"Anonymous doesn't yet have the capability to run computers without a power source, officials say. But if the group's members around the world developed or acquired it, an attack on the power grid would become far more likely, according to cybersecurity experts who spend their time giving stupid quotes for stupid articles."
Well, they could run them on generators, but I think it'd be hard to connect to the internet during a blackout.
Hope everyone has a fun night and a great new year.
"The issue is whether it was subjective bad faith to do so. Considering that fair use is a defense and that the would-be plaintiff has a legitimate, nonfrivolous claim of infringement, I don't see how any would-be plaintiff could ever be in subjective bad faith so long as there's copying."
So you are basically admitting that there is no punishment for using the DMCA to censor people, so long as they use any scrap of material the would-be plaintiff could considering copying.
They did say it was the cause. The exact opposite, in fact. They are saying that the act obviously failed at doing what it was meant to do, according to the RIAAs own numbers.
I "get it" just fine. NZ can't dictate the terms a U.S. hearing, correct, but you seem to be missing the point. The U.S. broke the law when they took the evidence out of NZ to begin with. That's obtaining it illegally, last I checked.
And "good faith", even in legal terms, means that the evidence was believed at the time to be legally obtained. The U.S. knowingly broke NZ law when they took the evidence offshore. And even assuming they did not know, ignorance of the law is just as bad, if not worse.
So, let me get this straight. The FTC is accusing Google of hurting it's rivals, when capitalism is about hurting your rivals.
And even assuming they are correct in their claims, what is the FTC doing about apple, who buys materials from suppliers who's employees are jumping off the roof of their factories because of working conditions.
Where is the FTC action against Telcos and wireless providers who are price gouging customers through agreements to artificially keep prices high because there is no real competition?
And what of the "too big to fail" banks? Where is the FTC there? Oh, wait, that's right. We're propping those guys up. Forgot about that.
Actually, not true. The failings in NZ do change the case in the U.S., since the evidence was gathered illegally by the NZ police. If the evidence is obtained illegally, it's still inadmissible in a U.S. court, which means that the DoJ would have no case.
No one should have to ask a judge if they can have the rights they are fundamentally entitled to, i.e. free speech. No matter how atrocious what she said was, the judge has no right to tell her she can't say it, especially when you stop and see people like the WBC being allowed to spew their vitriol all over the place.
"while ignoring all the horrible things that Dotcom did."
Horrible? Horrible is trafficing 12 year old girls to sell as sex slaves. Horrible is selling methamphetamine to middle schoolers. Horrible is murdering innocent people for kicks.
Running a legitimate business that followed laws it didn't even have to(the DMCA) and giving rights holders direct access to your servers is hardly what I'd call "horrible".
For those in the US, might I suggest contacting your representative. Congress wants to "protect the children". Well, let's let them know that here are real children who really need protecting, and demand they do something about it.
The problem is a legal one. Even if someone makes an android version, it still would suffer the same legal fate as the iOS version. What needs to happen is the lawsuit needs to be dropped, or a judge needs to realize that SCS doesn't actually want to help anyone but themselves, and tell them to go fuck themselves and throw the lawsuit out.
Something interesting to be noted is that when I searched for the post from Finesse, Google found it, but when you try to access the page, Facebook says it cannot be found, implying it was removed.
(untitled comment)
"Anonymous doesn't yet have the capability to run computers without a power source, officials say. But if the group's members around the world developed or acquired it, an attack on the power grid would become far more likely, according to cybersecurity experts who spend their time giving stupid quotes for stupid articles."
Well, they could run them on generators, but I think it'd be hard to connect to the internet during a blackout.
Hope everyone has a fun night and a great new year.
Re: Re:
You honestly think that any drug costs $70,000/treatment to produce?
Pharma companies set prices high because their business is literally "pay or die", so they can get away with it.
Re: Re: Re:
"The issue is whether it was subjective bad faith to do so. Considering that fair use is a defense and that the would-be plaintiff has a legitimate, nonfrivolous claim of infringement, I don't see how any would-be plaintiff could ever be in subjective bad faith so long as there's copying."
So you are basically admitting that there is no punishment for using the DMCA to censor people, so long as they use any scrap of material the would-be plaintiff could considering copying.
And yet you wonder why we don't like the DMCA.
Re:
They did say it was the cause. The exact opposite, in fact. They are saying that the act obviously failed at doing what it was meant to do, according to the RIAAs own numbers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I "get it" just fine. NZ can't dictate the terms a U.S. hearing, correct, but you seem to be missing the point. The U.S. broke the law when they took the evidence out of NZ to begin with. That's obtaining it illegally, last I checked.
And "good faith", even in legal terms, means that the evidence was believed at the time to be legally obtained. The U.S. knowingly broke NZ law when they took the evidence offshore. And even assuming they did not know, ignorance of the law is just as bad, if not worse.
(untitled comment)
So, let me get this straight. The FTC is accusing Google of hurting it's rivals, when capitalism is about hurting your rivals.
And even assuming they are correct in their claims, what is the FTC doing about apple, who buys materials from suppliers who's employees are jumping off the roof of their factories because of working conditions.
Where is the FTC action against Telcos and wireless providers who are price gouging customers through agreements to artificially keep prices high because there is no real competition?
And what of the "too big to fail" banks? Where is the FTC there? Oh, wait, that's right. We're propping those guys up. Forgot about that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Missed the ACs reply due to realizing I wasn't signed in halfway through typing my comment.
Considering that the U.S. has been ordered to return the evidence, saying that the DoJ is acting in "good faith" is laughable, at best.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, not true. The failings in NZ do change the case in the U.S., since the evidence was gathered illegally by the NZ police. If the evidence is obtained illegally, it's still inadmissible in a U.S. court, which means that the DoJ would have no case.
Re: Childish
No one should have to ask a judge if they can have the rights they are fundamentally entitled to, i.e. free speech. No matter how atrocious what she said was, the judge has no right to tell her she can't say it, especially when you stop and see people like the WBC being allowed to spew their vitriol all over the place.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"while ignoring all the horrible things that Dotcom did."
Horrible? Horrible is trafficing 12 year old girls to sell as sex slaves. Horrible is selling methamphetamine to middle schoolers. Horrible is murdering innocent people for kicks.
Running a legitimate business that followed laws it didn't even have to(the DMCA) and giving rights holders direct access to your servers is hardly what I'd call "horrible".
(untitled comment)
I normally don't go so far as to say "Fuck you, U.S. government", but this time, I can't think of anything better to say.
Re: Popcorn time...
I can think of at least one company who will soon disagree.
Share the popcorn?
Re:
I also fail at html tags, and the link was supposed to go here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045778/
(untitled comment)
Rob has cleverly made sure that he cannot use the most obvious title for a sequel to this book. How?
The 2009 Film, Year One
Re:
Also, just going to leave this here
http://www.change.org/petitions/let-maya-speak-for-herself
(untitled comment)
For those in the US, might I suggest contacting your representative. Congress wants to "protect the children". Well, let's let them know that here are real children who really need protecting, and demand they do something about it.
Re:
The problem is a legal one. Even if someone makes an android version, it still would suffer the same legal fate as the iOS version. What needs to happen is the lawsuit needs to be dropped, or a judge needs to realize that SCS doesn't actually want to help anyone but themselves, and tell them to go fuck themselves and throw the lawsuit out.
(untitled comment)
This disgusts me. How dare congress write bullshit bills "for the children", and then when this shit comes along, they simply turn a blind eye.
(untitled comment)
Something interesting to be noted is that when I searched for the post from Finesse, Google found it, but when you try to access the page, Facebook says it cannot be found, implying it was removed.
http://www.facebook.com/lordfinesseditc/posts/10150944470674067
If anyone is interested.
Re: Re:
I agree that it's not completely about the money yet. But I a bit more pessimistic about anything actually changing.
Also, rather off topic, but I noticed an error on your website while browsing your portfolio. Was wondering how to contact you to point it out.