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.

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...