The statute says that "property" used to commit criminal copyright infringement can be seized. It doesn't limit the type of property that may be seized to the types you've listed. When Congress wants to limit a statute's applicability, it knows how to draft it as such.
The problem is, hosting a LINK is NOT committing infringement. If it is... Then where is the seizure of google.com? Seems to me I can find plenty of links to illegally download Lady Gaga from there.
Oh, I know why. Because if ICE seized that domain, they'd find their ass in a sling so fast it would make their head spin. And ICE knows this. So instead, they go after smaller operators, those that are likely to not have governmental connections, powerful lobbies, big banks, and bigger lawyer teams.
Maybe. I actually pay for the "One" service. It gets me a little bit of stuff - like the Adobe Air Desktop Player, no commercials, more skips an hour, higher bitrates, etc. Not too bad, really. And I'll agree with the rest of you - I love the fact that it gets me started on new musicians.
That said... I pay ~$150/year for my Sirius, and I'm in my car far less than I am in front of a computer, or some other "connected" device. In fact, while I could pay a bit *more* for my Sirius (but less than the cost of Pandora|One) and get streaming from them - there's a huge difference... I can't get rid of the "crap" on Sirius. And there isn't that much that they introduce me to since it's pretty mainstream.
As John Doe states... "In fact, [the music companies] use to illegally pay radio stations to get their music on the air. Hmmm, I feel like their is a solution here somewhere." If the companies really gave a rat's ass about selling, and putting money in their artists' pockets... They would greatly decrease their prices for emerging artist streams, etc.
One of the interesting things I note is that some of the tunes I see on Pandora came from a compilation disc... I wonder if the recording industry has screwed the pooch on some of their compilation licensing, allowing the music on a comp disc to be "sub-licensed" more cheaply...
As to Pandora operating at a loss? Meh. It doesn't surprise me - as you point out, streaming costs and asinine licenses don't allow it to operate much differently. BUT... If it "gets bigger"... Will it gain some deal-making capacity? Kinda like Apple - can they get big enough that they can force the labels to their will?
There are some limitations. It's only available on one day and only via a live online chat. Also, it only works on the Kindle, which raises questions concerning just how "future proof" it will really be.
That right there will make this useless. Hell, the next thing I know, Amazon and the publisher will get into some stupid fight, pull the "signed" book, and it's gone. Even if they resolve their differences, what are the odds that I can get my special page back? Slim to none, with slim stepping out of town, I would bet.
Scote is right - If I have the opportunity to get a signature, I'm getting a physical one. Even if it is on a separate sheet of paper. The author can even sign my back while my friends take pictures, or a shirt... Anything that doesn't have DRM.
Let me fix that for you, regarding the consoles:
"If only the DRM, and the firmware, and the network, and... and... ad infinitum would let you use your legally purchased hardware to do what you want with it..."
Sure, there's lots of instances of oddities in DRM on the PC... But the most common issue I hear is somebody was doing something they weren't supposed to, got busted, and lost their account.
But... Here's the beauty, of some things like Steam... I can put my saves "in the cloud". I can play any of my games on ANY of my PCs (not at the same time), and I don't need to carry discs with me. I don't hack/cheat. I haven't had a single problem yet. Not like when the wife would misplace game discs on me.
I have one. Two, in fact. The wife uses it for the Wii Fit stuff, the kids play play 'em for their games, and I love the Super Mario Brothers, Smash Brothers, and MarioKart.
When I want some good M rated gaming, I go to the PC - forever the haven of a) great players, b) hardware that can keep up with the games (and vice versa), and anti-hacking mods. Plus, I can keep the kids out of the games, and, not play in a common area.
Ugh. The only 3D I want is me physically giving the finger to 3D...
I've seen other movies in 3D. I saw Avatar in 3D. That was the last one. Actually, not it wasn't - Despicable Me was. I'm sorry. It sucks. It isn't even CLOSE to "real". Sure sure, I know, it's not supposed to be real. But it is supposed to make me feel like I'm there, and not in some nasty theater that had some kid barf his 3-liter barrel of HFCS and his 2 pound box of sour patch kids all over the place.
As to the making of 3D films costing more... Well, maybe. I'm not convinced. Sure, it would in theory double the number of cameras for "live-action", but the animations and CGI shouldn't cost any more than it already does. Most animators working on stuff like Despicable Me are likely already working in wireframe stuff anyway - that's how they get realistic shadowing and stuff.
What has changed in the world of 3D is the glasses and projection equipment. Shockingly, the theaters have to buy these things. They likely get the same cut of a 3D movie as they do with a regular movie, except that their costs are much higher. So we pay more (like, double). For the same nasty theater, with a bit more eye-candy that sure isn't worth the 100% increase in cost.
I'm sorry - when going to the movies is damn near the same price as taking the family to a major league sports event... And all you leave with is a stomach ache and the stench of barf on your shoes... Well... It's time to rethink movies and their prices.
it isn't "but.. but... PIRACY", it is "but.. but... cheaters online" that really drives the issue, which is why they are banning modded consoles from their online game play. It is pretty logical and very needed, otherwise the entire PS3 online experience could be ruined
Are you sure about this? Do you have links to such statements from Sony? Or are you just trolling again?
As well, I think that if you went through GeoHot's research, you'd see that he didn't do it so that he could improve his aimbot...
I read what you posted over there on CopyHype. There's nothing that indicates anything different than what I've said. They aren't seizing anything that stops them from doing business. NOTHING. The domain name provides no more evidence than what could have been gathered without seizing the name. As ChurchHatesTucker mentioned below, they have done nothing but take the dealer's name out of the directory listing - without turning off the phone number.
So, go ahead, seize the domain. It does NOTHING, other than make the owner spend another $7.