This brings me to a Twitter homepage.
Er… that’s on your end someplace I think.
Don’t click on the #2. Click on the CeaseAndDesistHat (Popehat)
I never touch #2.
Not as good as #2, but still reasonably insane and the same judge.
The Miami/Florida Marlins are Citizens of the British Virgin Islands?
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article208398234.html
Lawyers representing the Marlins told a federal judge that at least one corporation that owns part of Marlins Teamco — the company Jeter and majority owner Bruce Sherman formed last year to buy the franchise — is based in the Caribbean. As a result, team lawyers argued, the dispute with Miami-Dade should be governed by jurisdictional rules that apply to international disputes.
If upheld, I could see this resulting in another look at Baseball’s Anti-Trust exemption (if the politicians wish to, of course).
Absolutely every sports team owner in America has got to want to murder Loria and this group. They have this amazing racket going just fleecing taxpayers for huge amounts of money and getting away with it. Now this one franchise is taking it so ludicrously comic book evil far that it could disrupt all of them.
I hope this, the Braves stadium deal, etc finally get people to stand up against these robberies.
As a random person on the Internet who of course couldn’t know one way or another, I’ll randomly say I can attest to this fact.
Also:
^^^^^^
The lawyer who won the case.
Rudy Noun Verb 9-11 Guliani has joined Trump’s star legal team.
If the Marlins win, that doesn’t get them off the hook completely, it moves the case from state court in Miami to a federal arbitrator, where the Marlins figure to get a better deal than they would from a Miami jury.
This one’s going to be fascinating:
Epic Games v. Rogers is a little different from the rest of the cases that were filed alongside it. In fact, it’s different from every other video game cheating lawsuit before it, partly because it dives into a legal gray area that usually passes as normal, allowable conduct (when you’re not being a flagrant jerk about it, anyway).
Epic Games doesn’t claim that defendant C.R. has ever written a cheat, sold a cheat, or even run a forum that distributes cheats. C.R. is being sued for live-streaming himself using a cheat he found online and then linking out to it in the YouTube description box…
… The way that DMCA counter-notices work is that YouTube will keep the content offline for 10 days, but if the copyright claimant — in this case, Epic Games — files a legal action, YouTube has to continue to keep it offline. And that’s exactly what Epic Games did, before even realizing they were going after a 14-year-old.
That fact only came to their attention when C.R.’s mother, Lauren Rogers, sent a letter to the court, pointing out that C.R. was a minor and minors are not capable of consenting to contracts. She had never authorized him to play Fortnite, which meant that the EULA was not binding on her son.
Lauren Rogers isn’t wrong, per se. It’s true that, in general, minors do not have the capacity to make contracts. (It’s why standard EULAs like Fortnite’s ask minors to only use the service with the supervision of their parent or guardian, who must themselves agree to the EULA.)
By playing Fortnite without his mother’s permission, technically speaking, C.R. is outside of the EULA. But also technically speaking, playing Fortnite without being covered under the EULA might be a digital trespass, or worse, computer fraud and abuse. That might sound wild and ridiculous in a world where minors are almost certainly clicking through EULAs without their parents’ permission, but the whole underage internet exists on the precarious legal fiction that all these teens are being supervised by their parents, who are bound by these contracts that no one is actually reading.
But all this is a little beside the point. Being a minor can’t stop you from getting sued for copyright infringement.
8-1. Alito dissenting. Naturally.
The best part is Alito’s dissent. He suggests that since the motorcycle in question was so very close to the street that it should be fine to search it.
As if the stuff in your home might be subject to search if it’s only separated by a very thin wall from public property.
If Altio made a case for this I wouldn’t be surprised.
“Walls are just barriers not recognized by the courts, anything concealed by them is subject to an officer walking down the street on patrol.”