So what I'm getting out of this article is that there is no nation wide government conspiracy, no police state. It's just one giant cluster-fuck. Every part is broken in a tiny way, and it all adds up.
Well, conveniently, those tiny parts are made up of (supposedly) intelligent people. The broken bits should be able to fix themselves once they realize it's not one giant problem, but a bunch of tiny ones.
People are scared of big problems, they think they can't do anything about it. But one person can fix their own tiny problem.
Long story short: Your a judge, this is what you signed up for, do your damn job. Same with the cops, same with the agents, same with everyone. Fix your own little problem and the whole will fix itself.
"I'm pretty sure that's the position that most labels have always taken."
You would be wrong. Radio stations paying to play music is a relatively new thing. The labels didn't start pushing for that until years after Internet radio and satellite radio started to get big.
There was a scandal between the record labels and radio stations a while ago. The record labels got into trouble for paying radio stations to play their music. So the exact opposite of what you were pretty sure of.
The labels took the position of "Get the music out there any way possible". I don't know why that changed.
"Who makes a form where you check what you DON'T want to add a person to? That's insanity."
This is what bothers me most about this story. A check list to say what lists someone shouldn't be on just shows how deeply "guilty until proven innocent" is engrained. Everyone is guilty until that checkbox is checked, everyone is a threat, everyone is the enemy.
I don't know how I feel about this. I understand fully why they didn't inform the government, but this was a huge thing, they probably still should have.
I guess there's one bit of information that would change my mind. Who was it that first broke the news about HeartBleed? Did Google just skip the government and go straight to the public? If they did that, then I'm right there with them. If they kept it secret, then I'm glad I just changed my passwords.
And that's where the controversies lie. They broke patent law by growing plants? The wind blew Monsanto seeds into your farm, don't you fucking dare harvest them. You legally purchase seeds (and I want to reemphasize legally purchase) and sort them out. Well, fuck you too.
How does patent law cover any of that? That's the problem. The patent law that allows this is fucked.
Maybe we know more about the Monsanto controversies then you give us credit for. Yes, Monsanto has a EULA for their seeds. Yes, they've sued people for having seeds blow into non-Monsanto farms. Yes, they've sued people for planting legally purchased seeds that were Monsanto's (but not bought from Monsanto).
Do a quick search on Techdirt for "Monsanto" and you'll find two pages of articles about them.
Mojang tweeted about this today. Their servers weren't compromised by this, but the load balancers from Amazon were. That suggests that the Amazon cloud was at risk and anything that used it should probably have their users change their passwords.
"But it's not the type of phrasing most people would have done."
I would have. Overly strong emotion and law making should not mix. When they do we get laws that do more harm then good. If I truly thought that someone was too emotional to do their job, I would say as such.
Speaking of too emotional, a lot of people are jumping on the statement saying it's sexist. But instantly jumping to the defense just because it's a man saying something to a woman is just as sexist. Show me something more and I'll be with you, but one sentence does not a sexist make.
Re: Re: Solution to bizzare Youtube copyright claims....
I think AC might be talking about something more proactive. Maybe being able to claim that the uploader owns all copyright to the content during upload. That way, when something like this comes along, the counter notice has already been set and it would need to go to the next step.
I like that idea. "I attest, under risk of loss of account, that I own all copyright to the uploaded content or that I have readily available proof of license to the content uploaded." Should probably throw something in there about fair use, bu that's a gray area and should probably be handled in a case by case bases.