I remember a long history of copyright industries fighting new technologies, starting from the early 20th century. Before eventually embracing them, since there is no stopping progress.
They have fought against everything from radio, tv, photocopiers, audio tapes, video tapes, CD/DVD, then every new service on the Internet.
And some slogans were memorable... or rather memorably stupid... like "Home taping is killing music" or "You wouldn't download a car".
Let's be fair. A standard newspaper is one day's worth of information.
So let's use one day's worth of YouTube videos. By 2022 numbers, that's >500 hours uploaded every minute. So >720k hours uploaded every day. Still massively different from a newspaper to the point that the comparison is insane, but more acceptable than comparing one newspaper to the entirety of YouTube's years worth of content.
I wonder how Alito imagines this. Shipping the "newspaper" as portable drive(s)? Or printing the binary video files on paper for maximum inefficiency? (Or encoded on DNA and carried by butterflies. Just a random example.)
Anyway, I don't know where his mind was at, but this reminds me of a saying: "there is no stupid question."
To which I'd reply, "it depends on the context". Here, it definitely is a stupid question. But it would make a fun submission to Randall Munroe's "What if?".
I'm not sure if this counts as fraud or copyright infringement, or just standard violation of a private contract, but I could see merit to the case in general.
Kimmel requested those videos knowing full well that his intention was to use them in his very public broadcast, so making them under "personal accounts" rather than "professional accounts" can be a breach of contract. I don't know if it actually is in this case, but it's a pretty standard distinction made in numerous fields of arts and services.
I'm no fan of Santos, but this lawsuit doesn't seem as frivolous as many others. I don't think there would be any merit to it if Santos just argued against the broadcast itself, but this argument about personal vs professional fees is sensible.
I don't agree about the "misrepresentation" part though. That's nonsense and this charge should be clearly laughed out of court.
Section 230 doesn't prevent lawsuits against someone who defamed someone else. It only prevents lawsuits against the tool used to do so.
In this case, by contrast, it is the police fault. A basic check on their suspect would have proven that he was nowhere near the crime scene at the time. There was no reason to jail him, much less in a high (in)security prison with hardened criminals.
The police looked at the specific situation, made a choice and took action, so they bear responsibility. They have a job, and they took the lazy route to jail someone first, ask question later, after deep physical and mental trauma.
If you can't distinguish this from a platform who can't examine every piece of content transiting through their mostly automated platform, I can only hope you don't get in position to legislate about it.
No, I don't know how to fire a grenade launcher even if I play CoD for hundreds of hours. I can't just pick one up, then point and click at my target in real life.
What it does teach me though is that I'll die many times if I step on a battlefield. Oh wait, I can only die once in real life, so let's say more accurately that I'll die within seconds if I ever step on a battlefield. Very likely from shooting the aforementioned grenade launcher the wrong way. :D
Private companies and law enforcement agencies can point to low false positive percentages all they want
Basically, their excuses to people being falsely arrested because of their technology: "You're just statistically insignificant."
And law enforcement doesn't help by not doing basic investigative work before throwing people in jail or prison for "an insignificant amount of time" either.
There are a lot of people who need to learn that real people hide behind these numbers, no matter how low.
I wonder if there is a way to legally challenge editors who add a DRM after purchase. The buyer didn't know about DRM and might have bought the game specifically on the basis that there wasn't one (other than the default Steam one). If this renders the game unplayable, there might be ground to sue.
Who am I kidding? Their EULA probably has a line saying "we have the right to update the game at anytime, and we're not responsible if this breaks your copy of the game. Even when it's intentional and malicious. Because f--- you, paying customers."
It's bad enough that the police and some related entities are using tax-payer money to cover the crimes of the worst of their ranks. They decline their legal obligations, then fight in courts, all on the citizens' dime. So this all means nothing to them in terms of cost.
It's even worse as they constantly minimize the harm with language like "misconducts" and "incidents" for violent crimes, harassing innocent citizens and more. Because harming or killing a citizen is so inconsequential to them that they have it somewhere around the level of squashing a bug and spilling their coffee in the process. Annoying, but nothing to feel guilty about.
No cost to their wallets, little to no consequence to their record (until recently), and absolutely no concern to their conscience. As long as they are kept insulated from the harm they cause, this is the very predictable result.
Bad cops fear the light, so they definitely must have the brightest spotlight aimed at them. This legislative and judicial effort is most worth it, and it is demonstrated by how panicked they get in response.
At least this specific training program doesn't include Hitler quotes. (Actual case, includes "Uber alles" or "the very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence".)
But the spirit is the same: be ruthless and violent, ignore civil rights.
Bad people are encouraged to sign in. (ads emphasizing qualified immunity as a perk.)
Then they are trained to be worse. (this article)
And illegal behavior is excused except for the few cases when there is too much media attention. (basically all stories of police brutality.)
Finally, good cops are filtered out when possible. (e.g. a cop fired for not shooting someone, another cop suspended for being shot by a colleague and not blaming the suspect.)
This is not just a barrel of bad apples. The whole hierarchy is actively adding sludge to it regularly.
This is still valid, but has been interpreted as a sworn statement that you own (or that you're mandated by the one who owns) the copyright of the work you report as infringed. Not the one you report as infringing.
This is so open for abuse (probably willfully so) that it makes the whole "perjury" part basically pointless.
(...) it has also been accused of altering gunshot records to align more closely with police narratives or justify whatever actions were taken following the initial ShotSpotter report.
This alone should disqualify the whole program until an audit, and probably major changes, have been conducted.
When you add the discriminatory nature of sensor location, this whole thing is not just a waste of money, it perpetuates a system of minority oppression by law enforcement. It's literally worse than nothing.
"Please do something about CSAM.
- Alright, I did something.
- It makes the situation worse!
- But that was something. Now, praise me for doing something. You know what? Don't bother, I'll just praise myself."
This is the standard politics nowadays.
Don't plan, don't study the impact of a bill.
Just write something up that appears good at a glance, market it as "doing something", and sing your own praises for a while. Rinse and repeat. Also, condemn any opposition as "aiding and abetting the criminals". Because they're obviously wrong if they oppose "something", aren't they?
Surface-level solutions, and shutting down the discussion with appeal to emotion. Because actual solutions are difficult and complex. And that's too much work for them, apparently.
Think school shootings, child labor, child marriage… and probably more that I missed.
... Ah, right. I missed a big one. Abortion.
Like in the case of a 10yo rape victim.
What did republicans have to say about that?
"We would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child."
Great "protection" there.
In our case, they would potentially be on the hook for destroying half the value of the company, so roughly $22 billion.
Elon, if you want to know who destroyed half the value of your company, it would be cheaper for you to buy a mirror. Pretty sure you can find one in a dollar store, but that might still be too expensive for you cheapskate.
Anyone following a republican bill "for the children" should be extremely suspicious.
Republicans have proved many times in recent months that "protecting children" is not in their priorities. At all. Think school shootings, child labor, child marriage... and probably more that I missed.
So when they suddenly pretend to be sooo concerned about child safety, you should check, double-check and triple-check their bill. With a hazmat suit on.
Home taping is killing music
I remember a long history of copyright industries fighting new technologies, starting from the early 20th century. Before eventually embracing them, since there is no stopping progress. They have fought against everything from radio, tv, photocopiers, audio tapes, video tapes, CD/DVD, then every new service on the Internet. And some slogans were memorable... or rather memorably stupid... like "Home taping is killing music" or "You wouldn't download a car".
Comparing apples to the moon
Let's be fair. A standard newspaper is one day's worth of information. So let's use one day's worth of YouTube videos. By 2022 numbers, that's >500 hours uploaded every minute. So >720k hours uploaded every day. Still massively different from a newspaper to the point that the comparison is insane, but more acceptable than comparing one newspaper to the entirety of YouTube's years worth of content. I wonder how Alito imagines this. Shipping the "newspaper" as portable drive(s)? Or printing the binary video files on paper for maximum inefficiency? (Or encoded on DNA and carried by butterflies. Just a random example.) Anyway, I don't know where his mind was at, but this reminds me of a saying: "there is no stupid question." To which I'd reply, "it depends on the context". Here, it definitely is a stupid question. But it would make a fun submission to Randall Munroe's "What if?".
Contract laws
I'm not sure if this counts as fraud or copyright infringement, or just standard violation of a private contract, but I could see merit to the case in general. Kimmel requested those videos knowing full well that his intention was to use them in his very public broadcast, so making them under "personal accounts" rather than "professional accounts" can be a breach of contract. I don't know if it actually is in this case, but it's a pretty standard distinction made in numerous fields of arts and services. I'm no fan of Santos, but this lawsuit doesn't seem as frivolous as many others. I don't think there would be any merit to it if Santos just argued against the broadcast itself, but this argument about personal vs professional fees is sensible. I don't agree about the "misrepresentation" part though. That's nonsense and this charge should be clearly laughed out of court.
(This was meant in response to anonymous coward above.)
Poor comparison
Section 230 doesn't prevent lawsuits against someone who defamed someone else. It only prevents lawsuits against the tool used to do so. In this case, by contrast, it is the police fault. A basic check on their suspect would have proven that he was nowhere near the crime scene at the time. There was no reason to jail him, much less in a high (in)security prison with hardened criminals. The police looked at the specific situation, made a choice and took action, so they bear responsibility. They have a job, and they took the lazy route to jail someone first, ask question later, after deep physical and mental trauma. If you can't distinguish this from a platform who can't examine every piece of content transiting through their mostly automated platform, I can only hope you don't get in position to legislate about it.
Teachings
No, I don't know how to fire a grenade launcher even if I play CoD for hundreds of hours. I can't just pick one up, then point and click at my target in real life. What it does teach me though is that I'll die many times if I step on a battlefield. Oh wait, I can only die once in real life, so let's say more accurately that I'll die within seconds if I ever step on a battlefield. Very likely from shooting the aforementioned grenade launcher the wrong way. :D
Worse yet...
Actually, the worst part of the judgement is that they acknowledge that there is a difference between fiction and reality.
But they then willfully ignore the distinction. It's not mental impairment, it's outright malice.Poor excuses
Legal challenge
I wonder if there is a way to legally challenge editors who add a DRM after purchase. The buyer didn't know about DRM and might have bought the game specifically on the basis that there wasn't one (other than the default Steam one). If this renders the game unplayable, there might be ground to sue. Who am I kidding? Their EULA probably has a line saying "we have the right to update the game at anytime, and we're not responsible if this breaks your copy of the game. Even when it's intentional and malicious. Because f--- you, paying customers."
Unexpected target audience
Police concerns
It's bad enough that the police and some related entities are using tax-payer money to cover the crimes of the worst of their ranks. They decline their legal obligations, then fight in courts, all on the citizens' dime. So this all means nothing to them in terms of cost. It's even worse as they constantly minimize the harm with language like "misconducts" and "incidents" for violent crimes, harassing innocent citizens and more. Because harming or killing a citizen is so inconsequential to them that they have it somewhere around the level of squashing a bug and spilling their coffee in the process. Annoying, but nothing to feel guilty about. No cost to their wallets, little to no consequence to their record (until recently), and absolutely no concern to their conscience. As long as they are kept insulated from the harm they cause, this is the very predictable result. Bad cops fear the light, so they definitely must have the brightest spotlight aimed at them. This legislative and judicial effort is most worth it, and it is demonstrated by how panicked they get in response.
It's nearly a miracle anyone survives interaction with a cop.
At least this specific training program doesn't include Hitler quotes. (Actual case, includes "Uber alles" or "the very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence".) But the spirit is the same: be ruthless and violent, ignore civil rights. Bad people are encouraged to sign in. (ads emphasizing qualified immunity as a perk.) Then they are trained to be worse. (this article) And illegal behavior is excused except for the few cases when there is too much media attention. (basically all stories of police brutality.) Finally, good cops are filtered out when possible. (e.g. a cop fired for not shooting someone, another cop suspended for being shot by a colleague and not blaming the suspect.) This is not just a barrel of bad apples. The whole hierarchy is actively adding sludge to it regularly.
A loophole big enough to fit a spaceship.
This is still valid, but has been interpreted as a sworn statement that you own (or that you're mandated by the one who owns) the copyright of the work you report as infringed. Not the one you report as infringing. This is so open for abuse (probably willfully so) that it makes the whole "perjury" part basically pointless.
Data manipulation
"Do something" laws
"Please do something about CSAM. - Alright, I did something. - It makes the situation worse! - But that was something. Now, praise me for doing something. You know what? Don't bother, I'll just praise myself." This is the standard politics nowadays. Don't plan, don't study the impact of a bill. Just write something up that appears good at a glance, market it as "doing something", and sing your own praises for a while. Rinse and repeat. Also, condemn any opposition as "aiding and abetting the criminals". Because they're obviously wrong if they oppose "something", aren't they? Surface-level solutions, and shutting down the discussion with appeal to emotion. Because actual solutions are difficult and complex. And that's too much work for them, apparently.
Cops: We smell marijuana, we find meth. Judge: Something smells fishy.
"Think of the children", right?
Anyone following a republican bill "for the children" should be extremely suspicious. Republicans have proved many times in recent months that "protecting children" is not in their priorities. At all. Think school shootings, child labor, child marriage... and probably more that I missed. So when they suddenly pretend to be sooo concerned about child safety, you should check, double-check and triple-check their bill. With a hazmat suit on.