Honestly the scary thing to me is the fact that this isn't being required by law, and Tel$tra and Optu$ aren't known for their strong beliefs in moral causes, and still they're doing this. I understand when "religious" ISP's block these kind of lists, but when a bog standard corporation does it, the mind boggles.
And if people think that a change in govt back to the libs will actually change anything, maybe you're just not as cynical as me. Or do you think the democrats will make a showing this time? or worse... the greens...
I always thought that China had a bit of a "We don't care" attitude to the policies the rest of the world would like to impose on them. Funny then to see them using the same "We must live up to our international obligations" line seen so often in the West.
it is certainly nice to see the US government supporting such projects
So, you don't believe that these efforts to ensure "freedom" for other countries internets is to encourage the people in those countries to go the route of Egypt, etc and over throw their governments, or at least start a civil war. At which point the US, acting as the worlds police force, steps in to "peacekeep" and "rebuild". They've realised, probably a while ago, that just assassinating a leader in a foreign country will results in far too much bad press for them, or if done very subtly an influx in conspiracy theories.
I don't know, maybe I'm a bit too conspiracy nut myself, but that seems to be the obvious reasoning behind wanting to "help freedom" in other countries, regardless of home policies.
Maybe this is actually the careful planning of the newspapers, who also support hot news laws. Sure, the paywall may not bring in much cash, but if another publication with deeper pockets then a random blogger was to run with the story as "new" they could be open to copyright lawsuits :D
So the problem is with just streaming the files from the locker? What about if I'm just downloading them, for example I upload my legally purchased mp3's to a locker for backup purposes, then my hard drive dies, but luckily, I have a backup, so I download them and yay, I have my stuff back.
Oh, but wait, what exactly is the difference between streaming and downloading????? That's right.... NOTHING.
I would consider commentary blogs an aggregator. Take TechDirt for example, which I use as a source for many IP related topics. Instead of trolling about all the variety of different sites that spawn your blog posts, I just come here to read about the topic, as well as get your commentary on it.
As people have mentioned, when you play cops and robbers, someone has to be the robber. The option available here would be to use the Americas Army trick, where no matter which side of the multi-player game you were playing, you were an American soldier, fighting against terrorists. The people you were playing against saw themselves as American soldiers too, but you saw them as terrorists. However I think most people saw this for what it was, propaganda. Which is fine, as the game was developed for and by the American armed forces. Games have for a long time let people play as "the bad guy". Usually playing as the bad guy is harder, but not always, especially in multi-player situations where you want to have 2 people competing in an even and fair manner.
Re: Re: It's sometimes a politician's job to say stupid things
So... games aren't allowed to use current events as source material? There has to be some kind of time gap before they're allowed to use it? Do you apply the same restrictions to books, movies and TV as well? At that point, why not just put in blanket censorship on all current events? Or are you just hypocritical?
just trying to stretch that rope by obstructing the disruption *until they can retire*
You might be on to something there.
Otherwise, all they're doing is waiting for something new to come along and show them what to do whilst at the same time killing everything new that comes along. It's like waiting for the second coming by killing every newborn.
So, I take it then that this case against 5000 people is for 1 infringement? Or are 5000 people each responsible for 5000 infringements? If it's the former, would that mean the punishment would be spread across the 5000 people? If it's the former, would then each person be responsible for 5000x the normal infringement penalty?