31–40 of 54 posts
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxBaDs0sGPw&t=38m18s - Shopify CEO discussing international expansion.
It would be nice if common norms in this regard were codified EU-wide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No way? I thought the supreme court was like ..... supreme?
Courts within Civil Law systems are there just to interpret and enforce the law, not to create it. What individual courts decide is not binding on anyone but the involved parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have always wondered why one is able to sell a car that can go over 100mph when the maximum speed allowed on the roads in my country is 70mph and being caught going 100mph will land you in jail. We already know people cannot be trusted to "do the right thing" so high speed incidents will, and do, occur. As Richard Miller wrote in SQUED [1] "Show me a man that has never broken the law and I'll show you a man that ha…
I don't know about your country, but in some countries there are private race tracks where you can speed legally for a few thousand bucks.
But it is true, that particularly lower German courts (some names are in the news again and again) have a long record of decisions that just show one thing: Many German judges have completely not understood computers and the internet. While judges might not needed to in general, they at least should take advice -- possibly by their own grandson? -- before they just make that kind of decisions.
As other people here addressed correctly: That ruling is not final. But it is true, that particularly lower German courts (some names are in the news again and again) have a long record of decisions that just show one thing: Many German judges have completely not understood computers and the internet. While judges might not needed to in general, they at least should take advice -- possibly by their own grandson? -- b…
My guess is that what those decisions mean is that the law needs a big change, especially on responsibility regime inherited from the Napoleon code.
Ridiculously misleading headline. No, this is not what the court has said. In fact they pretty much explicitly said the opposite, i.e., in principle they are not liable. The court has said that a supplier that clearly knows that it is supplying services to an illegal operation should stop supplying those services. There's nothing wrong with that in principle, it is applied to all kinds of things. The problem comes wh…
There kind of is. It's making the assumption that an "illegal operation" is a binary thing deserving of absolute condemnation. It isn't saying that you can't, for example, sell a counterfeiter a money press, but rather that you can't provide him (or any other "criminal") with a loaf of bread, or a tank of gas, or a room for the night in winter, or a phone, etc. It's practically a death sentence without even a trial, and on top of that it makes no allowance for the proportionality of the sanctions to the alleged offense. Sorry, you're a known litterbug, no one may sell you insulin for your diabetes.
And so it is with domain names. You turn off somebody's domain name, you're taking away their forum to inform the public of your error in wrongly accusing them of misconduct. You're turning off their email and disabling their ongoing correspondence with their attorneys and their community. It's blanket censorship. You're not turning off their infringing operation, you're turning off their existence in the communications network. And to the extent that you aren't, the sanctions will be ineffective at preventing the alleged misconduct. As a policy it makes no sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have always wondered why one is able to sell a car that can go over 100mph when the maximum speed allowed on the roads in my country is 70mph and being caught going 100mph will land you in jail. We already know people cannot be trusted to "do the right thing" so high speed incidents will, and do, occur. As Richard Miller wrote in SQUED [1] "Show me a man that has never broken the law and I'll show you a man that ha…
> I have always wondered why one is able to sell a car that can go over 100mph when the maximum speed allowed on the roads in my country is 70mph and being caught going 100mph will land you in jail What if you are rich and you have your own private road where you can drive at any speed you want.
Yeah and Mercedes is responsible for my speeding ticket. They purposefully make their cars able to exceed the speed limit of 50km/h inside cities.
I have always wondered why one is able to sell a car that can go over 100mph when the maximum speed allowed on the roads in my country is 70mph and being caught going 100mph will land you in jail. We already know people cannot be trusted to "do the right thing" so high speed incidents will, and do, occur. As Richard Miller wrote in SQUED [1] "Show me a man that has never broken the law and I'll show you a man that ha…
Ridiculously misleading headline. No, this is not what the court has said. In fact they pretty much explicitly said the opposite, i.e., in principle they are not liable. The court has said that a supplier that clearly knows that it is supplying services to an illegal operation should stop supplying those services. There's nothing wrong with that in principle, it is applied to all kinds of things. The problem comes wh…
> There's nothing wrong with that in principle There kind of is. It's making the assumption that an "illegal operation" is a binary thing deserving of absolute condemnation. It isn't saying that you can't, for example, sell a counterfeiter a money press, but rather that you can't provide him (or any other "criminal") with a loaf of bread, or a tank of gas, or a room for the night in winter, or a phone, etc. It's prac…
If I was renting to you, and found out you were cooking and distributing meth in the house, I would evict you. That would not mean you could never live in a house again, just that you can't do your crime on my property.