What public interest is served in arresting someone who tweeted public factual information?
If they want to maybe go after whoever originally started it, I can understand that. Perhaps that is what they are planning, but it sounds more like they want to try getting anyone they can identify who tweeted this information.
Arresting people who repeated information accomplishes nothing and the information will still be public.
I'm sure everyone that would've used these sites will now find a legitimate stream. Of course that assumes such a thing even exists.
Most likely they'll just find someplace else to watch the ads/superbowl.
Especially since many of the users are likely not even inside the US and can't even legally get access to the event if they wanted to fork over gobs of cash.
Now I can completely ignore their movies when they try to advertise them. I can't add it to my queue, I definitely wasn't going to buy it or waste my time downloading them.
Instead it will fade away and get less sales and less viewers
the video points out things that would be actual privacy violations and none of those are included.
So are we now to freak out because of the potential of anything.
Hey google remembers what you searched for and has google voice and gtalk it could start suggesting that people with similar searches call you and contact you on chat....
Shoved through my ass. Both my Senators are Republican and both voted for this to be passed. I knew one of them would vote for it, I was just hoping DeMint would have some balls and stand with Rand Paul and others against it.
He seems to have no backbone and is always voting on the wrong side.
Sadly, when I was in college I volunteered to hand out some pamphlets door to door for him when he was 1st running for office, and ever since then I've been wishing I hadn't.
as a droid user you can still get the appstore, and most people i know have it including me. They have 1 paid app for free everyday which has been very much worth it to me. http://twitter.com/#!/amazonappstore
Other than that it's not much different then the Google Market.
you have obviously never used an Android phone have you.
This effects absolutely no one. Google Market still works the same.
Amazon Appstore works just fine and is still called appstore until a court tells them otherwise. In fact I downloaded the free app of the day just a few hours ago. Even if they do have to change what it's called they'll just update their app and everything will continue working as before.
This hurts effectively hurts no consumers, and does nothing for apple except to make them look petty and wrong.
yes, because link farms are the exact same thing as a site full of downloads.
As has been pointed out again and again google has no way of knowing what is authorized and what isn't that isn't there job.
This is clearly shown in the Viacom vs Youtube case. Many of the videos complained about where actually uploaded by Viacom employees. So how is google supposed to know which videos/files are legit and which aren't when even the copyright owners get confused.
This isn't even close to a real threat. You do realize that pretty much every movie is released online before it even hits theaters let alone 2 months later. Many of them are even dvd quality or better from advanced screeners. Nobody is going to cam a movie 2 months after it hits theaters.
Yep, guess after 4 years off AT&T I'll be switching over to comcast. I didn't do it before because even though they have faster throughput, they have a 250GB cap. Now there is no reason for me not to switch, higher speeds and a higher cap.
If you have a license you never paid for that sounds like copyright infringement to me.
That's like downloading a few movies and putting them on a list to actually pay for at some point in the future and just never getting around to it and hoping everyone forgets. In the meantime I'm not just watching the movies I'm putting them out there and selling them.
lol, you better have a lot more than that to actually keep data from leaving.
Are any of these "secure" servers on a network?
Are any of the other machines on the same network capable of having a usb drive mounted? If so anyone with basic knowledge could get data off of your servers and pull it down to the other computer and then put it on a usb drive.
Re: Privacy does not need to be defined by victim status.
What public interest is served in arresting someone who tweeted public factual information?
If they want to maybe go after whoever originally started it, I can understand that. Perhaps that is what they are planning, but it sounds more like they want to try getting anyone they can identify who tweeted this information.
Arresting people who repeated information accomplishes nothing and the information will still be public.
Re: Re: ...
Agreed, although in actually the pope is only infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra)
I'm sure people will go find a legitimate stream now...
I'm sure everyone that would've used these sites will now find a legitimate stream. Of course that assumes such a thing even exists.
Most likely they'll just find someplace else to watch the ads/superbowl.
Especially since many of the users are likely not even inside the US and can't even legally get access to the event if they wanted to fork over gobs of cash.
What movie was that?
Now I can completely ignore their movies when they try to advertise them. I can't add it to my queue, I definitely wasn't going to buy it or waste my time downloading them.
Instead it will fade away and get less sales and less viewers
Re: ) )
must be a lisp programmer :)
Re: Features in that video
the video points out things that would be actual privacy violations and none of those are included.
So are we now to freak out because of the potential of anything.
Hey google remembers what you searched for and has google voice and gtalk it could start suggesting that people with similar searches call you and contact you on chat....
Re: Re: Definition of Terrorism
Shoved through my ass. Both my Senators are Republican and both voted for this to be passed. I knew one of them would vote for it, I was just hoping DeMint would have some balls and stand with Rand Paul and others against it.
Why did we re-elect Lindsey Graham
He seems to have no backbone and is always voting on the wrong side.
Sadly, when I was in college I volunteered to hand out some pamphlets door to door for him when he was 1st running for office, and ever since then I've been wishing I hadn't.
Re: Re: Apple doesn't need to win to come out ahead.
as a droid user you can still get the appstore, and most people i know have it including me. They have 1 paid app for free everyday which has been very much worth it to me.
http://twitter.com/#!/amazonappstore
Other than that it's not much different then the Google Market.
Re: Apple doesn't need to win to come out ahead.
you have obviously never used an Android phone have you.
This effects absolutely no one. Google Market still works the same.
Amazon Appstore works just fine and is still called appstore until a court tells them otherwise. In fact I downloaded the free app of the day just a few hours ago. Even if they do have to change what it's called they'll just update their app and everything will continue working as before.
This hurts effectively hurts no consumers, and does nothing for apple except to make them look petty and wrong.
why isn't this a cautionary tale of an ip != person?
Shouldn't this be a tale for law enforcement that perhaps an ip address does not equal a person?
Re: Google can suppress Foundem for "low quality", but they can't suppress blatant piracy sites for illegal activity?
yes, because link farms are the exact same thing as a site full of downloads.
As has been pointed out again and again google has no way of knowing what is authorized and what isn't that isn't there job.
This is clearly shown in the Viacom vs Youtube case. Many of the videos complained about where actually uploaded by Viacom employees. So how is google supposed to know which videos/files are legit and which aren't when even the copyright owners get confused.
Re: until reality sets in...
This isn't even close to a real threat. You do realize that pretty much every movie is released online before it even hits theaters let alone 2 months later. Many of them are even dvd quality or better from advanced screeners. Nobody is going to cam a movie 2 months after it hits theaters.
Re: Not going to happen!
Yep, guess after 4 years off AT&T I'll be switching over to comcast. I didn't do it before because even though they have faster throughput, they have a 250GB cap. Now there is no reason for me not to switch, higher speeds and a higher cap.
Re: Re: Re:
I was about to say the same thing, since the author gets double the cut it seems like 1.99 but be a good price point as well with the current shares.
Re: Very interesting
It's not I could get to it before and i can still get to it now.
Re: Very interesting
It's not I can get to it before and i can still get to it now.
Re:
If you have a license you never paid for that sounds like copyright infringement to me.
That's like downloading a few movies and putting them on a list to actually pay for at some point in the future and just never getting around to it and hoping everyone forgets. In the meantime I'm not just watching the movies I'm putting them out there and selling them.
Re:
lol, you better have a lot more than that to actually keep data from leaving.
Are any of these "secure" servers on a network?
Are any of the other machines on the same network capable of having a usb drive mounted? If so anyone with basic knowledge could get data off of your servers and pull it down to the other computer and then put it on a usb drive.
Re:
not always an option. especially when you have to travel to asia for work, can't exactly take a train there