As much fun as it is to jump on this guy, I'm sure a reasonable assertion could be made that, whatever the images were, they were there as "sample" material for what they wanted to block. It might even be true. Not that it would make any difference if he were in the States. Remember that politician who was arrested for having an automatic weapon magazine? He just wanted to use it as a sample on television.
I don't play a lot of games, and of the few I do two are almost ten years old. When you "buy" a product, you expect to have the use of it until it wears out, something that can't happen to a pile of ones and zeros. These companies should not be allowed to take down the supporting servers - ever - unless the game was marketed with a clear expiration date: "Online functions, listed below, may not be available after October 2019."
Let the customer make an intelligent, informed choice, not essentially have the product stolen back by the manufacturer at some arbitrary time.
Making quality products and selling them at competitive prices is hard, and takes a while. Difficult to prove to your boss - in only one quarter - that you deserve a bonus that way. That's why the technique is pretty much obsolete. These days, most marketing plans amount to "theft by deception" in my book.
It'll be interesting to see how this is implemented
Keurig has experimented with RFID tags before, which haven't seen much success, and Tassimo has used (easily deciphered) barcodes for years.
The Keurig Vue system was introduced largely because the patent on the K-cup ran out a while ago; that hasn't seen great success either, and they're slashing the prices on the makers rapidly. Both Vue and Keurig 2.0 claim to offer valuable features (Vue makes foam for your cappuccino, and 2.0 will make a 30 oz POT of coffee) but are these features people actually want?
What I want is a quick, decent cup of coffee that doesn't break the bank. None of the multiple "innovations" Keurig's flailing around with (they have a new Rivo cappuccino system, too) address that.
I've been using single-serve for years, and have tried virtually all of the brands/systems: Keurig, Tassimo, Senseo, and more. I personally prefer Tassimo, but currently use Keurig (or, more precisely, the very expensive machine Cuisinart makes under license). The reason is simple - wide variety of coffee at more moderate prices. At SRP, a cup of Keurig coffee costs about 69¢. However, sometimes I buy other (non authorized) brands, even occasionally on closeout - for as little as 16¢ to 40¢ per cup.
If Keurig takes that ability away, I won't be buying ANY of their coffee - or the machines, either. And you can't convince me that a $120 to $250 coffee pot is pure loss leader.
I've read "Blind Man's Bluff"; it describes dedicated Navy submarines whose whole purpose was to tap underseas cables. It would be naive to believe we no longer have those subs. Presumably, with a new, pristine line and current technology Brazil could detect a tap if they were expecting it.
So THEN what? Call out the USA publicly? Ask us nicely to disconnect? Declare war?
I happened to watch "The Aviator" last night. Howard Hughes was accused of bribing Air Force officials, and he said "Of course I did. That's the way business with the Air Force is done." Further said he'd checked, and under current law it wasn't illegal, so if they wanted to make a big deal of it, the lawmakers better get to work.
There are a fair number of countries that don't even make the pretense things aren't done that way. Uber isn't playing the game right, and they'll be stalled and inconvenienced for it.
Decades ago, at the height of the cold war, Robert Heinlein once joked how reforms in communist China would provisionally allow "Limited free speech on alternate Tuesdays." That vibration you feel is the old boy doing 5,000 RPM in his grave.
I remember scenes from that movie very well, almost frame-by-frame. Therefore, a COPY of those frames must exist in my mind. Now, several times I've described those parts of the film to third parties; that's distribution. More than likely, at least one person I talked to decided not to see the film based on my description - I've interfered with the business interests of Paramount Studios.
Get it out of my head! I CAN'T STOP INFRINGING! (Applies ball-peen hammer to cerebral coretex)
What on earth makes you think anyone holding a government job won't automatically be exempt? I can already hear the rationale: "people in certain positions will necessarily produce large numbers of false indications, so in the interests of accuracy they will have to be omitted from the database."
IMHO, two people were looking for a confrontation there. The officer was clearly in the wrong, the photographer in the right - but, as the phrase goes, he didn't have to be a dick about it. Oh, he has the right to mouth off, and theoretically the officer can't do anything about it; but doing so doesn't help other people who wish to film in public.
I'm a former professional photographer. To this day, I carry some fairly elaborate equipment, and probably have someone confront me two of three times a year. I keep laminated copies of local laws regarding photography in public spaces on my person, and helpfully read them to people as necessary. It's much easier to educate than to get out of jail. I've only been arrested once, and it didn't end well for the officer. Probably helps that I'm polite, co-operative, and, well, professional. You get what you give.
Can anyone think of a way where prosecutors do NOT advance their careers by getting convictions? That's the crux of it; and I'm beginning to think under-motivated prosecutors would be better than over-zealous ones.
A few years ago, military aircraft manufacturers (and, I believe, the Air Force) started looking for licensing fees from the manufacturers of model airplane kits. Apparently they believe the APPEARANCE of the aircraft is theirs, as opposed to having been bought and paid for by the American taxpayer. I haven't read much more about it, but I do know that since then the cost of models has jumped up significantly.
Law enforcement agencies seem to want to be the Army. Not every interaction calls for overwhelming force, and use of it increases the chance it will be met with same. Why the no-knock? To preserve evidence, and increase the chances of a conviction. The conviction, IMHO, was not worth the life of an officer.
He was, essentially, killed by the prosecutors office.