I don't know why I'm trying to justify my choices. lol. I'll stop after this post.

For the record, the machine isn't remote in the sense that it's outside my house, only that I'm essentially using my desktop and laptop as a thin client. The Linux box is right next to my desktop. I can just plug in a screen, keyboard and mouse and I'm coding fully locally. It's all just semantics at this point now though. It works for me and I'm not changing it unless I find something better.

I have no idea what you're getting at. It's no different to developing on the machine itself. All projects are in GitHub and that machine has better and more frequent backups than my desktop and laptop.

I use it because of the Remote-SSH plugin. I have a Windows desktop and a MacBook but all my development is on Linux (PHP and Python mainly, some C++ and a little Java).

My desktop and laptop only have VS Code and the Remote-SSH plugin installed. All other plugins are installed on the Linux machine and they use the tools (git, gcc, make, python, php etc) that are already on the Linux machine so no extra software is needed on the desktop and laptop. Intellisense and the debuggers worked with very little configuration required.

There may be a better editor or IDE that can do all of this but VS Code works well so I'm not actively looking for it. That doesn't mean that I'm not open to changing to something better though.

I feel confident that if the defendant had had a competent expert to rebut the Malibu phony experts, defendant would have won.

The real story is that defendant didn't have his own expert to counter Patzer's BS

Actually whoever the new guy is, I don't find the site to be "improved" at all; seems a little crummy. The story was butchered and incorrectly interpreted, and the all important software for interaction seems less interactive.

But what do I know?

As to my absence I've been a bit overwhelmed by work stuff, sorry about that, it's no excuse :)

The story as published implies that the ruling overruled the lower court on the 3 issues. In fact, it was agreeing with the trial court on the third issue -- that the sporadic instances of Vimeo employees making light of copyright law did not amount to adopting a "policy of willful blindness".

Thank you for so astutely reading that thread; I thought maybe I was losing my mind :) I keep disagreeing with him, and he keeps saying we're on the same page :)

Yeah that's neither right nor left, it's the universal language of greedy bloodsuckers.

The fact that Democrats support something doesn't negate the possibility of something being right wing. The Democrats are not ideologically pure, or ideologically homogenous, and very few of them can be considered "left".

To me, pretending that copyright is only about property rights, and ignoring the fact that copyright was also supposed to be about free speech and about making material available for free to the public after a limited time, is definitely "right wing".

As I said, the decision has nothing to do with how much copying makes it a copyright infringement. It has to do with the fact that there is no evidence that John Doe copied anything from anybody.

The decision isn't about what is or is not copyright infringement. It's about whether you can sue somebody without any evidence that they did in fact commit a copyright infringement.