Copyright expert Kimberlee Weatherall says it is difficult to predict if the bill will be used by copyright holders to argue for an injunction against a VPN service because it lacks clarity regarding services and sites whose primary purpose is not copyright infringement, although may be being used for that purpose.
No, that is not a difficult prediction to make. If passed, copyright holders will argue for injunctions and lawsuits against VPNs. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. Ms Weatherall just won't admit that because she does not want to bite the hand that feeds her.
I just do not understand the logic here...bad things were done by the US Government. A private citizen blew the whistle on them, so now a person wants to sue the whistle blower to repay the US government the cost of cleaning up the mess, a mess that would not exist had the US Government not done anything bad in the first place. Have I got that right?
I do fully understand that logic is not the issue here; this is a lawsuit being made for more of an anti-liberal attack than anything else. But how blinded by your own ideals do you have to be to go to this length? Probably about as blind as the US Government was to its own misdeeds.
Using "Hollywood Defendants" in a legal document is about the same as going to the middle of Times Square and pulling out the spray bottle of "Bat Shit Crazy," spraying it all over yourself, then urinating into that same bottle and repeating the process, all the while confronting anyone who walks past you as being the source of all your earthly problems.
And if this does actually come to be, I will patiently wait, with my tub of popcorn, for Sony (and the rest) to use a youtube video, or a song that they have not properly licensed so that their own DNS can be, um, circumvented.
I understand that you are really (I mean, **really**) concerned about some protests that may or may not happen due to recent events in your fine city. I want to let you know that I have the solution you need. You may not like it, but here it is:
Stop killing and disrupting persons who have not and are not committing crimes.
I think if you can do this, then the rest will follow. What was it that President Reagan called it? Oh yes, the Trickle Down effect.
Maybe the FTC will also go after Sony for the whole DriveClub fiasco (to fill you in: Sony heavily advertised a game called DriveClub as a free game to their PS+ Members, a game that was supposed to be available at the console launch. They missed that, next they decreased the functionality of the PS+ Version of DriveClub by reducing the number of cars and tracks, then the game came out in October, but has still not been made available, at no cost, as originally promised, to PS+ members for a variety of 'technical' reasons)
How many times will we get that bait and switch of "This is better for you, the great population of the US!" when translated actually means "This will mean more cost for the US population, but at least corporate profits will skyrocket!" ?
Any of today's problems can be solved with enough money, and therein is the problem. We can make wind and solar power affordable, but no one (person or corporation) is willing to invest the amount of money needed to get us there, because it is almost assured that the investor will never get back any significant part of their investment. That guy building the app in his spare time? His outlay cost is minimal to make that app.
That's the difference. I would love to join up with an alternative energy firm and put to use my knowledge of solar and wind power systems, but there just isn't the demand yet because no one is making the major investments into such things.
We are a monetary driven society, and the more money that can be made for the least amount of investment, the better off everyone is. Maybe not, but that's the reality of life today.
I do not think that anyone in the US Government is savvy enough to distinguish between a white hat and black hat hacker. They hear these terms and all they can think of is "ZOMG, a cyberterrorist with different colored hats!"
So, does this mean that all those online sales and auction patents are now going to be re-evaluated, you know, since sales and auctions have existed for at least a few years before the internet was around?