One thing to keep in mind is that the person in question regularly used a thumbs-up emoji in this fashion. This was an factor in the judge's decision.

Parler was banned because they violated AWS's Terms-of-Service.

It wasn't even banned; it's account was simply suspended until it could resolve the underlying issue, which was a lack of moderation when it came to incitements to violence. This advocacy of harm is against AWS's ToS.

> Parler was banned because they violated AWS's Terms-of-Service. It wasn't even banned; it was just suspended until Parler could resolve the underlying issues, which was a lack of moderation when it came to incitements to violence. This advocacy of harm is against AWS's ToS.

It's only fair use to parody the material used itself. In other words, it's only fair use to use Beat It to parody Beat It itself. Using Beat It to parody something else isn't fair use. That would require a license. This is why Wierd Al licenses the songs he uses.

Win95 was quite stable for me --rebooting once a month for updates or from video games crashing-- but I got Win2k when most were still getting Win98. So much better!

Windows 95 would crash after 49.7 days (if it managed to not crash before that).

https://www.cnet.com/news/wind...

So if I'm reading this correctly, Uber offered work to GoCatch drivers, drivers they identified using information published by GoCatch themselves. The fact that GoCatch didn't intend to be used that way doesn't make the tool "spyware" or otherwise nefarious. And the fact that it worked implied that Uber offered the drivers a good deal.

Thanks to Google's indifference, the pirates can continue to sell ebooks no matter how many times copyright holders might complain. If Google takes a pirated ebook down in response to a DMCA notice, the pirates simply upload another copy of the same title.

If you pirates to stop distributing your works, you need to go after the pirates. Google is not your mommy. It won't kiss you and make everything all right.

DMCA requires platforms to take down very specifically identified infringements. The same work uploaded by another user is not necessarily an infringement, so another notification is required on behalf of the rights owner. Not policing for infringement is not a sign of indifference on the behalf of the platform. Policing is not required of the platform because it is impossible for it to do so.

Someone who can type into a word processor is to word processing as a script kiddie is to programming. I can type stuff into Word, but I couldn't use Word effectively without spending some time with it.

The difference is that committing a murder is illegal, but reporting that "escroc" is commonly associated with "Lyonnaise de Garantie" is not. If someone said Lyonnaise de Garantie is a crook, and if that person was wrong, then Lyonnaise de Garantie should be going after that person.

Dropbox, as the service provider, does NOT have the right to say what is or is not copyrighted content

Of course they can. It's not libel, slander or otherwise illegal speech.

If you meant they don't have the right to take down content, that's not right either. The DMCA safe harbours make clear that a site isn't responsible for the actions of 3rd parties, but that doesn't prevent sites from policing their users if they want to, and it doesn't prevent sites from taking down any content they want to from their own sites.

What they can't do is send DMCA takedown requests for content to which they down own the rights. If they did this here, they are in the wrong. Unfortunately, very few face the consequences of sending false DMCA takedown requests.

Your comparison is flawed. MacOS is not a window.

Volvo, meet Fail Crane

The correct answer is to subtract the inverse of the numbers:

1/10 - 1/20 = 0.10 - 0.05 = Saves 0.05 gallons per mile
1/33 - 1/50 = 0.03 - 0.02 = Saves 0.01 gallons per mile

Actually, I hear Ctrl-L, "about:config", Enter, "keyword.URL", Tab, Tab, Enter, edit result, Enter.