If EA wins, it will get to claim that it slayed the big bad cloning monster and Zynga will slink away and only clone the games of much smaller companies.
You for got that by winning the battle EA my loose the war. Many games borrow elements from each other. It seems to me that EA by making more games than others would be putting it's self at risk of setting a precedent that could be used against them in the future.
Plus 'encrypted' is great but if you accessed the data via their own API that decrypts the CC info before passing it along for a purchase it doesn't help much. Encrypted HD's are great if your Laptop gets stolen, not so much against a machine that has a legit reason to decrypt the data into memory. After all it has to be 'plain text' to someone at some point or it's useless, but if you WANT one I'll sell you a SUPER secure hash that makes all credit card numbers store as 'x' totally 100% non-reversible :P
Well first off, badstuff.moo.com. is what we like to call an example. It is not a valid subdomain of moo.com. Second, Whois is a great system that is closely tied to dns but it is not dns. Any subdomain in dns can numerous records, including NS records pointing you to a whole different server and authority for that record and below.
The example I used, 'badstuff.moo.com.' is a subdomain of 'moo.com.' which is a subdomain of 'com.' which is a subdomain of '.', the Root zone. Everything to the left of a '.' can be controlled by another organization with proper delegation. By your reasoning we 'com.' should / could be seized because there are bad subdomains of 'com.'.
Lastly, NONE of this has anything to do with hosts that are found by A records in DNS. This seizure is like removing my phone book entry because I sell drugs. My home is still there, my phone is still there, my phone number is still there, you just took the listing out of the phone book.
DNS is designed to designate other folks as in 'control' of sub-domains as you go down the tree. Thus moo.com. is one group, badstuff.moo.com. is a totally other group, that happens to have an A record that points to a server that answers for a http request for badstuff.moo.com. that Allegedly has Bad Stuff on it. Next you can have othersite.moo.com. which has it's own A record that points elsewhere with completely different content from other folks. Heck it doesn't even need to run a web server.
Frankly if siezing moo.com. makes sense, just THINK of how much Bad Stuff we can get rid of if we seize com. or even BETTER, if we seize . (the root zone) then ALL the bad stuff in the world goes away!
Unless of course people figure out that DNS is like the phone book, if you get rid of DNS all you do is make it hard to look up something you don't know, but you can always look elsewhere or at something else.
I've noticed that there seems to be little discussion about the fact that by seizing at the domain level you break more than just the web site. You take the MX records away as well. Which of course makes it impossible for anyone to email you.
Seems a bit of a problem if you don't get to talk to folks through what is to many people a primary source of communication.
Wouldn't Community Property (ok depends on state I know) basically make it irrelevant who took the picture? They both owned it while married and thus had to divide both the copyright and the physical prints.
Just to help the readability of the letter I have one suggestion:
In fact, the research collected in that paper and other papers (such as the research by economist Will Page of PRS for Music in the UK) suggests that more people are creating new works of music today than ever before in history.
Is a bit funny, might read better if changed to:
In fact, the research collected in that paper and other papers (such as the research by economist Will Page of PRS for Music in the UK) suggests that more people are creating more new works of music today than ever before in history.
I typically run my browser with no-script. This is done for security not to block the adds. Thus I can't stand the few sites that block me because I have an 'add blocker' just because I don't trust their java or whatever they are running.