Welcome to your future.
Why else does every other paragraph of the so-called "net neutrality" regulations use the qualifier "lawful content"?
They are from the government and they are here to HELP you.
Unfortunately, every bit is not equal, and in this case: Neutral = Neutered.
...so long as they give me thiers.
You tee 'em up, I'll hit 'em.
I think the FBI reads too many high-tech thriller novels. Apparently they thought they were dealing with Matthew Sobol.
The fallacy in comparing this to 9/11 is that in Breivik's case they're talking about a home-grown terrorist.
Timothy McVeigh might be a better comparison to draw...
I've got nothing against the substance of this article, but I feel that the gratuitous slur "...perhaps after a vodka binge..." is way out of line.
...weren't wearing their hats.
I don't get this:
apparently Vazquez had Madrigal's brother kidnapped in Mexico, and demanded the rights to the screenplay in exchange for his release. Madrigal signed over the rights to the screenplay to Vazquez. Vazquez apparently then was able to sell the screenplay to Proud Mary Entertainment...
In what bizzaro world is a contract signed under duress legally binding anyway?
Issac Asimov wrote all the laws (3, to be precise) that the world needs, and they fit in an even smaller space than a letter-size piece of paper.
He may not have ever said that they should apply to humans, but he certainly must have been thinking it.
I only watch movies to see the paintings.
"Fixed" in the same way one would "fix" a male dog.
Can we not even wait until an acorn hits our head to start claiming that the sky is falling?
Did you want these patents to NOT be purchased at all? How was that going to happen?
From the point of view of a Microsoft or Google or Facebook, they have to defend against the potential of the actions that trolls would have taken against them. They pay the most, because they have the most to lose.
Try to wait a see what they DO with the patent (bad OR good) before you start whining. These guys have plenty of real issues to which you can validly take exception now, without having to reach for this nonsense.
So:
60% of the content was never downloaded or only downloaded once. But, you say, 90% of users did nothing but download infringing content.
Therefore those remaining 10% of users were responsible for uploading 60% of the data?
I'm just trying to understand your theory here...
Thank you for visiting, Mr Buffett.
James Comey is the reincarnation of...
...J. Edgar Hoover.