"If you want things to improve you're going to need more regulation, not less."
I'd say it's the exact opposite. For example, my local cable provider loves to claim it's not a monopoly b/c anyone can enter the market, and they are technically correct. The city, however, requires that those new entrants provide service to everyone. That is, you can't start with a few neighborhood and build out. It's all or nothing. And that makes it practically impossible to enter.
The base rule is that state law is only preempted only if there is a conflict, but there is a long standing / widely accepted exception conflict can be assumed in highly regulated industries. That is, if it's not forbidden, it's required (or at least fine).
Factually speaking, cable companies have a decent case that their industry is heavily regulated; they can point to several very large books of federal regs. Whether or not you'd prefer different regulations count as "common carrier" is irrelevant.
They fought tooth and nail against every new technology... vhs, audio compression, video streaming
LOL. Content owners *love* streaming - those laws are far more plaintiff friendly e.g., no first sale doctrine, the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA actually apply, they can write/update the terms of use, etc.
McDonald's big problems were: 1) they served their coffee much hotter than other fast food restaurants, which in turn, was causing much more severe burns when the inevitable happened 2) this had happened many times before i.e., McD's knew knew about the problem and didn't fix it. 3) McD's was doing it to save money (the high temps let them produce more coffee for the same grounds)
17 U.S. Code 512 (f)Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it
Because the ISP's are infringers, too. However, they only get immunity if they promptly remove the infringing material after notice. Put differently, they could do that, but then they'd loose their immunity.
17 U.S. Code 512 1) Elements of notification.— (A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following: (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site. (iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. (iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted. (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
I'd argue we have the rough equivalent of bankruptcy. Income based repayment and the whole 20 year forgiveness. As a bonus, they don't count for the whole once-every-seven years thing.
IDK. It might affect your ability to get an injunction in future cases. And, eventually, you'll end up with an adverse possession problem (it's not limited to real property).
>The more rational alternative is that corporations would be responsible for pursuing "pirates" in civil court.
The internet wouldn't and couldn't exist with your rule. No ISP would be willing to shoulder that burden (i.e., contributory/vicarious infringement) without the DMCA's liability shields. And there was no way you'd ever get those shields without notice-and-takedown.
It's a bad idea for other reasons, but in fairness... they probably will store the proof-of-identity info, so it's auditable. Or at least more auditable than traditional paper voter rolls.
Traditionally, absentee ballots were limited to those unable to vote in person. Nowadays, it's kinda anything-goes. IMHO, this is a disaster waiting to happen.
Early voting (i.e., same standards, but different day) have fewer issues... though even there, we've already had issues with late-breaking candidate replacements / scandals / deaths.
Not quite a "whim." In general, Congress would need to pass legislation, and the President would have to sign it. That isn't trivial in our system (though there is an easier process for very recent rules).
Not really....The goverment is arguing the issue is moot. That is, none of this matters because the rule no longer exists.
For what it's worth, this also goes to the court's power. One of the important limits on the judicial power is that it can only decide actual cases i.e., the outcome would matter to someone.
I guess it depends on your point of view. Back in 94, most of the content was already being published on open platforms. Today, in contrast, it's mostly locked away in proprietary systems (e.g., Facebook, Twitter. And arguably the Apple/Google ecosystems).
To be honest, this trend continues to surprise me. It's like we've collectively chosen to crawl back to the old AOL model. My prior was that open systems always win in the end.
It's a creative argument. Normally, the anti-civil rights side uses WMD as 'reductio ad absurdum' example against the position that people have an individual right to bear arms.
It worth nothing that this is just a temporary restraining order, not a permanent injunction. They are routinely granted to preserve the status quo for a few days/weeks until the Judge can hear the case. It's not a ruling on the merits.
The two Democrat bills are more troubling - given the clear, on-point precedent, it suggests a willingness to violate the Constitution. That's not the way the system is supposed to work.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you want things to improve you're going to need more regulation, not less."
I'd say it's the exact opposite. For example, my local cable provider loves to claim it's not a monopoly b/c anyone can enter the market, and they are technically correct. The city, however, requires that those new entrants provide service to everyone. That is, you can't start with a few neighborhood and build out. It's all or nothing. And that makes it practically impossible to enter.
The base rule is that state law is only preempted only if there is a conflict, but there is a long standing / widely accepted exception conflict can be assumed in highly regulated industries. That is, if it's not forbidden, it's required (or at least fine).
Factually speaking, cable companies have a decent case that their industry is heavily regulated; they can point to several very large books of federal regs. Whether or not you'd prefer different regulations count as "common carrier" is irrelevant.
They fought tooth and nail against every new technology... vhs, audio compression, video streaming
LOL. Content owners *love* streaming - those laws are far more plaintiff friendly e.g., no first sale doctrine, the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA actually apply, they can write/update the terms of use, etc.
McDonald's big problems were:
1) they served their coffee much hotter than other fast food restaurants, which in turn, was causing much more severe burns when the inevitable happened
2) this had happened many times before i.e., McD's knew knew about the problem and didn't fix it.
3) McD's was doing it to save money (the high temps let them produce more coffee for the same grounds)
...and
17 U.S. Code 512
(f)Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it
Because the ISP's are infringers, too. However, they only get immunity if they promptly remove the infringing material after notice. Put differently, they could do that, but then they'd loose their immunity.
Amusingly, that's all already in the law:
17 U.S. Code 512
1) Elements of notification.—
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
I'd argue we have the rough equivalent of bankruptcy. Income based repayment and the whole 20 year forgiveness. As a bonus, they don't count for the whole once-every-seven years thing.
I'm not. Faith in the integrity of the electoral process is important.
FWIW, this concern is also how we justify contribution limits to candidates, etc.
IDK. It might affect your ability to get an injunction in future cases. And, eventually, you'll end up with an adverse possession problem (it's not limited to real property).
The DMCA has a number of provisions.
And this one is just a matter of basic fairness. If you want the content owner to sue the real pirate (vs the ISP), then you need to them who that is.
>The more rational alternative is that corporations would be responsible for pursuing "pirates" in civil court.
The internet wouldn't and couldn't exist with your rule. No ISP would be willing to shoulder that burden (i.e., contributory/vicarious infringement) without the DMCA's liability shields. And there was no way you'd ever get those shields without notice-and-takedown.
>The belief that people vote under fake names has never been shown to have any basis in actual facts.
That's not really relevant to the issue at hand. The key is the appearance of impropriety, not whether or not it actually occurred.
It's a bad idea for other reasons, but in fairness ... they probably will store the proof-of-identity info, so it's auditable. Or at least more auditable than traditional paper voter rolls.
Traditionally, absentee ballots were limited to those unable to vote in person. Nowadays, it's kinda anything-goes. IMHO, this is a disaster waiting to happen.
Early voting (i.e., same standards, but different day) have fewer issues... though even there, we've already had issues with late-breaking candidate replacements / scandals / deaths.
>and your boss can force you to vote there way in the office or your fired.
It also enables pay-for-votes (the de facto limiting factor has been the inability to confirm someone voted a certain way)
In big races, they already spend a few hundred dollars per voter in advertising. Direct payments would be a lot more effective.
>This kind of ... well ... dictating, is when our government back then crossed the line into a dictatorship.
I'm not sure that word means what you think it does. Making an argument in court is the polar opposite of "dictating."
Not quite a "whim." In general, Congress would need to pass legislation, and the President would have to sign it. That isn't trivial in our system (though there is an easier process for very recent rules).
Not really....The goverment is arguing the issue is moot. That is, none of this matters because the rule no longer exists.
For what it's worth, this also goes to the court's power. One of the important limits on the judicial power is that it can only decide actual cases i.e., the outcome would matter to someone.
"We’re not using this information beyond enabling these types of experiences – not for advertising or anything else."
For now... note the present tense in this denial; they are not committing to never do it in the future.
I'm not sure we meet that definition either. We expressly prohibit the majority from passing certain kinds of laws e.g., the Bill of Rights.
I guess it depends on your point of view. Back in 94, most of the content was already being published on open platforms. Today, in contrast, it's mostly locked away in proprietary systems (e.g., Facebook, Twitter. And arguably the Apple/Google ecosystems).
To be honest, this trend continues to surprise me. It's like we've collectively chosen to crawl back to the old AOL model. My prior was that open systems always win in the end.
>The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly says, “...shall not be infringed.”
This particular case is more of a 1st amendment issue (which is where the prior restraint doctrine comes in)
It's a creative argument. Normally, the anti-civil rights side uses WMD as 'reductio ad absurdum' example against the position that people have an individual right to bear arms.
It worth nothing that this is just a temporary restraining order, not a permanent injunction. They are routinely granted to preserve the status quo for a few days/weeks until the Judge can hear the case. It's not a ruling on the merits.
The two Democrat bills are more troubling - given the clear, on-point precedent, it suggests a willingness to violate the Constitution. That's not the way the system is supposed to work.