Unfortunately (or fortunately, really, from a broader perspective) you wouldn't be allowed to use the patent system to bar other people from asserting their rights in court.
Miners used to bring canary birds with them when mining. If they hit poisonous gas, the canary would die before the miners, alerting them to the gas.
The government can issue secret warrants to companies that they are not allowed to disclose, requiring them to hand over customer data. A warrant canary is a periodical statement from a company that they have not received such a warrant. The idea is that if they do receive a warrant, they will stop publishing the warrant, and the court can't compel them to.
I once looked into whether it was possible to get a ".ck" domain name, for juvenile and obvious yet potentially humorous domains. It turns out that that's Cook Islands' TLD, and they don't allow direct use of it... instead, they've done the same thing as the UK did, and only allowed domains under ".co.ck".
I think that statement asks that you let the parent have final say over how you interact with their children, not that you cater to their every whim because their child is disabled.
The first amendment does apply - just, it applies the other way around. The primary function of media sites is to broadcast their users' messages, and in doing so they're exercising their own freedom of speech. To force them to broadcast certain content would be to compel certain speech from them, which would violate their freedom of speech.
(do note that I'm not a lawyer, so this might not be 100% accurate)
Of course it can. Taking this action against someone with a political stance opposite from yours may be a mistake you're more likely to make, but it's still a mistake.
Besides that, the point I was trying to make was less about whether it was a mistake, and more that it's plausible that this was something that was done by an individual against company policy rather than in accordance with it.
Eh. The explanation they offered that they were hiring a large mass of moderators and some of them made mistakes is more than plausible. When they add that many people it's really inevitable that someone would get over-eager or misread the message of a video.
Sure, but what of significance has changed? Every time you run a program, you're trusting the developer not to do nefarious things like reading your Chrome credentials, because the only assurance you have is the developer's word about what the program does. As far as I can tell, that hasn't changed at all. I'm not saying this is okay - there are reasons why this is a bad thing to do, I just don't see how no longer being able to trust the developer not to be malicious is one of them.
"How do we know that FSLabs don’t use this, just because they say so?"
How do you know the main executable doesn't do the same thing? How is trusting them not to run this .exe different from trusting them not to secretly implement this functionality in the actual program?
Businesses don't have to abide by EU law when doing business with EU citizens, but when doing business in the EU. It's a small, but sometimes meaningful, distinction.
Only if "as individually as possible" means perfect prediction. If you assume that there's a limit to how well the future can be predicted, insurance still has value.
Also, car insurance specifically is usually legally mandated. There's a tangible benefit to having it (being allowed to drive) besides the risk mitigation.
I looked up the case [1]. The copyright claims, as well as one of the claims for breach of contract, were dismissed without prejudice, which (as far as I understand) means he failed to allege enough facts to support his claim, but can come back and try again. Of the claims that were dismissed with prejudice, one of them were outside of the statute of limitations, one of them were a claim of breach of contract because his account was terminated (dismissed because the contract explicitly allowed TD to do this), one was a claim of "trespass to real property", which I believe relates to a claim that TD had physically destroyed his hard drive, and one was dismissed because (from what I can tell) it wouldn't apply to the sort of relation the two had.
I'm not a lawyer and so can't say conclusively, but it seems to me the court isn't saying "yeah they're right you don't have copyright here" as much as they're (for the most part) saying "you didn't include enough information in the suit, come back and try again".