Interesting. I played GTA4 last night (Getting my Xbox [which I hadn't played in months] set up for GTA5 in a few weeks, so I had to make sure it worked!) and didn't shoot anyone afterwards. I was able to drive to work without running over any prostitutes or stealing any of the many, many nicer cars I see every day. So far, I have refrained from pulling out my cell phone, going to the cheats option, and loading up on ammo and armor as well. Today was a good day.
Also, I didn't have access to a loaded handgun. So there's that.
The easiest way to make sure you don't give up information is to NOT HAVE INFORMATION TO GIVE UP. Sure, he had "4 laptops" with him, but he was gone for weeks before the leaks were made public. If he were smart (he is) he would keep the information somewhere separate, and simply keep some type of access to it; not carry it all around with him at all times.
I doubt he gave anything to China or Russia, because he most likely doesn't have anything on him to give...
I thought these "features" were to make the system "better" in that it would allow the cloud to manage the heavy lifting of games so the xbox console could present better FPS and gameplay. By removing the always on requirement, are games going to suck, or was that all just BS to begin with (ahem Sim City...)
Also, that seemed like an easy switch in position. What's to say the first "set up" connection just turns "IMWATCHING.NSA.dll to a dormant setting that Microsoft can later turn back on?
Remember how we were GOING to have always on requirements and restrict game sales? Well publishers are complaining of those pesky Pirates (ARRRRRR) so here's an update to help fix that problem! (IMWATCHING.NSA.dll reactivated).
I don't believe the DOJ will go after kids for reading news sites.
I do however believe the DOJ will add these charges on to someone arrested for something else, when an internet search or computer search reveals they accessed a site contrary to the TOS to bolster the charge sheet.
Also, this broad law gives the DOJ the leeway to go after people it doesn't like, because many millions of people have violated a site TOS, or played Counterstrike on a school computer at some point.
What if ReDigi developed a cloud based service you could download songs to, and then give the buyer a "key" to sign in and listen to those songs, and stream them to the buyers computer. Then, the buyer could sell the key, without physically transferring or "creating a new copy" and the new buyer can stream the same file to his/her computer? That way you buy access, not the file. Sort of like how the **AA want it to be.
I just graduated law school, and it seemed like HOAs were the villian in most scenarios, and used in many examples of questionable actions. I had to write many a paper about the evil doings of HOAs, and many Bar prep materials dealt with HOAs.
I guess that was one area of law school that actually translates to the real world...
But news executives and media lawyers should think twice before treating Mr. Assange as if he were a journalist. If leaders in the news industry blur the distinction between their journalists and self-proclaimed enemies of the state like Mr. Assange, they may encourage prosecutors to make the same false equivalence.
Seems to me he is bluring the distinction between journalism and his self proclaimed enemy...
Actually, Copyright was intended to "Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" and not "only the creators get the rewards from producing the works.
It is not meant as a permanent crutch creators use to support themselves, and actually limits the lengh creators can have exclusive rights to their creations. What DRM is doing is locking creations up indefinitely, and extending that Right beyond the "rewards from producing the works."
DRM is more that protecting the rights of creation, but actually restricts what someone can do with something they paid full price for after the purchase. The ONLY way this type of DRM should be allowed is if the product is priced at a RENTAL price, not full retail.
Blockbuster used to rent movies at 3 bucks a pop. They didn't charge 19.99 (full price for a dvd) to rent it. Instead of paying 60 bucks for SimCity that is "unplayable" (look at reddit), or 10 bucks for a digital graphic novel that can be erased at the seller's whim, why not charge rental rates? because that's what this type of digital DRM does. It makes the product a rental.