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.

Obviously, I am not a lawyer, but if someone gave consent to be taped during sex, they don't retain the rights to what happens post-production (unless you have California-style copyright regime where you can copyright saying "hello" with an accent). Because movies are their business and SAG is so influential there, you can probably control who and why sees your performance even after you gave consent. This isn't about Al Fraken defending women. He doesn't give a damn. It's about Al Franken trying to create welfare for lawyers and Hollywood by creating case law which makes a more stringent copyright regime nationwide. He already tried to use a dumb judge's decision in a rape victim's case to try to force all federal contractors to be required to submit to no-arbitration-clause-allowed-for-sexual-harassment in their contracts. This is just about feeding trial lawyers. Victims don't get more money from suing than they do from arbitration. But Democratic party gets a lot more money from trial lawyers than they do from anyone else.

Google actually does make you smarter. It increases your information processing speed. Which is one of the components of intelligence. It doesn't improve every component of intelligence. It doesn't increase your chunking capacity or short-term memory or top-level cache, will. But it certainly increases your ability to analyze larger volumes of information. So let's say it increases your L2 cache and RAM, but not your L1 cache. It's still an increase in cognitive performance. So... your conclusion that you are smarter because you use Google is not baseless.

oh, no...

What about their luggage combination?

I had the adventure of installing XPsp2 from scratch once. That meant IE6. MSN(!!!!!) would crash IE6. I had to download Chrome. Just to download IE8 before I could update XP to sp3 (windows update wouldn't work at that point... had to be done through IE windows update site). Hard to blame the government if they had a perfectly designed site working for one version of the browser (IE6) and those versions of the browser stopped working even with the manufacturer's website. Imagine if they phones worked that way: " What? Your tried to call our call center, built more than 5 years ago? Why would you expect a modern phone to work with a 5-year-old call center?"

He said he tried XP. It won't install anything higher than IE8.

MSIE is notoriously incompatible between versions. If your version is too low, try a higher one (you'll need Win7 or higher to use IE9 or higher). If your version is too high, try emulation mode (within IE) of a lower version. It's hard to blame the techs when sites written for MSIE 8 completely break on MSIE11.

Texting is not email. Emails are going the way of Yahoo messenger. Texting has the advantage of the counterparty being pre-approved. Although even that is beginning to break down. Donald Knuth said many years ago that he stopped using emails.

The logic of not using a life saving method to save lives because breeds resistant strains can just as well be applied to inoculations. Reducing overall population of mosquitoes reduces probability of developing additional strains (just like inoculation reduces chances of additional strains). Your kind of stupidity causes millions of deaths. You are actually worse than Hitler. At least Hitler had a purpose. You and your kind would have millions of people die just to prove an argument.

It was banned period. You are telling lies and calling it evidence. Oh, and your kinds of lies are not innocent run-of-the-mill Internet lies. MILLIONS HAVE ALREADY DIED because of lies just like the one you just told.