I had a bad experience with them, too, though luckily they only had $2 of my money. I signed up for a business account, was verified in all of a few minutes, set up the website, then did a test transaction. They instantly locked my account. I tried to get it unlocked, and they told me my business model violated their terms of service.
It sure appeared to me that they set things up to get that first month's payment out of everyone without any sort of verification, but the moment you actually USE the account they would do an actual review. I gave them an overview of the business model from the beginning, but they clearly didn't look at it until I did the test transaction.
To make it even better, they told me the only way to close the account was to unlock it. To unlock it, I would have to change my business model and then they'd reconsider.
Paypal is great for paying people on eBay. Beyond that, stay away.
Isn't it only "way, way beyond what's appropriate" if you assume the opposite of the position that the FBI/DOJ have taken?
That is, if you don't treat Wikileaks as a media organization (and I agree with your reasoning that it is, but that's not the point), then paying an informant to get insider information is just something that the FBI does.
There are a ton of hidden costs that most people won't see. The NSA may be different, but a certain government agency that I happen to work for has some ridiculous IT security policies that prevent anyone from using any technology that might be considered modern, efficient, or useful.
The difference between "the cost to store and manage the data" and "the cost for a dozen Oracle licenses because we're inherently terrified of open source" is many millions of dollars.
I don't want to tell you how to run your site (well, okay, maybe a little), but stuff like this is not why I come to Techdirt. The fact that there's essentially no discussion on this post suggests that I'm not alone. I read this post expecting it to make a point eventually, but it never did.
The United States Sentencing Commissionís website was destroyed when activists attacked the site to protect the federal prosecution of Bart Swartz which eventually led to Mr. Swartz committing suicide.
If you take "protect" as a typo for "protest", substitute "Aaron" for "Bart", let him say that the prosecution caused the suicide, which may be false but certainly isn't an absurd position to take, and wave away "destroyed" as coming from someone who doesn't understand websites, that sentence makes sense.
The United States Sentencing Commissionís website was hacked when activists attacked the site to protest the federal prosecution of Aaron Swartz which eventually led to Mr. Swartz committing suicide.
Ahh, thanks for ruining my hypothetical with your fancy lawyer "facts".
Could the counterfeiters use it as leverage towards maybe a merchandising deal? If I understand you correctly, they still could counter-sue and COULD win, though it would be tough. There would be legal costs involved for Rovio, at least.
Do the counterfeiters have any control over their own innovations that have build on Angry Birds? Clearly they're doing stuff that Rovio hasn't thought of, or Rovio wouldn't be looking to them for inspiration.
Could a counterfeiter then sue Rovio for copying the copies? Obviously the counterfeiters would have to admit to the original copying, but it might make for a really interesting legal ruling.
Ebert is considered an expert on movies - by many probably THE expert. if one is considering a purchase of the movie, and THE expert has said, "here's a better version that is also free", I don't think most people are going to buy/rent the original as well as the "perfect" version.
Although, I can't imagine that many of the people who follow Ebert on Twitter haven't seen the original already. The actual harm may end up being minimal, but I think your argument on why that would be the case is wrong.
Two of my friends got a full 24 pack of Miller Lite into FedEx Field pre-9/11. That's, what, $250 if you actually pay for it inside? The revenue of the food and drink vendors inside the stadium is much, much more important than preventing terrorism.
You've got it wrong - the State Department is just protecting national interests. If we have to deal with crappy Microsoft products, the world has to deal with them, too. Imagine if the Bosnian government switched to Linux? Think how much money they'd save! Think how many extra processor cycles they'd be able to leverage without anti-virus software running all the time! We'd never be able to compete!
If he knew what he was doing in security and privacy, he'd know how to protect his personal data without destroying the hard drive. If "destroy the hard drive" is an answer to "how do I protect personal data?" at Deloitte, sign me up for a high-paying consulting job. I can destroy hard drives ALL DAY LONG.
Still, a very bad precedent to set - hopefully the court comes to its senses.
I don't find this argument as compelling as others - the data could always be stored offline (not that the law requires this, but still). I think it's dangerous to start piling on more and more arguments after someone like Rep Lofgren has already presented real problems stemming from the law.
Every argument that can be dismissed as "well, we can do X to fix that" weakens the overall objection to the law.