So the government is immune to copyright infringement? I can see torrent downloaders by the score sitting in front of the White House, gobbling up Wi-Fi to download movies, and be free of prosecution, because the Whitehouse IP address is immune to copyright infringement.
Remember, reasonable doubt. If he can prove the phones weren't there, it does cast SOME doubt that he was not there. And since guilty requires "beyond all reasonable doubt" it should be enough to set him free.
Umm, this is sort of funny. If he goes to court claiming infringement, and the courts find that the use of the image is not infringing, it will put a huge hole in the current copyright regime and set the MAFIAA against the government.
On the other hand, if the image IS found to be infringing, then specific organization that uses the image can be on the hook for a nice chunk of change (not that they couldn't afford the 150,000 dollar statuatory fee). Of course, he could go for ACTUAL damages, and get a percentage of all money made under the PRISM program, which would require discovery on the program, to find out how much money was made on it.
Honestly, I wish these multinational corporations would do this. Apple, Google, et. all could literally drive France back 30 years by saying "We are not going to pay your extortion fee, and so we are pulling out of your country until you eliminate it."
Faced with an angry public that can no longer enjoy what other countries have, the french government would have no choice but to concede. Sure, some companies may try to fill in the vacuum, but the public wants what the public wants, and if the French government is driving these businesses away, the people will let them know what they think. I hope those politicians have ALOT of money come election time, because they will literally have to pay people directly to vote for them.
My response to the politicians: There are still shoplifters, there are still people to break traffic laws (speeding, running red lights, rolling stop signs, et. all). I think that the politicians need to be more proactive in stopping these threats.
Perhaps a system where we just throw everyone in jail because they could potentially do something wrong.
Don't get me wrong, what happened here was horrible, but the fault is not Google's. It isn't even the police's or the politicians. All of us are responsible for the safety and well-being of ourselves and others. Part of this is making sure our children are safe, and reporting to police if we believe a crime is being committed.
I have to disagree, however, I do think it needs to be completely re-done, right from the beginning. IP protection DOES have some value, however, it needs to be set up to spur on innovation, and not allow the stifling of free speech or criticism.
The current system is an unmitigated disaster, but I disagree that scrapping all IP laws is the way to go.
This is how all people in all walks of life should be treated. Equally. This judge obviously has the right idea. The law applies to everyone, rich or poor, judge or customer service representative, CEO or Wal-Mart Greeter. I would feel, after this, that I would be treated fairly by this judge.
Take note all you other judges out there. This is how it's done!
I disagree with your assessment. I think it was a domestic person. A foreign terrorist would have done three things different.
1: Taken credit for it.
2: Attacked a much higher-profile target.
3: Done more damage.
I think it is an American who used the connection the Boston Marathon had with the Sandy Hook shooting to attempt to sow more confusion and anger. Probably a nutbag who wanted to be mentioned in the same breath as the nutbag from Sandy Hook.
Sorry, but no. We must always remain vigilant, for it is in these weakest of times, when we are so focused on helping those who have suffered tragedy, that the government will steal our rights from us.