = More creativity'.
How do you know that the post was from someone else and not the site owner? Perhaps one if the staff?
Section 230 combined with anonymous posting leaves few legal options. That sites could post and repost the same materual and claim it is from a new user waxh time creates real issyes.
And now you're moving into conspiracy theory territory based upon wild speculations of 'what could happen'.
Sure something like that could happen, but 230 wouldn't do squat there because if it did then 230 wouldn't apply, as it only covers content not made by those that run the site.
You might say that 230 would still apply and shield them because you couldn't prove that the site owner was the one reposting the content, in which case that's still working as intended. Even in that case, where the site owner is the one posting the content unless you can prove it holding them accountable is still punishing a party that as far as the evidence is concerned isn't responsible.
As for the 'no legal options', no, unless you want to claim that what I posted above about 'take it to court and then take that to the site' is wrong, then it's hardly the case that 230 doesn't leave any legal options, it just narrows them to the responsible party, the one who posted the content. If you can't find them then back to court to try and go after the site directly, and if that's an uphill battle then that's just too bad, the alternative is worse.
The pin biard wxample is perfect. A store allows free for sale ads and stuff, but doesn't monitir it. Wheb someone likks the ads are all for dryds and hookers. If the store does nothinf about it, do they becone conspirators in these crimes?
Not as far as I know, and the searches I just did didn't find anything either way, though the law as regards to physical message boards might differ from digital ones so it's possible.
However, while a physical message board might be similar to a digital one at the level of 'Owner posts the board/site, allows content without vetting', there are some significant differences that would justify a difference in how the law treats the two, with scope being the main one.
A standard physical message board is likely to contain a few dozen messages at most, and requires people to physically go to it, further decreasing the number of people that have access to it. Contrast this to a site, which can have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of posts on a regular basis.
If a site had to worry about being responsible for any that 'slipped through' most of them wouldn't even bother, resulting in a massive chilling of speech, causing vastly more damage than would be prevented.
Yeah, I'd avoid the US if at all possible for the foreseeable future. Look at the sights online if you really want to, but do not try to come here in person, spend that money in some other country that will appreciate it more.