Then perhaps the purchasers shouldn't drag the artists into it by claiming that they're doing it on behalf of the artists and that they have to do it to protect and support the poor starving artists who will surely suffer greatly if the practice is allowed to continue.
The artist's name is on the music. That then ends up attaching them to the lawsuit in people's minds (especially since the label claims to be doing it on their behalf) and drags their name through the mud. I don't blame him for speaking up if he doesn't agree. He should be entitled to say that, hey, this isn't me doing it. I don't agree with it so please don't blame me. Plus there's always the chance that the label withdraws at least his music from it if they start looking (even more) bad from "protecting" the artist when he doesn't want their protection.
It's not that easy. The malware was installed and it's not that easy to just remove it since Windows isn't a sandboxed platform. What MS did was cut off the command and control system of the botnets to kill them. It's basically like how when the military launches an invasion, one of the first things they do is take out the enemy's communication capabilities.
I agree. In any other case, being drunk doesn't excuse you.
I'm intoxicated: I sign a contract - I'm on the hook for it I get in a fight - I'm charged with assault I kill somebody - I'm charged with murder I have sex - my partner is guilty of rape, it wasn't my fault
Really? WTF? Why does being intoxicated give someone a free pass on sex? It's even more f'd up that the free pass mainly applies to women. As in if both are equally drunk there have still been cases where the man was charged with rape but the woman was just a victim. In fact, I've heard of at least one case where the man was MORE intoxicated and STILL got charged with rape.
While we're on the topic of sex-related double standards, how about when two underage kids have sex and the guy is threatened with statutory rape charges but the girl isn't?
>In a court of law, the woman isn't likely to be charged with rape.
In many jurisdictions, rape is defined in such a way that a woman literally cannot rape a man short of using a strap-on and sodomizing him (and sometimes not even then). In those cases the worst they can throw at them is sexual assault which is a much lower penalty.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Standardized infrastructure is needed
That's correct. A power plant, even one burning fossil fuels, produces much less pollution than the IC engine in a car (per unit of energy, not in absolute terms, obviously). Given that over 50% of the electricity in the US comes from nuclear, hydro and natural gas (which produces much less pollution than other fossil fuels), that number is further lowered.
See, here's thing. The biggest problem with electric cars right now isn't just the range, it's the lack of a charging infrastructure. Suppose Tesla doesn't make their patents available. Ford develops their own charging system, GM comes up with their own, Toyota has their own etc. None of these different systems are compatible. Now each company has to build out their own infrastructure. As a consumer, you're at their mercy and have to hope that your OEM puts charging stations where you need them or be SOL. What's needed is standardization.
Look, if you're out and about with your car and you're running low on fuel, what do you do? You go to a gas station. They're plentiful and it doesn't matter what gas station you go to, you know that the nozzle is going to fit and the gas is going to work. In the scenario I described above you don't have that. Until electric charging stations are somewhat ubiquitous, you're never going to really see widespread adoption of electric vehicles.
If Tesla keeps their patents locked up then they have to wait until ASE or another standards organization sets some sort of standard. If the standard doesn't match what you've been doing so far then you either have to retrofit everybody or continue supporting your old standards. By releasing their patents, Tesla is going a long way towards avoiding that. Other companies can adopt their already developed tech and save most of the R&D costs they would have to come up with their own. Eventually, Tesla's tech becomes the defacto standard that everybody settles on.
I wonder how long it will be before an over-zealous DA aiming for political office brings charges against Eric Knudsen using some bullshit twisting of the law to blame him for an attack? Or, possibly more likely, a victim's family suing him and Something Awful for creating/hosting it.
Yes but how do they get paid? All of the payment processors have been ordered to stop doing business with them. No credit cards, no paypal, etc. About the only thing left is going to be like bitcoin and such and most people aren't going to go to that much trouble.
I think the argument is that because they are still under copyright when the law is passed it can still apply. They couldn't for example, change the law to say that it's now lifetime plus 200 years and place things that had already entered the public domain back under copyright.
Not saying that they're correct but that is the most likely argument.
The problem is that most of those apps can't survive a wipe of the phone. Hard reset and it's yours. As much as dislike apple, something similar to what they do with the iphones/ipads where it ties it to your account and requires your password to unlock it seems reasonable to me.
I would gladly pay an extra $10 up front on my phone. Hell, I'd be glad to pay and extra $20 up front on my phone.
All I ask in return is one little thing. In return for my guaranteed up front payment, I should have free or at least heavily discounted access to the music streaming services of my choice. So I won't need to pay the monthly fee for Xbox music, Beats, Pandora, Spotify or whatever I happen to want to use for as long as I own that phone. I don't begrudge the company a few bucks to cover bandwidth and server costs but since royalty fees are a big part of the cost I should save a ton of money over the two years or so I will own my phone.
Well, yeah, but if you take away words then there go all web pages, email, written weather forecasts etc since those are all made up of words. Images? Welp, there went any pictures. So no maps or anything like that either.
Same here. Music deleted. Oh, wait. I didn't have any of his music anyways. Tell me again why he should get a cut of my mobile phone purchase? Also if smartphone prices go up by $400, well, I guess I'll stick with what I have now until it dies and then it's dumbphone time.
IIRC, one of the companies that made one of those phone book on CD products several years back got sued for copyright infringement. The courts ruled that a list of phone numbers was not copyrightable as it is just raw factual data. The phone book itself (with it's layout and such) could be covered by copyright but the data within the phone book (i.e. the numbers) could not. I believe this would be no different.
Okay, so apparently I'm one of the 15 people on the planet not happy with this. In light of today's announcement, I have canceled my X1 preorder. The sharing and library thing were going to be huge. I was also really looking forward to not having to have a disc in the drive and being able to swap between games without having to get up. Now they've simply taken away far too much.
I refuse to buy games on demand and I very VERY rarely buy the XBLA games. We have two 360s in the house, one for me and one for the boys. If I buy a game on XBLA or GoD I can only ever play it on that one console. If I want to let my kids or nephews play it they will have to either take over my console and TV or I will have to transfer my profile and be actively signed in to that console. This is BAD DRM. On the other hand, the X1's DRM was much less intrusive. You can argue that any DRM is bad but I think the benefits of what they were offering outweighed the negatives.