I'd say that this is not a case of "fair use" but rather a case of trademarks working as intended. The trademark holder has created an association between the trademark and a particular venue. Using that trademark to refer to that venue is exactly what trademarks are intended to protect. Having someone else use the trademark to refer to that same venue does not harm the association created by the trademark holder. If anything, it reinforces it.
True, but if the DOJ goes after someone like a manufacturer of hard drives with whole drive encryption, and force them to break the encryption, the DOJ can then use that precedent to come back after Apple.
Are they in the business to provide entertainment and news to readers or to provide an audience for the ads? I'm starting to think it's the latter.
This has always been the case. Newspapers, magazines, and blogs are all a method of aggregating reader attention and then selling that attention to advertisers. It's just that most of them won't admit it.
And once implemented, providers will likely look to simply recoup that lost revenue from broadband users in uncompetitive markets in the form of more fees, usage caps, zero rating and other potentially anti-competitive behavior.
It's also possible that when this does happen, it will provide the FCC with more ammuntion for forcing the cable companies to share their last mile infrastructure with other companies.
OK, I'm not a real gamer. I admit it. Now, why should I avoid Gamasutra? If all you can say is "because I say so" then I'll just consider it to be your paranoid imagination and discount not only your opinions on Gasmasutra, but also your opinions on pretty much anything else.
Why is this needed at all? If a cop suspects cellphone use while driving, lay charges. Then use a subpoena to obtain cell records from the provider. the cop won't need evidence at the side of the road. The evidence is only needed at the trial.
Google is a US based company, and I strongly suspect that this is a result of political pressure being brought to bear on Google by US politicians.
You are right though, a more general question is how to maintain a free and open internet in spite of many different organizations who want to restrict or eliminate things they find uncomfortable or embarassing.
It's more like one fool says all innovation is bad, while the other says all innovation is good. Your insistance that blocking innovation before it happens is a good idea is proof that you are one of the former.
Snowden has lots of faith in the American public. Unfortunately for him, the trial would be conducted by the American government. I'd have to say he's got some really good grounds for not trusting the American government at all.
Your first assumption has a problem. Nobody is expecting any service to be up 100% of the time. Legal streaming and download services do not need perfect availability, they merely need to be better than the piracy option. Give me a site where I can find any content, no matter who publishes it, at a reasonable price, and with no stupid restrictions on what I can do with it, and I'd use that site over piracy any day.