On a related note, my wife and I watched a musical from the 1940's on DVD recently. The disc started with a "commercial" from the MPAA saying "Piracy is stealing". How did we get to the point where the MPAA is brainwashing people like this?
First, how is downloading or copying a movie related to hijacking ships in the ocean. The events in the movie "Captain Phillips" show piracy, and it's not about how a crew of Somalis downloaded a movie.
Second, how do we (as TechDirt) readers spread the word that downloading movies is not "stealing" and should not be likened to stealing a car, as the "commercial" shows.
Yet when everyone watches this DVD that they purchased, they'll be treated to an unskippable message about how downloading movies is as bad as stealing a car.
The bigger issue is how the legislature AND the governor can make and sign a bill into law so quickly. Is this the first bill that was passed with no debate? Why can't government work this quickly to pass laws about fixing streets and ending red light cameras? :)
Re: Blame the advertisers and the hackers, not users
For years, I used Yahoo Mail on Internet Explorer. I was hit with a Flash banner that took advantage of a hole in IE. Within a few second, it had installed tons of toolbars and spyware/ malware programs. After that, I switched to Firefox, AdBlock, and NoScript. (Luckily, I had a system restore point so I didn't lose anything.)
Websites (especially big ones like Yahoo) may complain that I'm "stealing content", but it only takes ONE hit of malware to completely **** someone's computer. So I'm sorry if I'm blocking ads on all sites, I was hit once with malware and I don't want to get hit again.
I agree. What would happen if every student in this teacher's class made the gun symbol with their hands? Would he/ she send all of them to the principal? Would the school really suspect all 20-30 kids in the class?
I also agree that it's past time that policy-makers learn the difference between the threat of a real gun and the non-threat of fingers, pop tarts, and whatever else.
Why does he get an "F" for failing to cover his tracks? He admitted that it was an easy job in 2008 so he did the same thing in 2009 and was only caught later. It doesn't sound like he even wanted to cover his tracks.
Like you said, this is more about the school's security system: how did he "hack" a professor's computer? Did he even "hack" it or is this the term the media is using to mean "guessed the correct password"?
In the end, this guy will probably get a job in the computer security field where his conviction will actually be a *benefit*: he's proved that he's so go at "hacking" that he was sent to jail for it.
What if the situation was reversed? What if this was an American company doing business in America and following the laws of America? Could the Chinese government allow someone to sue the company in China and then seize the domain and issue these kinds of sanctions? If the Chinese government can't do it, why does this New York judge think he can?
And if you want to be fair, suppose the American company in this situation was Microsoft or Google. Could the Chinese government order google.com, gmail.com, and youtube.com all taken down until Google complied with the government's orders?
It's interesting to talk about a chef's ego. Would he rather have people see photos of his creation and come eat at his restaurant (which means more business, more sales, and more money) or would he rather keep "control" of his creations and say no photos?
Or is there a bigger issue here: how many of these complaining chefs give a good value for the money? Are they worried that people will take photos of their creations and complain that the portion is too small for the price? Sure, "gourmands" may not mind the portion/ price ratio, but what about everyone who sees the photo on Facebook or Instagram?
I was just about to say that it's Snowden's fault this data was leaked to the Christian Science Monitor 10 years ago. So not only does Snowden have data from the NSA, he apparently either has a TARDIS or a time-travelling DeLorean!
Putting aside the issue of whether the guy is telling the truth or if he's even in Scientology, the main issue is that he shouldn't be an Amazon seller in the first place.
He was doing so well with the first few paragraphs- just apologize for the mistake and nicely ask the customer to forgive it and remove the bad review. But then he goes crazy with threats... and from the look of the screen shot, it seems like this was a *public* posting? What kind of crazy is that? Why didn't he at least send that in a private e-mail?
I agree. Like you said, if this service was from "we_tell_you_you_are_fat.com", it would be hailed as a great social experiment.
And like other people are saying, as long as people opt-in (and can opt-out), then what's the issue? Or is this Karl's way of saying TechDirt's UK readers are fat and should use this service? Just kidding. :)
First, they're obviously playing the statistics game. Like the first poster points out, Neilsen can continue to say "95%" of its audience still watches TV, even though they'll define their audience in small print in a footnote. Sure, 95% over the years still looks good, but it's bad when the sample population is falling every year.
And why are the Neilsen ratings still used to determine network advertising rates? This is what gives us "sweeps week" where networks pull tricks to get more viewers (such as celebrity appearances, etc). Yet everyone knows that the sweeps week ratings won't happen every week.
I agree that it's stupid for the government to get involved in an airline-business matter. What's next, Congressional regulation on whether airlines should serve food?
Let's look at the facts: 1) "Airfones" and in-flight phones have been common on airplanes since at least the 1970's. 2) Airfones cost at least $5 a minute. 3) People will be chatty cathys because their own cell phone gives them cheap or free minutes. The obvious answer: set up a $5 per minute wifi system within the airplane. People won't use it because it's expensive and other passengers won't be disturbed.
And wasn't there an issue with cell phones not being able to connect to towers in an airplane travelling at 35,000 feet and going 500 mph? The $5 per minute wifi also solves this issue.
First why did you repeat the typo from the original article? The sentence should be "But it was possibly DUE to the confusion caused by the sudden entrance of the cops...", not "But it was possibly do to the confusion caused by the sudden entrance of the cops...".
Second, how old is the lawyer? You said he's been practicing law for half a century, which is 50 years. If he graduated law school and became an attorney when he was 21, is he now 71? Are there many attorneys in their 70's still practicing law?
Some commenters at Ars make a good point: the statement from Verizon basically says their network is operating as expected, but they don't specifically say they aren't throttling Netflix. Why don't they "state unequivocally" that they're not doing it?
I love how they use Weird Al Yankovic as an example of parody.
First, Weird Al changes the lyrics enough to fall under the "transformative" rule. He doesn't just re-record Michael Jackson's song as "Dumb Beat It", he actually writes all new-lyrics to so with the music.
Second, and most importantly he gets permission from the artist or label. Did "Dumb Starbucks" get permission to do this?
Third, almost as important he pays the original artist a royalty. In fact, Weird Al got into a little trouble when he recorded a parody version of "Gangsta Paradise" because the artist claimed he didn't give Weird Al permission. Yet the artist reversed his position when he saw the payment checks from Weird Al. All of the original artists usually see their songs and CD's go up in sales when Weird Al releases his music, which brings in even more money.
Because of these, artists think it's an honor to be parodied by Weird Al. In fact, Mark Knopfler (of Dire Straits) said Weird Al could only record a parody version of their "Money for Nothing" if he played guitar on it!
Maybe the Dumb Starbucks people show watch VH-1's "Behind the Music" episode on Weird Al before using him as their example.
Technology is moving faster than people's ability to understand it
I wonder if we're finally reaching the point where technology is moving faster than people's ability to understand it. It sounds like the politicians in New Jersey don't comprehend anything about the proposal, including the fact that it's a proof of concept and there's no working code. All the politicians know is "Bitcoin is bad, so anything to do with it is bad", or more accurately, "We don't know much about this Bitcoin concept but we've heard scary stories, so we need to outlaw it."
And, of course, what are they outlawing? Since when does a state AG have power over someone in another state? I can see how a case can be made if the software was installed on a New Jersey resident's computer, but again, there's no working code! If I were the guy's attorney, I would simply send back a letter saying New Jersey has no standing to file anything and not even bother arguing about code, about Bitcoin, or anything else.
When people make speeches about how Google should just delist sites, do they not know (or not care) about other sites? If Google is forced to delist a site, do we think Bing and every other search engine will do the same? Or will they take this as a competitive advantage and start advertising that they don't block sites like Google does? And what's to stop someone from making their own search engine? Or better yet, just use an "underground" one like DuckDuckGo?
How much of his speeches are bullying and how much is "getting off topic"? Every article that talks about about he wants to charge people (or whatever else) is one less article focussing on the NSA's abuses. I think people like him are hoping to steer the conversion enough so people get distracted and don't push for reforms. I just wish more media would push back and call this guy out for what he's doing.
This is legalized extortion again. The choice is pay $X million now to settle or pay $X million times 2 or 3 to your attorneys to fight the case, which you may lose and have to pay the money plus damages for dragging out the case. Sure, it's your legal right to defend yourself, but it'll cost you money that would be better spent in many, many other areas.