The only other thought I have is that these guys are moving into dangerous territory. And I'm not talking about courts, money, or rights; I'm talking about the personal physical kind. They had better be careful, since they are so infamous at the moment it wouldn't be hard to come by information on their whereabouts. If they threaten the wrong person (since there us all kinds of crazy on the net), the whole deal may be over before the courts even have time to deal with it.
That ship has already left the port and has no return voyage, ever.
America's had its short window of partisan cooperation for the twenty-first century; which was used to take away said rights. Check back again in a 75 to 100 year and maybe they will consent working together again.
Now that they have have the right monitor you with no oversight (public at least, I'm sure there a hidden structure in there somewhere), we'll get more reasons why they can't rescind the bad laws they made than there are pages in the IRS tax code.
As sad and transparent as the excuse for the withdrawal is, I almost wish it were allowed.
Would that not set precedent that the mere presence of such tools is cause for dismissal because the infringement is not provable? Then everyone would just have one installed which should help combat all infringement cases.
Now I'm not really naive enough to really believe this is what would happen, so its just wishful thinking, but it was still a pleasant though.
If we are talking only of a purchased in-game currency, then it should be viewed the same as a gift-card from a store.
In the case of gift cards, the only way you would completely lose all value is if the company/store in question filed for bankruptcy.
EA has, and should continue to have, the ability to shutdown any of their services they choose, but, they should also have to cover the purchased (unused) currency either as a refund, allowing it to be transferred to another of their products, or even as credit to purchasing another game.
I guarantee if a retailer like Target suddenly decided to stop accepting their store gift cards and they were not in process of bankruptcy or closing their business, that they would have to come up with away for customers to receive an equivalent amount of the cards value. Failure to do that would likely have every single state Attorney General's office filing a case against them.
This is a primary example of where the physical and digital worlds can, and should be handled in the exact same manor.
lol. That's not how six strikes works, you silly, fear-mongering buffoon.
It's not run by the public. I can't just "send a message to the ISP and accuse you of infringement".
If not the copyright holder (i.e someone in the public), exactly who does make the accusations of infringement? Or do you think that you must be a some mega-corporation in order to have a valid copyright?
And that is even a better example of why this ruling can not be allowed to stand.
If the copyright owners decide that they no longer want to be part of iTunes, what happens when they terminate the contract. Now Apple and the users are potentially infringing, since I would be surprised if the contract specifically states that once the contract no longer exists that the rights continue as if the contract was still in effect. The reason that no one would specifically state that condition is that once an item is sold at that moment, we all have expectations about certain rights that we currently have. This ruling, says that you don't that those rights.
The fact is that everyone has to operate as if something that could happen will happen (legally speaking). Even if everyone agrees that it would never occur, if it can, it will eventually. And claiming that no reasonable person would enforce it like is not a valid defense.
So the best solution is that this ruling is overturned. Otherwise, we had all expect to get even more complicated legalese in our digital lives.
I think that you are missing the point. Its not really about being able to resale a 99 cent MP3. Its about what this opens people up to legally from a technical point of view.
Do you have kids? Ever buy them a digital copy of something were you first download it to your machine and then install on their device? I certainly do, but legally this activity could be considered infringement.
Is it fair use, yes, but I think we all know just how well that usually works. If a company decided it wasn't then you would have to go to court and fight it, but how many will really do that? This opens everyone, and I really mean everyone, to being extorted.
Well Glenn you can count me among the parents that accompany the kids to get them a game. The difference is that you will not hear me give some half-assed excuse.
I've 2 children one boy about to enter his teenage years and one girl a couple of years younger. I have purchased numerous games for them which are labeled as mature. Most of the time this is just a joke. You see worse things on the 6 o'clock news, and definitely worse on prime time TV.
I have no problem allowing my kids to play most video games. There has only been a handful of games I have not allowed my children to play and even then its only been a maturity issue that has delayed them. Maybe because I pay attention and we talked a lot about fantasy vs real world when they were younger. We don't talk about it that much any longer, but then they both seem to have a pretty good grasp on things.
I know a lot of people disagree with me, but I think that insulating children from reality as most do (American's at least), is just asking for some of the issues that we see. The world is not fair, it is generally not kind, you will hear 'obscene' language (I quoted this because I have an issue describing any language as such, but that's another topic), and yes you will encounter violence. Shielding them from these things, to me, represents a bigger problem than kids playing fictitious video games.
Teaching children how to handle different situations is what being a parent ultimately is all about. Things like what is and is not socially acceptable (plus they need to understand that this changes over time), what is polite and what is not so polite and when it is OK to use the not so polite, and most importantly when you do something that is not socially acceptable, both little things as a child but more importantly things that impact others as an adult, they need to know that there are consequences and that in life you don't get to reload a save or start over.
Well, I guess I better start to learn to initiate effective counter measures myself.
If one thing that has been proven in the last decade is that the 'corporate' world is really-really, good at getting it wrong. So when the eventuality happens and a website mis-identifies a legitimate user as an attacker, this loophole should be usable by user as well. What we will have is the equivalent of mutually assured destruction on the internet (since everyone will be afraid to use a site for anything more than your basics) but if laws like this get passed into existence the best way to combat them is to use them against those that thought them a good idea.
I don't think we meant a commitment as in he as locked into Google but that he was nervous of having to change again after he changed over all of tools/services he was using to Google. As in he didn't want to have to change again if the service suddenly was dropped.
While I would say that's really a concern for anything, I suspect that some of these big internet entities (for lack a of better description) are more susceptible to this. What I mean is that Google/Amazon/Yahoo! have all branched significantly from their core business, it only makes sense that a lot of what they try will eventually be shuttered. Where as a smaller (product-wise, not financially) company will more than likely continue support something even during the downsizing of consumer use, since it will represent more of their business.
I was basically thinking along the same line. I too think this could be the start of really fixing the patent system, because if there is one thing Americans are good at is changing the rules when we are no longer are the main beneficiary of the game.
While I agree that the Republican party is not the fascist party.
I have to completely disagree with your statement about the push to control our lives. That was the "War on Terror" and the creation of the Department of Homeland Defense.
Obama HealthCare is really just pandering to the large corporate entities (and yes you read that right). Its just a sneaky way to shift the costs out of the big guys pocket. So it forces you to get insurance, which means that those that don't use it support the costs on the company. Also makes states create their own group, so the really unhealthy can "convinced" to change to the private plan, again, so the big companies don't have to pay the bill. I mean you do know that all of the big companies have Self Sponsored plans, which essentially means that the name of your insurance company on your card is just who does the paperwork. The bill is just passed along from the insurance company to the actual company the person works for. So anything that gets them out of having to pay for sick people is money they can funnel somewhere else. They don't mind the healthy, just the sick.
I was thinking basically the same thing, what makes anyone think that these were 'errors'. The so called major one seems like something that would be intentionally put in. I don't believe for one moment that they did not know what it said and what it did. It was put there and probably planned as an 'error' when someone eventually discovered it, so that they could claim ignorance.
I think the real issue is not the fact that it was specifically targeted and didn't harm Chevron, but is the fact that when it was first discovered we (public/companies) didn't know that. It took years before the government owned up to it and said what it was for. So before that time it was the same as any other virus.
If we applied your logic to others, then we shouldn't be arresting any virus writer until its proven to harm your system. Because what it seems to me you are saying is that the US (and whoever else helped them) didn't do any damage so they should get a pass. If we can do that for the government then we should be doing that for everyone. The reason we don't is that its been deem illegal to do this, because of potential damage, not because of actual damage. So why should we give the government a pass. They purposely infected more than just their target. I guarantee that if anyone of us did this, we would have guys in suits and sunglasses breaking in the door within an hour of discovering our identity. The cost to businesses around the world to analyze and clean this from their systems (which needed to be done, even if they knew it was from the government, and they didn't for a long time) is a drain to their profits, which in turn could be driving stock prices, downsizing, higher consumer prices, you name it. So this little attack has most likely played a part in the global economic issues over the last several years. And who's to say that this is the only one.
In one aspect you are correct, it is on UW property and they can bar you from the property with a camera, thereby controlling whether or not you can broadcast. But they can control it ONLY because they can choose to not permit the camera, otherwise, you can use the camera for whatever you want, including broadcasting.
So by extension, if they want to control the use of twitter (phones, tablets, etc), then they need to prohibit the possession of any device that can be used to tweet. While they can legally do this, they will not, because then they will most likely have a game without anyone but the players and coaches there. I mean just how many would be willing to go without a phone?