> Between that and all the "the power grid can't handle everyone buying an electric car"
Blow the dad's mind with "the power grid can't handle the excess electricity generated on consecutive sunny days (yet)" [1]. (I'm partly kidding, because will he really believe it?)
AT&T's gambit is to argue that the government owes them a jury trial, and to simultaneously ensure that a jury trial never happens [1]:
> You were to ignore that AT&T has been at the vanguard of making jury trials impossible for customers through its use of fine print forcing users to pursue binding arbitration, a lopsided system that finds in favor of corporations a vast majority of the time. Or that AT&T spends millions of dollars annually successfully lobotomizing the entirely of telecom oversight, be it congressional, legal or regulatory.
Cory Doctorow argued against using copyright law as a substitute for privacy law or labor law [1], and I argue the same for location privacy. Copyright law already gets abused enough in contexts that indisputably involve copying of creative work. I do not want to stretch copyright law into location/movement privacy, where nonconsensual recording of location/movement does not necessarily copy something created by the person whose location was tracked. At least in the US, copyright comes into existence when creative expression is recorded in a tangible medium (such as your device's RAM, because outside of my beloved meme world you cannot download more RAM), and the copyright belongs to whoever did the recording. If an app on your phone records your location, was it you who recorded it? Was it the phone maker who recorded it? Was it the app maker who recorded it? Keep in mind, maybe you didn't install the app, or maybe you weren't aware that the app would track your location when you first installed it.
> We Still Don’t Know the Second Circuit’s Position on Embedding and Copyright Infringement–Richardson v. Townsquare
reply