Fox owns the copyright to the Family Guy game. Thus, according to the law, they can say who can and cannot distribute it. When you apply for a DMCA takedown notice to a website, you don't have to consider fair use. All you have to do is say, under penalty of perjury, that you do own the copyrights to the content in question. So when Fox filed the DMCA to both Youtube and Twitch, they were in full compliance with the law. And that is the fucking sad part.
So the more popular a website, the more it automatically goes up the scale of illegality? Wikipedia, according to Alexa in February, was the 6th most popular site in the world. Are you going to scream "pirate!" at that site?
So if I go out right now with my camera and shoot a movie that's 73 or 74 minutes long, and I wanted to upload it to Megaupload (pretend for the sake of argument it's still up and running), your mindset is that such a movie is automatically illegal?
Strictly speaking, you have done the act of copying in reading and commenting on this site. You had to download a copy of the site into your web browser, including all the different graphics next to each user's name (for example, the orangutan next to mine). How do you know that I have the license or copyright for that photo? It is a photo I took several years ago, but you can't be sure, since you don't know me and I never registered it. Whenever you speak, you are copying words, you are using pre-arranged letters and words and making them into a sentence.
So, when you say you're careful not to copy, perhaps you should be more precise, and say you don't copy commercial movies and TV shows?
Any lawyers want to chime in what happens if (more than likely when) the MPAA gets a default win in this civil case to the money seized from Meguapload? Does US/NZ law allow for the MPAA to immediately claim the money with a good expectation of actually getting it, even though the criminal trial has yet to happen?
Maybe this is proof Mike Rogers played Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater? In that game, (spoilers) the character Eva is a triple agent: she infiltrates the KGB on orders from the Chinese and (before the game starts) kills and pretends to be a US infiltrator to the KGB who had publicly defected.
This isn't some obscure branch of law that no-one knows about. As the article indicates, it's been established law for a decade, and the CEO has had this pointed out to him. So why does he think he can do this and simply expect the courts to let it slide? He's not a judge. If he disagrees with the law, he can call his representatives and try and get them to change it, but he can't do this and then turn up in court and say "No Your Honour, I shouldn't be arrested or sent to prison. You see, you folks ruled on this matter wrong in my opinion".
The Rescape looks great. One idea I had was that you could off-load some of the graphics processing work to a more powerful local PC. I'm not a programmer or system developer so I'm not entirely sure exactly how this would work, but what I'm envisioning is, before gameplay, you scan the environment with your smartphone camera, transmit that to your PC, scan your player buddies. You then have, while playing, the local PC doing all the grunt work in rendering graphics and then streaming them to your smartphone in real-time. On the PC, you'd select skins to go over your player buddies, and even select who is an ally and who is an enemy. In fact, why not throw in Google Glass into the mix, and have that be used for display, while using the phone's gyroscope to help track gunshots?
Not just that, but Torrentfreak reports that the City of London Police are going to try to put "legitimate" ads on sites like TPB. A key sentence that jumped out at me is this "The police will need to find a way to advertise on sites without paying money, or the campaign itself will end up financing the very sites they aim to close. " If I'm reading that correctly, then the ads that are advertising the legitimate services (Netflix et al) will not be charged for, which to me smacks of much corruption. After all, when was the last time a government body said to owners and operators of private property that they have to allow free advertising for these other guys on their property, where advertising space is usually charged for?
Like others have told me, you can sue for anything, but winning in the actual lawsuit? Different story altogether. If the US government even allowed the case to move forward, they would just argue that nothing was taken, that RSA still has the standard and can still promote and sell their products, that it's all legal, blah blah blah.
I'm your average consumer of media. I want to stay on the right side of the law: I don't want to have the threat of court hanging over my head like the Sword of Damocles. However, when consuming media, every single legal option I have tried simply pales in comparison to unauthorised sources. Broadcast TV: if I'm watching free over the air, my selection is limited, and I have to conform to someone else's viewing schedule. Given that my working hours are different from week-to-week, this is unfeasible. I could hear of a great new show that's on Wednesday evenings at 7pm: not great, because more than likely, I'll miss half the episodes and then be told I have to be left waiting for months for the optical disc. If I pay for a cable package, well, my selection is much greater, but I'm still stuck to whatever the TV station is showing and on their schedule.
Radio: I don't have a radio and even if I did, the same problem as above, as being on someone else's schedule. Not only that, but I can't multi-task, so if I was to listen to radio, I'd have to sit back and do nothing else. If I were to try reading something else, I'd lose focus on the radio show.
Optical Disc: Some of my favourite shows have hundreds of episodes, so watching every episode of a show this way necessitates a large disc collection, which is not a good idea for someone living in an apartment. It can get very expensive. Not only that, but optical discs are frequently region locked. I can change the region of my playback hardware, but that can only be done a limited number of times. And here I thought I owned outright the hardware I bought. Blu-rays are particularly bad, since to play them on a PC, you have to pay for software to do it: it's not enough to buy the disc and the hardware player, like with DVDs, but you have to pay for the software too. Not only that, but Blu-rays outright tell me what I am and am not allowed do with my hardware (only one screen can be connected at a time). Considering the price I've paid for Blu-rays...the limitations are excessive.
Download: Steam is great at this, and so are a bunch of other services, but at the end of the day, the downloads are frequently tied to an account (notable exceptions are GOG and iTunes music), meaning that we are tied to that service and must do everything to see that it continues to exist, in order for us to continue having those games. If Steam goes belly-up tomorrow, I lose my entire library.
Streaming: works great, only as long as you have a fast and stable Internet connection. However, legal streaming services are crippled. Content is frequently region locked and disappears. Given that the Internet is capable of serving a global audience with no problem at all, it's incredibly stupid to segment markets, saying to potential customers "You're in the wrong country, tough shit"
Contrasting all of that, you have the unauthorised downloads, whether through HTTP, FTP, torrents or whatever. It gives me what I'm looking for, no cost. As long as I apply basic security principles, I'm okay.
I want to support the makers of the content that I consume. However, they have to have a way for me to do that that doesn't massively restrict me, if not outright prevents me from consuming their work. I've noticed a new thing starting, Patreon, where popular artists can have their fans chip in very tiny amounts, similar to crowdfunding, but on an ongoing basis. That sounds great. So if an anime studio were to release their content for free download, and invited me to support them via Patreon, I wouldn't hesitate. I'd do it in a heartbeat. So would a lot of other fans.
What's the Secretary of State going to do? Even if he/she were a believer in copyright abolition (like me), what can they do? They can't exactly ban DRM. They can't say to a movie studio "Hey, Joe London here says the DRM on his DVD is too restrictive, give him a non-DRM'ed disc" (since that would entail a government demanding a transfer of private property from one party to another, sans a trial). Even if the Secretary were to do something, what counts as "too restrictive"? I tried to watch a Blu-ray on my PC the other day, and I had to physically disconnect one of my monitors before it would play (having one monitor turned off wasn't enough, I had to take the actual cable out). Would this count as too restrictive? I know taking a cable out is easy, but it's still a piece of software demanding what I do with my hardware before it'll play back a disc that I've bought.
Yeah, so? As abdominal as it is to issue a death sentence to someone merely because you think they insulted your religion, the Muslims in Egypt have nothing at all to do with the producers of the video or Google. It is the Muslims there who are calling for her death, and no matter what happens to Google or the film's producers, that won't change. The fatwa won't go away if Google and/or the producers are punished in the US or the takedown order sticks. Claiming copyright on a video will not help Garcia stay alive if a radical Muslim tries to shoot her.
So unless I'm being completely stupid (not outside the realm of possibility) doesn't this ruling automatically mean that any digital storefronts operating out of the UK now have to scrub the word "Buy" from their websites?
"even as the US government has locked Huawei out of domestic contracts and persuaded other countries to seek different vendors."
Uhh...question. Why would the US government, now being able to tap into Huawei equipment and use them for spying purposes, then go around to other countries and say to them "Don't buy Huawei!"? If I was the head of the NSA, and I've tapped into Huawei, I'd say to the White House to promote Huawei products, so as to make my spying job easier.