There's plenty of fallacies and questions that are easily answered by reading there. But, the main thing that sticks out is how you seem to believe that a person who's had their image misappropriated for a political campaign in a foreign country should easily be able to issue a takedown notice using that country's laws, and believe that's not a problem in any way.
This does seem to be a regular occurrence - taking an image (or music, or something else) for use in a campaign and then discovering that not only did they not have permission, the people whose content was used are diametrically opposed to their political stance.
What's interesting to me here is not necessarily that there's copyright and other rows about these so often, it's how they seem to always pick work from artists who oppose them. The laziness of a campaign taking stuff off Flickr or using a song they incorrectly assume they a blanket licence/fair use right to utilise I can understand, it's the rest of it that's intriguing.
Although I again assume this is a parody moron rather than our usual resident:
I think that it's saying that it's irrelevant that fake URLs are generated because those won't affect anyone but the ones that happen to match up to real URLs will be blocked and thus stop people accessing them.
Which, if you ignore such concerns as intellectual honesty, protecting innocent bystanders and due process is all well and good. For some people, anything is OK as long as it benefits them, even if that benefit is not visibly apparent.
Guys, I think that's a parody attempt. The real Whatever will try to state such drooling idiocy, but he'll usually word it a bit differently.
Although if it is the genuine article, I'd like to know how essentially saying "stop faking your supposed proof of piracy and offer a decent service to paying customers" legitimises lawbreaking. I love alternative points of view, just not bare-faced fictions.
"it is something that will make IT work a bit easier"
No it won't. It just means that instead of explaining to customers that the cheap brand they bought is shoddy, you now have to explain to them that HP deliberately stopped them from using a cheaper product. You'll still get the abuse, and you'll probably get more work incoming from people who've tried to "fix" the product themselves using whatever random outdated hints they found online. People will still try to save the $50 purchase, and you'll get the brunt of it when they fail.
Last couple of printers I bought, I did something similar. Lexmark printers were available for around £25-30, cartridges ran around £30-40. I had a couple of times where I needed to print, I just bought the newer model printer rather than buy an ink cartridge.
Now, of course the supplied cartridge wasn't a full cartridge, but I needed to print so infrequently the nearly empty cartridge usually had dried ink over the nozzles. I stopped doing this when I had a decent enough job that I could get away with printing from work, and it's been many years since I've had a printer at home (or even a scanner, I use my phone for that nowadays).
But, I can't help but wonder how much in the way of money & resources Lexmark wasted by me doing that compared to if they had merely priced the ink cartridges lower. I obviously wouldn't have bothered with the new printers if the cartridges were, say, £10-15.
One of the fun things about DRM is that, like most software, it's not 100% flawless. So, people who have legally bought the specified items may still get screwed over. Sometimes this is actually by design, though in this case it's probably more like a programming flaw, dodgy physical connection, etc. Still, that's another reason to reject anything DRM infected outright if you can.
Those EULAs usually contain language along the lines of "software updates may change the functionality of the product", and there's probably language along the lines of "this product is only guaranteed to work with genuine HP cartridges" or something (it's a long time since I've owned a printer at home, so I can't say for sure what the modern wording is).
At a guess, they've covered themselves for this eventuality, but we'll probably not know until there's a class action suit to test it out. One of the problems with this kind of thing is that companies are happy to screw over their own customers with DRM until they fight back decisively.
The best thing of it is that there *have* been hundreds of articles on different ways to stem piracy. But, they're usually rejected because they involve changing business models or a bit of imagination/effort rather than a universal guaranteed solution (which, of course, will and can never exist).
Yes, even if implemented properly, the usability of the entire system is shot. You're no longer connecting automatically to a free wifi spot you've used before, you're having to log in. That alone reduces the convenience of free wifi and the drop in usage might lead businesses to lose money even if they do comply for little cost.
"z) my parents house"
I believe that the rules would only apply to businesses. If not, most ISPs supply routers with passwords pre-loaded, so in theory they'd already be compliant unless I've misunderstood to ruling.
"Familiarizing oneself and complying with regulations is just a cost of doing business."
Yes, and for something like wifi which is usually not related to the core of that a small business actually does, complying with these is a burden. At present, there are few regulations placed on the end business - those that are borne by the manufacturer or service provider. Placing extra regulations increases the burden, and these types of regulation would increase them exponentially on many businesses.
Is this really so hard for you to understand?
"No one is going to have to close up shop because they can't afford to comply. "
No, but a lot of people will stop offering wifi at all, even if that means a loss of overall revenue. Others will be at risk because they were unable to comply correctly, for whatever reason. And yes, the guy who has a little bit of knowledge and configures his own off-the-shelf purchase is probably most at risk because he may end up non-compliant when he believes he's set things up properly. Years of support for such people in my early career have taught me that the people who think they know what they're doing on their own are the ones doing a botch job that doesn't meet requirements.
"Suddenly the burden argument is gone"
No, it still there, it's just been shifted to another party. A party that is perhaps able to meet the requirements with lower costs and greater expertise, and perhaps turn that into increased business for themselves. But, it still exists.
"This should be objected to because of the horrible precedents it sets regarding privacy, not because it might cause businesses to spend some money"
Why not both? For the record, I'm not objecting to the ruling because of costs to the small businesses. I was merely correcting your false statement that it's not a burden for many of those businesses.
"How many jobs your industry provides has absolutely, positively, nothing whatsoever to do with what I, your customer, am willing to pay for or how much. It doesn't, and it shouldn't factor into ANYONE'S decision to buy."
They know this, of course. In fact, modern corporations are built on this knowledge - offshoring, downsizing, automation, etc. All of that is to do with cutting costs so that each unit can make more profit without raising prices (as they know that this will usually lead to lost sales). Employees have always been expendable so long as they have the bare minimum required to create a saleable product. If they thought for a moment that customers valued the number of employees as a major purchase decision, these things wouldn't happen.
What's amusing is how the arguments have shifted. They're not whining about piracy so much now, they're whining about lower revenue from legal purchases and service providers with whom they have an agreed contract. That's a much harder argument to make if armed with facts, so they try the emotional pleas instead.
Simple. Blue Monday was a great song, the 12" not only a pioneering move in its physical for but highly influential in a number of ways. It was a quality product, innovative, made by true artists.
The RIAA don't want that. They want cookie cutter, generic, easy to sell fodder created by glorified karaoke singers who they can ditch the second sales start to look shaky in favour of the next model. Like most corporations, their members are interested in the next quarter, not the next decade. Even if such a move were allowed, the band would have been ditched before the first weekend of sales had ended, and they'd probably have refused to release further copies to allow it to become a success.
"having something in The Hill right next to the original would allow uninformed people to more easily see the problems"
Of course it would. However, The Hill would have to agree to publish it in that way. I can't say whether or not TD have forwarded anything to them, but it's their discretion as to whether or not to publish. It's possible that, having published such a litany of errors without comment, that they would be biased against such a refutation.
In the meantime, the great thing about the internet is that the authors here still have a platform, even if The Hill were to deny publication, be that for editorial reasons or a payoff by the RIAA.
"A business could probably set something up for less than $200... including hiring someone to install/setup"
Again, assuming prior knowledge. Most won't know what they actually need to buy in order to both meet their business requirements and meet the new legal standards. So, they'll be paying out a few hundred just for someone to advise on what they need to buy. Then, you might well be buying more than one, so you'd need to know how to connect them, etc. It might get expensive, and that's even without considering the potential revenue impact of customers having to work out a new way to connect and ongoing support costs. Or, of course, them buying the wrong thing and therefore remaining non-compliant.
"(not sure if prices vary much over there, but shouldn't be far off)"
Depends on the routers/APs you're looking at, but they will definitely be higher on exchange rates and sales taxes alone. I can look if you have examples, but you might also need to bear in mind that different regulations mean the same models won't necessarily be available in the local market. Plus, if there's legal liability and/or a genuine business need for wifi to be available to customers, you probably don't want to be buying whatever's cheapest off the shelf.
"That wouldn't be an undue burden"
I still disagree. I think that if you look at it from the POV of someone who is completely clueless with technology, but needs wifi for their business, it becomes a large burden quite quickly. Or, again, they might install it poorly and remain vulnerable to legal action.
Also, for the AC to be correct, you'd have to ignore the well-documented southern strategy utilised during the civil rights era, which courted racists to switch party affiliation. In other words, the southern Democrats who were racists became Republicans, while those fighting for equality remained Democrats.
For some reason, Republicans seem to ignore this part of history when pretending that Lincoln and the civil rights movement were on their side. It's a well-worn tactic to fool the ignorant. The fact is, the place of the parties on the political spectrum is not what it was in the 60s.
Yo know, words have meanings. It's very strange that you keep misusing this one. I'm guessing it's because you keep getting called one correctly, so your fragile ego demands you call others the same name, no matter inappropriately?
"But hey, thanks for playing "I'm a crappy troll", your score isn't high enough to win a prize."
Well, nobody will beat your score in that contest.