In most places you have to pay extra for that.

I use the iCodpiece, you insensitive clod!

Returning copyright terms to a reasonable length is about fairness to society. It has nothing to do with fairness to content creators or preventing infringement.

We the people grant a limited monopoly on creative expression in order to promote more creative expression (paraphrasing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).

Among the arguments in favor of this monopoly right, "fairness" (i.e. I should control how this gets used because I worked hard to make it) is perhaps the least compelling.

I'm confused as to how the very first post in a thread can be redundant? That's just lazy moderation.

Went through and read some of those strips--classic! I wish I could claim the foresight on this one... I just picked an name and went with it.

"... Which is why today I am implementing a system of regular public apologies, to be made by me on a quarterly basis and as needed when we really fuck things up.

I want you to know that accountability and leadership aren't just buzz words here at Reddit, they are very real goals that I have delegated to a very real junior staffer, Ted.

So in the future, when Reddit screws the pooch, you can rest assured that I will take full responsibility by publicly apologizing and then firing Ted."

In the pre-iPad days, I rigged up a stand for an old twist-screen convertible "tablet" laptops using a mic stand, some plexiglass, a few bolts, and one of those plastic troughs you tack on the bottom of a door.

Oblig Better Off Ted

True and true. I meant judged in the judiciary sense, but there are always consequences to speech, even (especially?) protected speech. And you are correct that you can still be sued (for just about anything), and you still have to present your defense to the court.

If the truth of your statement isn't materially in dispute, or its clearly a statement of opinion not fact, then you can potentially get the case thrown out early on in summary judgment. It doesn't obviate court entirely, but it's much cheaper than going through discovery and (heaven forbid) trial.

That rejoinder gets tossed around quite a bit. While it is technically true, it's misleading--the First Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) does inform the standards by which private conduct is judged.

The Supreme Court in Hepps decided that not only is truth an absolute defense to defamation*, but also that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the defendant's statements are false (ie presumption of truth). This is contrary to old English common law (presumption of falsity) and a direct result of First Amendment protection.

For the same reason you have to prove actual malice in the case of a public figure (Sullivan), and are protected from foreign judgments that would be contrary to the 1st Amendment (2010 SPEECH Act).

Other amendments also have things to say about private conduct. In Shelley, SCOTUS applied the for-government-only 14th Amendment to racially restrictive property covenants. It may be a contract between two private parties, but enforcement of a contract or judgment is a government thing.

*Public interest/public figure, if we're being exact.

Agreed, I would love to see some citations for this backcanceling practice.

I did some quick googling, and insurance carriers are certainly threatening to cancel (future tense) coverage for RS drivers, and refusing to pay for claims occuring within the passenger pickup gap.

But basic contract law fundamentally condradicts the notion of backcanceling. If the contract was void the moment you turned on the Uber app the first time, your insurer would have to refund all your premiums so as to avoid being unjustly enriched.

Of course, they can also argue for a course of action that's not legally correct just to hassle you and hope you give up.

This isn't an inexorable death spiral brought on by price warfare. It's eminently fixable by just joining the 21st century. Cab companies, who already have the advantages of incumbemcy, capital, licensed labor force, tailored infrastructure, and favorable regulations, could pretty much close the gap just by creating a decent app and guaranteeing credit card acceptance. It's not about skirting regs to sustain cut rate pricing, it's about convenience.

Lol wut?

When your post popped up on my windshield HUD just now, I thought it was the most insigh%$&+'#{+&'NO CARRIER

Mod AC up.

The trial court ruling is how things ought to be, but how things actually are is a much different story, as reflected by the CAFC and SCOTUS.

You need a vanishingly small amount of originality to meet the copyrightability threshold. Like choosing categories for yellow pages rather than listing everything alphabetically. Like selecting and arranging public domain stories. Like adding a few lines to someone else's pictures.

It's worth arguing that even by the lowest standards, the APIs do not possess even a modicum of creativity. It's also worth arguing that they are so purely functional on a basic and elementary level that they should not be afforded copyright protection at all. But since the higher court rulings force us to concede copyrightability arguments, what's left to argue is that Google's use of these validly copyrighted APIs was fair and thus permissible.

Seeing as Uber comprises an army of private people's vehicles that they have to drive around in all the time, and not a commercial fleet of 24/7 3-shift cabs, I don't think that's accurate. Plus bad-smelling ride == bad review, so in theory even if it did happen its self-correcting.

As for "forcing out," even though I personally prefer Uber to traditional taxis, I don't think the latter is going extinct any time soon.

Fluff, I see from your many posts on this issue that you have a very negative view of RS services, even to the point of making posts like the above that are just silly. I'm asking honestly, what's fueling the vitriol? Did something bad happen to you or a loved one while using one of these services? Are you from somewhere in Europe where you have an awesome, heavily vetted taxi regime that you don't want to see undercut? Just curious.