This is a silly response and demonstrates a limited understanding of the scope of your discipline and where it fits into the continuum of education. Sure, these topics are not appropriate for a college level CS course, but that doesn't mean they aren't related to computer science. To give a concrete example, consider the something as simple as basic mathematics. If OP had shown up asking for "a good mathematics curriculum covering addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division" would you have responded saying that's not "mathematics" because those topics aren't covered in college level math courses? There's no hard and fast rule that says CS topics start at college... it's all part of the the continuum of education.
Two reasons for SSL: verification and encryption. Sure, if the domains don't match you don't have verification, but the communication is still encrypted, and if you happen to control both ends of the exchange, that's all you need.
I said nothing about your notes... and neither did you, until just now.
A teacher can no more copyright her notes, than...
(emphasis is mine)
But yes, I wouldn't allow her to destroy my notes either. Doesn't change the fact that her notes are her notes, her writings are her writings, and her books are her books... and she may do with them as she pleases. I think you'd also be very surprise to see how little tax-payer money actually ends up in the form of professor salaries, so be careful throwing around terms like paycheck. You may not like what you discover.
That there is, in fact, a time and a place for scorched earth politics? Certainly what I would have thought if I had just been bruitally run out of my own city by Napoleon.
I never said otherwise, just that instances are far and few between, and even less so between a student and school administration.
My comment was not directed at the act of scanning or retyping. From the parent:
If a teacher tried that shit with me I'd spend the time to type the notes (redacting anything that might refelect my style) and ensure they spread widely. I would instantly lie when asked for the notes, either that I didn't have them or that they were mixed with unrelated info.
The distribution and the lying is what makes this a bad act and is what turns sympathetic victims into petulant students. Why give up your best asset -- innocence -- with such a childish strategy? Is the point to win, or is the point to cause damage... because I for one prefer winning, and that means adopting strategies that work, even if there are more vindictive ones available.
As the significant other of an academic at a state university, I would be awfully surprised if you could. I think what you might be able to say is that as employees of state governments the copyrights on those works belong to the state governments in question... and thus it is up to the state governments whether or not the works fall into the public domain, are assigned to the original author, or whatever.
The standard pratice at the University of Washington -- where I attended and wrote software as an employee -- and at the University of California: Santa Cruz -- where my partner works -- is that the original author holds the copyright and neither the State nor the University has any say in what happens to those works.
I don't disagree with the sentiments that the work should "belong to the people", but I am saying that, in practice and in law, it's just not the case today.
Typo on the apostrophe... shouldn't be there at all.
To answer your question, CUNY is a part of the New York State government... though it appears there is some funky overlay with the City of New York. But, then again, NYC is also a part of the New York State government, so I imagine that all works out in the wash. Never forget that in the United States all local political units (county, city, water board, school board, etc) are considered to be sub-divisions of the state government.
As for West Point, I'm going to hide behind Wikipedia and say that West Point is not a University or a College, but is, in fact, a Service Academy:) But yes, West Point is an organ of the federal government and thus the creative works of its employees would not be eligible for copyright.
This is exactly the sort of response that make things worse. I'm all for *sticking* it to the teacher, but there are better ways that won't expose you to unnecessary accusations of being a bad actor.
Every school has an ombudsman whose purpose is to negotiate conflicts between students and the administration / faculty. They are usually very pro-student. I have zero doubt this issue would be resolved in favor of the students, but you have to approach it diplomatically... scorched earth policies make as much sense here as they do in international relations.
There are no universities or colleges that are part of the United State's Government. All public schools are State schools. The provision in the U.S. copyright law that prevents the United States Government from obtaining a copyright -- thus putting the work into the public domain -- does not apply to state governments. Professors absolutely have a copyright on their class slides and books they write.
The stupidest thing Comcast could do is define the exact point of "abuse"... the moment the rule was specified is the moment those interested in wrecking havoc will figure out a way to get around the limitation. Keeping an unspecified threshold allows for the case-by-case analysis that is required. And before you get all high-and-mighty about how that's unfair, I would take a look at the very nature of the U.S. legal system and tell me what exactly is meant by the term "reasonable" or the dozen other subjective terms used to specify limitations and punishments.
If someone perpetrated a crime --let's say, mugging university students who walk through the campus alone at night-- you wouldn't say, "Well, clearly this is a case-by-case thing, because he didn't mug me when I walked there alone at night." I don't think the analogies fit. It's more like the principle giving out detention to the kids who deface school property with graffiti while letting a student who sticks gum under a desk a get off with a warning. Both students have done something "wrong," but enforcement is only brought down upon those whose wrongdoings are significant enough to warrant it. And, to be clear, the "wrong" is not illegal file sharing, but excessive use of bandwidth.
I don't think I'm sounding like a socialist, I think I'm soundling like a consumer who doesn't want other folks to abuse the system to the point that it degrades my service. But, sure, download a ton of legal music and short films... but don't just download for the sake of downloading. If you're actually listening or watching the media before hunting for the next thing to download, then I don't think you'll be able to break the cap. You can't listen to a three minute song in thirty seconds... which is the whole point, if you only download what you consume, you'll never surpass the cap.
I hate to break up the Comcast hate fest, but I've been running Comcast since I left the dorms in '03 and I have a very different experience... during that time I've been a fairly active bandwidth use, mostly through regular apt-get dist-upgrades of the debian/unstable. That's a healthy bought of downloading every night, on top of the lots of browsing and SFTP traffic for posting webpages for clients. I am also the occasional bitTorrent user... mostly ISOs for installing, but I will not deny that I have downloaded a TV episode from time to time in situations where I missed the airing.
In all of this time I have never, not once, noticed throttling. In fact, the my available bandwidth has been increasing every year and is now a full three times faster than when I first started in '03. Although upload rates remains pretty pathetic. My point here is that Comcast isn't stopping bitTorrent traffic is its entirety, it is targeting those who are pillaging a common resource. The nature of the network is as a shared commodity, and every idiot who leaves 20 seeds running on their server in some vein attempt to "stick it to the man" degrades the common experience. I remember there was a quote from a Comcast rep a few weeks back saying the current bandwidth usage at which you'll be cut off would require you to download a full song like every 30 seconds for 24 hours a day. Come on people?! It's just not possible to consume that much downloaded media.
I agree, Comcast says unlimited when it is not, in fact, unlimited... but as a user with legitimate and legal bandwidth needs, I don't want to switch to a pay/per-use plan. So, if that means Comcast has to clean out those who abuse the system, then that's okay by me.
Ah, now that is an interesting point! If I have permission to use the game companies materials, and I combine it with my own, I have created a derivative work. Unless, of course, it's nothing more than just a copy & paste job... which is boring.
So now you enter a whole new realm of intersting theory. We've got permission to use the source material and a derived work based upon that permission. For the game copy to "own" that derived work there must be an assignment, and the trick about assignments is they must be in writting. I would seriously question whether a TOS would suffice as an assignment. But my original point still stands... so long as the author of the derivative work has any copyrighted material at all... formating, layout, font choice... anything at all, they can file a legitimate DMCA takedown notice to protect their interests. That the derived work is based on the game company only means that the game copmany can also file a DMCA takedown.
If that's the case--I honestly haven't checked--then the game company doesn't need a TOS for protection anyway, because that's just plain old copyright infringement, end of story. However, a creative lawyer might try to argue that the organization of the wiki itself is a copyrighted work. But that really wouldn't help defuse an underlying claim of infringement.
According to the generally accepted thought about the NC option (from what I gather) a for profit corporation cannot avail themselves of any NC based licenses whatsoever. I don't think the license makes this claim and I've seen very little legal writing to support the conclusion. Certainly the license could have come out and said that, but it didn't... and probably for good reason. Consider google.org, a for-profit corporate entity, which makes zero dollars. I don't believe it would be prohibited from using NC materials. What about google.com... it does stuff that has no immediate financial gain... like blogger, for example. No ads there unless the blog writer wants them to be there. Does that trigger the NC term?
I've always felt the NC clause to be weakly drafted and wrapped in confusion. As a trained lawyer I am left to wonder when exactly my client's actions become primarily targeted at commercial gain. If I use the content in an instructional guide given out only to those who have already purchased the product, is that commercial? Certainly could be... except I'm not charging for the guide and I've already made the money. What if the guide is given away for free before hand? What if the guide has substantial non-profit motives but happens to spread my client's name around and thus drums up future business?
I appreciate those who license their work under the NC terms and get what they are trying to avoid... I just which the CC made it more clear to those of us trying to do the right thing.
That means that if, for example, you post an article in a wiki that contains verbatim descriptions of things found in-game or in documentation otherwise produced by the game company, which most articles are, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to make a DMCA claim because the content is not yours to begin with. This is patently false. In the US context if I write an article in which I critique "verbatim descriptions of things found in-game or in documentation otherwise produced by the game company," my usage is protected under Fair Use principles mandated by the First Amendment. Note that critique is a very broad word in this context and can be as simple as "this in-game element is stupid." No click-thru terms of service can deprive me of those rights. I own the entire article, as a complete work of authorship under the Copyright Act, which provides me all the rights and protection of the DMCA and the plain old claim of copyright infringement.
Parent is mistaken if they believe that we only have rights in relation to government agencies. That's simply not how the world functions. I have the right to not be struck by moving cars, which is enforced by my right to bring a suit in torts against anyone who does strike me by a moving car. There are all manner of rights which exist between private parties. Some have existed since the first common law courts on England, others are more modern such as civil rights laws passed by Congress in the 50s and 60s. In all cases it is a right a private actor enforces against another.
One such right is the right of LiveJournal to avoid any liability for defamatory material posted on their site by members. The law explicitly exempts LiveJournal (and other service providers) from the same liability a newspaper would carry if it printed the same materials. There is zero government involvement.
Another, perhaps more analogous, example is that a landlord cannot put in a lease that they can evict you without cause or without notice. Sure, it's the landlords private property, but the courts have long held that as it becomes your home you have certain rights which trump the private property holder. Again, no government involvement needed.
Which is all a way of saying that the "right" to not be deemed in violation of ToS because a link you pointed to has changed to something different is not a far-fetched right. It's just another layer of rights and regulations that form the web that is our legal framework.
While it is everyones choice not to appear before a foreign court when summoned, it is a decision one should take pretty seriously. For example, I have every intention of going to the EU at some point in my life, and maybe even visiting Romania. I'm not crazy about the idea of entering the country only to be arrested because on a failure to appear charge. The proper legal action, if I am being sued in a foreign court, is to try to terminate the case for lack of jurisdiction. But that means I at least have to respond to the case, I (or my representatives) have to talk to the judge, etc, etc. Just pretending like it's not happening is generally not a good idea.
More importantly, everyone presumes the radio station will bring suit in the U.S. That seems like a pretty silly assumption on their part. They might try that route, but unless Romania exists in some strange legal nether world, the radio station should have no problem securing local council and bringing the suit right there in his native land.
Once information is out on the net, the genie is out of the bottle forever. There is no putting it back. It cannot be removed, regardless of whether it was right or wrong to have been released. Any subsequent re-releases of the same information are irrelevant, so asking someone to stop means nothing.
This is 100% true in a global sense. The information is out and there is nothing that can be done about it. But that doesn't mean the initial offenders cannot be punished. Digg will prove an interesting example here, for they may very well be sued for there involvement with that pesky little number and their decision not to comply with the takedown notice. Such lawsuits may not stop the number from being widely known, it may even increase the pool of those that do know it, but it will hurt the pecuniary interests of the company, which is why they tried to take down the number in the first place. Which in turn sets an example to future companies who may consider the same course of action.
Yes, based on the facts so far it doesn't seem like this guy did anything I would consider wrong, and I agree the company in question seems to be making some tall claims about business interests. But none of that will matter if the company can get even one claim to stick in court. You may not be able to stop the stampede, but you sure can shoot down the guy who started it.
This is an excellent point... I don't know the first thing about Romanian law, so maybe your right. Might not be any juries or defamation issues. Of course, my guess is that there is defamation law there, since it's a pretty universal law these days (although the particulars vary greatly). I'd also bet there is a pretty substantial body of tort law there, which provies all means of avenues to bring suit.
In principle I agree. But at the same time, I think there is something both healthy and humane about evaluating the nature of the parties when dealing out justice. If the guy in question really is a jerk, it's going to come across in the court room and people are going to wonder... did he have "jerky" intent when he did whatever it is they accused him of? Context matters, and in the absence of cold hard facts about the context at the time of the act, courts and juries will rely on the context of the present and make certain reasonable assumptions.
I agree, it's not an ideal system. And people game the system by acting all sweet in front of a jury, and that sucks too. But if you're going to write about on going or potential litigation, being a tad thoughtful ahead of time can save you a lot of headache.
It's really too bad the blogger is taking this so personally, continuing to blog about it, and cannot spell. None of these make him a sympathetic defendant... and if it eventually gets to court that's going to matter a good deal. Like it or not, hackers have a bad public reputation, and if this punk gets in front of a jury and spouts off the way he has been on his blog, his case is sunk regardless of whether the written law is on his side. Each time he goes on a rant he gets closer to defamation and now it's a whole new ball game.
Word of advice to those who blog about corporate enterprises... if you get a notice from a company threatening suit for whatever you said, take it seriously and get some legal advice before you try the whole David and Goliath thing. Your conduct after the event in question is just as much at issue as whatever initially upset them. I'm not saying roll over and comply, but figure out how to best manage the situation to protect yourself and convince the corporate bully you're not some 22 year old idiot who is going to make the case ten times easier for them because you can't keep your mouth shut.
This isn't a trademark issue, contrary to the original posters analysis. If you read the article you discover the complaint is not one of customer confusion (which is the core of trademark law) but one of nuisance. While the technologically inclined my simply say this is a product of people being stupid, the fact remains that it's not Universal Tube who is at fault. They aren't asking YouTube to stop being YouTube, they are asking for YouTube to figure out a way to get all of their customers to stop coming to their domain.
Real world example: Two stores next door to eachother. The customers of store A (which is far more popular) keep going through the parking lot of the store B. So many customers, in fact, that the few customers for B can't even get to the store. Certainly the law should provide a remedy for Store B, otherwise we are back to the world of "might makes right." A needs to provide some kind of mitigation for the activity for which it benefits and B suffers.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a silly response and demonstrates a limited understanding of the scope of your discipline and where it fits into the continuum of education. Sure, these topics are not appropriate for a college level CS course, but that doesn't mean they aren't related to computer science. To give a concrete example, consider the something as simple as basic mathematics. If OP had shown up asking for "a good mathematics curriculum covering addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division" would you have responded saying that's not "mathematics" because those topics aren't covered in college level math courses? There's no hard and fast rule that says CS topics start at college... it's all part of the the continuum of education.
Two reasons for SSL: verification and encryption. Sure, if the domains don't match you don't have verification, but the communication is still encrypted, and if you happen to control both ends of the exchange, that's all you need.
I said nothing about your notes... and neither did you, until just now.
A teacher can no more copyright her notes, than...
(emphasis is mine)
But yes, I wouldn't allow her to destroy my notes either. Doesn't change the fact that her notes are her notes, her writings are her writings, and her books are her books... and she may do with them as she pleases. I think you'd also be very surprise to see how little tax-payer money actually ends up in the form of professor salaries, so be careful throwing around terms like paycheck. You may not like what you discover.
That there is, in fact, a time and a place for scorched earth politics? Certainly what I would have thought if I had just been bruitally run out of my own city by Napoleon.
I never said otherwise, just that instances are far and few between, and even less so between a student and school administration.
My comment was not directed at the act of scanning or retyping. From the parent:
If a teacher tried that shit with me I'd spend the time to type the notes (redacting anything that might refelect my style) and ensure they spread widely. I would instantly lie when asked for the notes, either that I didn't have them or that they were mixed with unrelated info.
The distribution and the lying is what makes this a bad act and is what turns sympathetic victims into petulant students. Why give up your best asset -- innocence -- with such a childish strategy? Is the point to win, or is the point to cause damage... because I for one prefer winning, and that means adopting strategies that work, even if there are more vindictive ones available.
Can you cite a law that makes that so? You'll find the U.S. government prohibition in Title 17, Section 105, and an explenation of that clause in the accompanying House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Report.
As the significant other of an academic at a state university, I would be awfully surprised if you could. I think what you might be able to say is that as employees of state governments the copyrights on those works belong to the state governments in question... and thus it is up to the state governments whether or not the works fall into the public domain, are assigned to the original author, or whatever.
The standard pratice at the University of Washington -- where I attended and wrote software as an employee -- and at the University of California: Santa Cruz -- where my partner works -- is that the original author holds the copyright and neither the State nor the University has any say in what happens to those works.
I don't disagree with the sentiments that the work should "belong to the people", but I am saying that, in practice and in law, it's just not the case today.
Typo on the apostrophe... shouldn't be there at all.
To answer your question, CUNY is a part of the New York State government... though it appears there is some funky overlay with the City of New York. But, then again, NYC is also a part of the New York State government, so I imagine that all works out in the wash. Never forget that in the United States all local political units (county, city, water board, school board, etc) are considered to be sub-divisions of the state government.
As for West Point, I'm going to hide behind Wikipedia and say that West Point is not a University or a College, but is, in fact, a Service Academy :) But yes, West Point is an organ of the federal government and thus the creative works of its employees would not be eligible for copyright.
This is exactly the sort of response that make things worse. I'm all for *sticking* it to the teacher, but there are better ways that won't expose you to unnecessary accusations of being a bad actor.
Every school has an ombudsman whose purpose is to negotiate conflicts between students and the administration / faculty. They are usually very pro-student. I have zero doubt this issue would be resolved in favor of the students, but you have to approach it diplomatically... scorched earth policies make as much sense here as they do in international relations.
There are no universities or colleges that are part of the United State's Government. All public schools are State schools. The provision in the U.S. copyright law that prevents the United States Government from obtaining a copyright -- thus putting the work into the public domain -- does not apply to state governments. Professors absolutely have a copyright on their class slides and books they write.
The stupidest thing Comcast could do is define the exact point of "abuse"... the moment the rule was specified is the moment those interested in wrecking havoc will figure out a way to get around the limitation. Keeping an unspecified threshold allows for the case-by-case analysis that is required. And before you get all high-and-mighty about how that's unfair, I would take a look at the very nature of the U.S. legal system and tell me what exactly is meant by the term "reasonable" or the dozen other subjective terms used to specify limitations and punishments.
I don't think I'm sounding like a socialist, I think I'm soundling like a consumer who doesn't want other folks to abuse the system to the point that it degrades my service. But, sure, download a ton of legal music and short films... but don't just download for the sake of downloading. If you're actually listening or watching the media before hunting for the next thing to download, then I don't think you'll be able to break the cap. You can't listen to a three minute song in thirty seconds... which is the whole point, if you only download what you consume, you'll never surpass the cap.
I hate to break up the Comcast hate fest, but I've been running Comcast since I left the dorms in '03 and I have a very different experience... during that time I've been a fairly active bandwidth use, mostly through regular apt-get dist-upgrades of the debian/unstable. That's a healthy bought of downloading every night, on top of the lots of browsing and SFTP traffic for posting webpages for clients. I am also the occasional bitTorrent user... mostly ISOs for installing, but I will not deny that I have downloaded a TV episode from time to time in situations where I missed the airing.
In all of this time I have never, not once, noticed throttling. In fact, the my available bandwidth has been increasing every year and is now a full three times faster than when I first started in '03. Although upload rates remains pretty pathetic. My point here is that Comcast isn't stopping bitTorrent traffic is its entirety, it is targeting those who are pillaging a common resource. The nature of the network is as a shared commodity, and every idiot who leaves 20 seeds running on their server in some vein attempt to "stick it to the man" degrades the common experience. I remember there was a quote from a Comcast rep a few weeks back saying the current bandwidth usage at which you'll be cut off would require you to download a full song like every 30 seconds for 24 hours a day. Come on people?! It's just not possible to consume that much downloaded media.
I agree, Comcast says unlimited when it is not, in fact, unlimited... but as a user with legitimate and legal bandwidth needs, I don't want to switch to a pay/per-use plan. So, if that means Comcast has to clean out those who abuse the system, then that's okay by me.
Ah, now that is an interesting point! If I have permission to use the game companies materials, and I combine it with my own, I have created a derivative work. Unless, of course, it's nothing more than just a copy & paste job... which is boring.
So now you enter a whole new realm of intersting theory. We've got permission to use the source material and a derived work based upon that permission. For the game copy to "own" that derived work there must be an assignment, and the trick about assignments is they must be in writting. I would seriously question whether a TOS would suffice as an assignment. But my original point still stands... so long as the author of the derivative work has any copyrighted material at all... formating, layout, font choice... anything at all, they can file a legitimate DMCA takedown notice to protect their interests. That the derived work is based on the game company only means that the game copmany can also file a DMCA takedown.
If that's the case--I honestly haven't checked--then the game company doesn't need a TOS for protection anyway, because that's just plain old copyright infringement, end of story. However, a creative lawyer might try to argue that the organization of the wiki itself is a copyrighted work. But that really wouldn't help defuse an underlying claim of infringement.
I've always felt the NC clause to be weakly drafted and wrapped in confusion. As a trained lawyer I am left to wonder when exactly my client's actions become primarily targeted at commercial gain. If I use the content in an instructional guide given out only to those who have already purchased the product, is that commercial? Certainly could be... except I'm not charging for the guide and I've already made the money. What if the guide is given away for free before hand? What if the guide has substantial non-profit motives but happens to spread my client's name around and thus drums up future business?
I appreciate those who license their work under the NC terms and get what they are trying to avoid... I just which the CC made it more clear to those of us trying to do the right thing.
Parent is mistaken if they believe that we only have rights in relation to government agencies. That's simply not how the world functions. I have the right to not be struck by moving cars, which is enforced by my right to bring a suit in torts against anyone who does strike me by a moving car. There are all manner of rights which exist between private parties. Some have existed since the first common law courts on England, others are more modern such as civil rights laws passed by Congress in the 50s and 60s. In all cases it is a right a private actor enforces against another.
One such right is the right of LiveJournal to avoid any liability for defamatory material posted on their site by members. The law explicitly exempts LiveJournal (and other service providers) from the same liability a newspaper would carry if it printed the same materials. There is zero government involvement.
Another, perhaps more analogous, example is that a landlord cannot put in a lease that they can evict you without cause or without notice. Sure, it's the landlords private property, but the courts have long held that as it becomes your home you have certain rights which trump the private property holder. Again, no government involvement needed.
Which is all a way of saying that the "right" to not be deemed in violation of ToS because a link you pointed to has changed to something different is not a far-fetched right. It's just another layer of rights and regulations that form the web that is our legal framework.
While it is everyones choice not to appear before a foreign court when summoned, it is a decision one should take pretty seriously. For example, I have every intention of going to the EU at some point in my life, and maybe even visiting Romania. I'm not crazy about the idea of entering the country only to be arrested because on a failure to appear charge. The proper legal action, if I am being sued in a foreign court, is to try to terminate the case for lack of jurisdiction. But that means I at least have to respond to the case, I (or my representatives) have to talk to the judge, etc, etc. Just pretending like it's not happening is generally not a good idea.
More importantly, everyone presumes the radio station will bring suit in the U.S. That seems like a pretty silly assumption on their part. They might try that route, but unless Romania exists in some strange legal nether world, the radio station should have no problem securing local council and bringing the suit right there in his native land.
Are you kidding me?! He's the one choosing to post in English.
Once information is out on the net, the genie is out of the bottle forever. There is no putting it back. It cannot be removed, regardless of whether it was right or wrong to have been released. Any subsequent re-releases of the same information are irrelevant, so asking someone to stop means nothing.
This is 100% true in a global sense. The information is out and there is nothing that can be done about it. But that doesn't mean the initial offenders cannot be punished. Digg will prove an interesting example here, for they may very well be sued for there involvement with that pesky little number and their decision not to comply with the takedown notice. Such lawsuits may not stop the number from being widely known, it may even increase the pool of those that do know it, but it will hurt the pecuniary interests of the company, which is why they tried to take down the number in the first place. Which in turn sets an example to future companies who may consider the same course of action.Yes, based on the facts so far it doesn't seem like this guy did anything I would consider wrong, and I agree the company in question seems to be making some tall claims about business interests. But none of that will matter if the company can get even one claim to stick in court. You may not be able to stop the stampede, but you sure can shoot down the guy who started it.
This is an excellent point... I don't know the first thing about Romanian law, so maybe your right. Might not be any juries or defamation issues. Of course, my guess is that there is defamation law there, since it's a pretty universal law these days (although the particulars vary greatly). I'd also bet there is a pretty substantial body of tort law there, which provies all means of avenues to bring suit.
In principle I agree. But at the same time, I think there is something both healthy and humane about evaluating the nature of the parties when dealing out justice. If the guy in question really is a jerk, it's going to come across in the court room and people are going to wonder... did he have "jerky" intent when he did whatever it is they accused him of? Context matters, and in the absence of cold hard facts about the context at the time of the act, courts and juries will rely on the context of the present and make certain reasonable assumptions.
I agree, it's not an ideal system. And people game the system by acting all sweet in front of a jury, and that sucks too. But if you're going to write about on going or potential litigation, being a tad thoughtful ahead of time can save you a lot of headache.
It's really too bad the blogger is taking this so personally, continuing to blog about it, and cannot spell. None of these make him a sympathetic defendant... and if it eventually gets to court that's going to matter a good deal. Like it or not, hackers have a bad public reputation, and if this punk gets in front of a jury and spouts off the way he has been on his blog, his case is sunk regardless of whether the written law is on his side. Each time he goes on a rant he gets closer to defamation and now it's a whole new ball game.
Word of advice to those who blog about corporate enterprises... if you get a notice from a company threatening suit for whatever you said, take it seriously and get some legal advice before you try the whole David and Goliath thing. Your conduct after the event in question is just as much at issue as whatever initially upset them. I'm not saying roll over and comply, but figure out how to best manage the situation to protect yourself and convince the corporate bully you're not some 22 year old idiot who is going to make the case ten times easier for them because you can't keep your mouth shut.
This isn't a trademark issue, contrary to the original posters analysis. If you read the article you discover the complaint is not one of customer confusion (which is the core of trademark law) but one of nuisance. While the technologically inclined my simply say this is a product of people being stupid, the fact remains that it's not Universal Tube who is at fault. They aren't asking YouTube to stop being YouTube, they are asking for YouTube to figure out a way to get all of their customers to stop coming to their domain.
Real world example: Two stores next door to eachother. The customers of store A (which is far more popular) keep going through the parking lot of the store B. So many customers, in fact, that the few customers for B can't even get to the store. Certainly the law should provide a remedy for Store B, otherwise we are back to the world of "might makes right." A needs to provide some kind of mitigation for the activity for which it benefits and B suffers.