I thought it was illegal to profit from a criminal activity. How is it that there is such a thing a Goebbels's estate at all? All of Goebbels's notoriety comes from his participation in a government the actions of which were declared to be a crime against humanity. How is anyone allowed to profit from that?

If you read the original post, you'll see that I took an issue with so many medical findings being reported as having found causality because a correlation was found. It's a fact that this is how they are often reported. Is it the fault of the popular press for stretching the truth or miscommunicating it? Well, it can't be laymen's fault if they so often err on the same side. Even if the medical journals don't make this error, the error still lies with how the laymen reporters are informed. And then the fault is with those who inform them (because they know they are speaking to laymen, they have to pick their words carefully). Oh, and I continue to insist that the word "reduces" is an assertion of cause and not an assertion of likelihood. So the title of the article does, in fact, assert that a causation may be inferred from the discovered correlation.

Aha. I'll get right on it. You know... so that I can impress all those who would rather pretend that a clearly stated assertion does not amount to an assertion because that would mean that they lost the argument. I am convinced that if I try just a little bit harder. If I (maybe?) take a remedial reading class?.. then and only then will they'll be impressed. Because if they ever got on a path of trying to defend the indefensible (go ahead... cut n paste this sentence... pretend there is irony because you are clever)... so if they got on a path of defending the indefensible, they'd agree that they erred as soon as a water-tight argument was presented to them. They are never wrong. Just misunderstood. So I'll go ahead and try to understand them better. Getting right on it.

Just one one thing before I do.

I've emphasized the verbs in that "argument" you were making. Reading comprehension. How bout them apples?

Oh, wait, I know what's comming... Let me guess, ok? It's fun. You claim that I make no sense. Then you claim that I am "still" not understanding your point. Then you realize that you can also throw in the (ever so ironic by now) accusation of ad hominem in my direction. Did I get close? Actually, I don't care what you think. Your arguments have proven my point well enough (yeah, yeah... you'll call me "delusional"... I know... it's always someone else... it's never you).

Oh, and as to this:

The first victim of expediency is usually grammar. As a casual commentator, you should be quite familiar with the concept. Because this:

does not indicate that you took your time to parse precisely enough the sentence

Had you done so, you would see that you were putting forward a counter-argument to a point which had not been made.

The word "reduces" in the title of the article clearly asserts causation.

Why is medical reporting so rife with them? They have to pass some science courses before becoming doctors, don't they? Why are so many medical studies reported as "we found a correlation so there must be a causation." Not only does correlation is not causation. Correlation do not imply causation.

If she burns down Reddit, she gets to make a public argument that the creditors made her a target because she took on a cause. She gets to drag VC firm's name through the mud of public opinion and put them in jeopardy of public hysteria outrage (divestment campaigns, etc.) In order to avoid this jeopardy, she hopes the firm will offer her a cushy contract (ie, hush money) in which they severely overpay for some of her property, services, etc. in exchange for her declaring that "things have changed a lot since she was made a target" or something to that effect.

She lost the (bias claiming) law suit against the investing VC firm. This would give her leverage to demand hush money.

She might be trying to burn down the company (because she will scare away the best people who know their worth). Then she'll get to make the argument that Reddit went bankrupt because "the all boy's club" of tech companies (or bankers) ganged up on her to destroy her for "exposing the male-dominated culture."

"Take it or leave it" is a negotiating tactic. She's perfectly within her rights to negotiate in this manner. However, if she attempts to as much as encourage any other company to follow her lead on this, it would immediately become a collusion against employees and an illegal anti-competitive tactic. Oh, and, btw, do the employees actually get to collect that salary? Or do they have to spend it "at the company store"?

Facebook is incorporated in NY? I had no idea. Cause if they are not, the lawyer would be leaving messages on an out-of-state server somewhere. I also wonder how Facebook feels about a lawyer using the client's account. Oh, and how does the lawyer plan to verify that the person on the other end is the husband? But really, how do NY courts have jurisdiction over servers in California?

Shorter version: because simply having sex is just a biological function. It has no more artistic value than eating a sandwich. If you allow someone to observe you eat a sandwich, you allow them to remember it, record it and play the recording. The same is true of allowing someone to see you naked. Letting someone observe you is not in itself art. It only becomes art if you are performing at the time. If you are just being yourself, sorry, you don't get a copyright on that for the reasons outlined in my previous post.

Not per se. Article one explicitly states that intellectual property regimes are to be established for the purposes of promoting useful sciences and arts. It's not a carte blanche prerogative of the legislature.. It has a designated purpose. Simple act of allowing someone to see you naked is not an act of an artistic performance. Doing so for the purposes of coitus is a biological imperative (akin to going to a doctor to get a check up). Agreeing to be observed carries with it agreeing to have someone remember the observation. And the observer should retain the copyright of the observation(if (s)he, for example, talks about it) or recording because observation and recording are the only parts of the act which have any artistic merit. Simply showing up to be there naked to have your biological imperative fulfilled is not an artistic or a scientific endeavor. So it merits no intellectual property protection.

In your example, the threat is the problem (the function) rather than the fact that it was posted on line (the form). If you can observe something, then you have a right to record it and should have the copyright on the recording and the right to disseminate it. Which, strictly speaking, makes revenge porn no different from kiss and tell.

You generally don't need a permission to photograph inside of someone's home if you have been given the right to enter the home. You can record anything you can observe unless you agree to surrender the right to record as a pre-condition for the right to observe. If someone let's you into the house, you can record anything you want and (outside of crazy places like California) own the copyright on what you recorded. If you record something embarrassing, it's no different from overhearing an embarrassing conversation of someone talking on a cell phone in public. The conversation is private, but by allowing you to observe it, they allowed you to disseminate what you observed. The act of recording is indistinguishable from the act of observing. Again, unless, you are in an insane place like California.