I'd like to see the ACLU or similar take on this case and seek a declaratory judgement, and perhaps some finding of harassment (Assuming they have the available resources).
You'd also think the whole "I'm not going to charge now, and may choose to sit on this for up to 3 years" would violate Mr. Newingham's right to a speedy trial, or at least provide grounds for such a claim should Schmucko vonJusticar decide to file charges later on.
The purpose of that money is precisely to make available the knowledge. Locking it up defeats the purpose of the spending.
This times a million. AC has so many conflations going on (things that are valuable should be restricted to create more value, it being worth something therefore people will pay for it, blah blah blah) my head was spinning. How to peel back the onion of stupid? Whether to start by pointing out that value is derived from free and accessible knowledge, even by AC? To attack the heuristic that because something costs money to create it should require money to access? That MIT should invest taxpayer money in things that benefit, you know, taxpayers?
Your comment, Richard, cuts through all of it. Kudos.
This is known as "dead agenting". Essentially, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger. It belies a certain hubris and disdain for things online that they believe they can get away with claiming sites like Ripoff Report are "racketeering".
A big part of the flaw is the idea of "the internet". The internet is not some massive computer with blinking lights sitting somewhere making R2D2-esque noises. It's a transmission mechanism between bazillions of tiny little digital fiefdoms (and a few massive ones). "Let's regulate the internet!" is about as coherent as saying "Let's regulate the sky!" Which sky? The sky over Wales? Over Germany? Over Somalia? Over Antarctica? How high up? How far down?
Actually, politician logic is quite internally consistent and cohesive. It just doesn't line up with what comes out of their mouth, which is a manipulation rather than an expression.
Cameron KNOWS his scheme won't work. He's not dumb. What he's counting on is that a significant portion of UK voters are dumb.
He wants this to be intrusive on the lives of normal people, it gives him "mindshare". "If you got this screen by searching for something innocuous please know that you and David Cameron are heroes who are stopping Child Exploitation!!"
Believing politicians are stupid is a VERY dangerous premise and they're counting on it.
The concern is "Little Big Planet 2 grants access to online user-authored content, some of which is vile". This is genuinely useful to parents. Unfortunately they don't discuss the distinction and therefore confuse rather than clarify, in order to make it seem like the sontent was authored by sony.
So Obama keeps going on in that video about how they have only "phone numbers without names attached to them". That's bullshit, reverse 411 is a publicly available service. It's trivial to resolve phone numbers to names.
I've seen that my explanation of my answer has caused some consternation, and wanted to clear the air. Of the one(1) answers given to the question, it was the least untruthful. It was also the most truthful and the least undernontruthlessly misdetruthed. I'm glad we had this opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding you may have had.