Can't be voted up more enough. Let's say you buy some healthy low-fat yoghurt. And then you check and it's stuffed full with sugar! And it has a HUGE "low fat" printed on it, when it has more calories and is less healthy for you then the unmodified normal fat yoghurt. The problem is that your body _wants_ fat because that's what it has been designed to want for the last 100,000 years, and as long as it doesn't get the fat it wants it just wants more food!

They have to state under penalty of perjury that they are or represent the content owner. And they have to give you a contact address. As they make a statement under penalty of perjury, they are either right or criminals. If they are criminals, that will get sorted out.

Well, that could be just a tiny little problem for Qualcomm then. In a DMCA takedown notice, there are mistakes that you are allowed to make and mistakes that are criminal. A DMCA takedown notice against material that is not the one you own, or that has a license which you didn't notice, that's harmless. But you state under penalty of perjury that you are the copyright holder or represent the copyright holder of the item that you believe to be infringed. So if the Linux Foundation is indeed the copyright holder, that should be fatal.

Neither the summary, nor the linked article, nor the article linked to in the linked article give the crucial information: What exactly did the court decide?

Quite obviously if I use Tor for criminal activity, and my best buddy sets up a Tor exit node exclusively for me to support my criminal activity, then he will be convicted for running that exit node. Not just in Austria, but everywhere.

And equally obviously, someone who operates a Tor exit node, which is without his knowledge and without his agreement used by a criminal for criminal activity, that operator _should not_ be convicted, neither in Austria nor elsewhere.

What all these articles don't say is what exactly the Tor operator has done. And without that we can't judge what happened.

If you repair a car that is then used in a robbery, you shouldn't be accused of being an accomplice. Except if you knew it was going to be used in a robbery. For example, if you repeatedly fixed a car that was used to drive into shop windows, and even fix steel plates to the front of the car.

That case must be about the most stupid use of lawyers that I've heard of. If you follow the link, you will see that neither Uzi Nissan nor the Nissan car company can make proper use of the www.nissan.com domain. I'd bet that Nissan's lawyers very proudly reported that they won a court case - which is totally pointless, because their goal should have been to get the use of the domain name.

Had Nissan not sent lawyers but someone with intelligence, then they would be able to use the name, and Uzi Nissan would have a brand new Nissan car parked in front of his computer shop every year. Which would have been better all around for everyone involved.

What? That's nonsense. You must claim _under penalty of perjury_ that some work is infringed and you are or represent the copyright holder. There should be nothing easier to prove or disprove.

The law says what it says. Now if we ignore the fact that "fair use" will be a very rare situation, the law says the copyright holder can ask for the work to be taken down if you are not authorised, and the copyright holder is not required to investigate at this point whether you did something that doesn't require authorisation. "Fair use" = not authorised. "Fair use" can only be used as a defence in court when you are sued for copyright infringement.

Takedown + waiting for a counter notice is not overreacting, it is the appropriate reaction. And of course they have to send your counter notice to the claimant. What are you afraid of? Just write in your counter notice to John Smith "I own the copyright on all the works on my site, and if John Smith thinks he can force me to remove an article about a different person with the same name, I'd like to know what drugs he is taking. "

In the case of the "John Smith": When someone sends a DMCA takedown notice, they declare under penalty of perjury that they have copyright on the work that they believe you are infringing upon. (If the are mistaken about the work - the one you published is not the one that they have the copyright for, or they are wrong about the infringing - you have a license, that's fine, but they _must_ have the copyright for _some_ work). So you can take them to court and give them an expensive lesson in copyright law and the DMCA law.

Because it was mostly politicians being killed. And because Harrison Ford survived.

Accepting the pay cheque and showing up for work means you agree to do work for the company in exchange for payment. It doesn't demonstrate in any way that you agreed to anything beyond that in your employment contract, especially if you didn't sign it.

That's, in general, nonsense. It's perfectly possible for me not to use information in my brain, if the situation arises. And this would only be about _confidential_ information. For example, anything that is in Amazon's official sales information is not confidential. And any information that is indeed confidential, it is entirely possible for me to keep my mouth shut, don't tell my colleagues, and don't act on it.

There are very few positions indeed where it could be judged that it would be inevitable to use such confidential information. Just because Amazon doesn't trust their employee (or because they just claim they don't trust that employee) doesn't mean he will rat out confidential information.

Well, "Apple co-founder buys Galaxy Gear watch" was news that made the Samsungphiles happy, so surely when the same Apple co-founder says the watch is worthless, that's just as newsworthy.

Surely it's the creators of malware and spam that are primarily responsible?

I wonder what percentage of the Ecuadorian embassy's budget goes on feeding Assange. And if they plan to send him a bill eventually. They must be kicking themselves.