The news reports I've read said that the two suspects were already known to police and were under surveillance. For example, this Reuters article states:
The fugitive suspects are French-born sons of Algerian-born parents, both in their early 30s, and already under police surveillance. One was jailed for 18 months for trying to travel to Iraq a decade ago to fight as part of an Islamist cell. Police said they were "armed and dangerous".
What kind of information was a broad, untargeted "mapping" program going to reveal that targeted surveillance hasn't?
Internet Explorer is fourth, though still with a fair bit of usage (who are you people?).
To suggest a serious answer to what was not a serious question: we are people whose corporate IT departments still love Internet Explorer because all the internal web-based corporate applications were designed 10 years ago to work on IE and nobody wants to devote the resources needed to confirm whether they work on any other platform, or to update them if they don't.
I notice in their Reasons For Watching Unofficial Copies of Movies or TV Shows slide, they don't have a figure for "An official version has never been released in my region".
Now, maybe that's because, if the survey was being done in Kansas City, that's not a problem for the people being surveyed. But I'd wager if you conducted a similar survey anywhere outside of the US, that would be a popular response.
As a Canadian, I can't even count the number of times I have been frustrated in my attempts to pay money for content. It makes me feel like yelling at the TV "ALL I WANT TO DO IS PAY YOU MONEY FOR YOUR CONTENT, ISN'T THAT YOUR F**KING BUSINESS MODEL?!"
I guess that should say "IF the heir sold something they didn't have the right to sell". The claim doesn't seem too sure about what exactly happened to the statute, and I'm not saying my argument is absolutely watertight. I just think that there's enough going on here that we can't just throw our hands up and say "PRIVITY OF CONTRACT" and be done with it.
Where are you getting this idea that the sole liability of the heirs will be to give back the statute? The claim alleges the statute has been sold on eBay. The heir sold something they didn't have the right to sell, they can absolutely be liable for monetary damages.
I'd argue that the bylaws create a limit on the rights that were transferred to the original recipient. It's not a matter of being bound by a contract; it's a matter of only being able to pass on the rights that you have. He only ever had the right to dispose of the statute AFTER giving the Academy a chance to buy it back. When he died and it transferred to his heirs, they inherited those same rights. It's a matter of property rights, not contractual obligations.
The argument would go: The estate didn't have the right to dispose of the statute without first giving the Academy the right of first refusal. So when they purported to transfer possession of the statute to the heirs, no actual rights to the statute were transferred. Then when the family disposed of the statute, without having any rights to it, there's a conversion claim there.
Besides, maybe an order for possession of the statute is all they want. If you look at the prayer for relief, one of the things they ask for is a chance to buy the statue for $10. To me, that means their real goal in this lawsuit is not getting money but recovering the statute.
Actually, the bylaws state it cannot be "disposed of", even by operation of law, so there's even an argument to be made that the Academy should have been offered the chance to purchase the statue even before it passed on to his heirs.
I'm not saying its definitely a winning argument, but it seems more plausible to me than this breach of contract approach.
I actually think they do have a case to be made here, although I'd have framed it as a property law issue. When the Academy gave Robert Surtees the statute, they didn't give it to him outright. They gave it to him subject to a right of first refusal. He can only pass on the rights he has, which means when he died and the statute passed on to his heirs, it passed on subject to that same right of first refusal.
But instead these lawyers have framed it as a contract law issue. That just seems odd to me. They may ultimately argue the property law issue but if that was their strategy, they certainly didn't make it clear in this claim.
This doesn't surprise me at all, but to some people, the idea that you would pay money for something you can get for free is mind-blowing, no matter how much convenient the experience was for you. It's just a matter of personal priorities.
I had a flight the other day and I realized while sitting in the departure lounge that I didn't have anything to read on the plane. I pulled out my Kobo eReader, got on the airport wireless network and bought a copy of Don Quixote for $2. Don Quixote is in the public domain and there are tons of free versions floating around. I could have pulled out my laptop, downloaded a PDF and then transferred it to my eReader. But for me it was worth spending $2 for the convenience of getting the book quickly and easily and in a format that displays nicely on my Kobo.
A few days later I happened to mention this to a friend and he was STUNNED.
"But it's free" "Yeah, but the version I got displays nicely on the Kobo and I didn't feel like pulling my laptop out of my bag and dicking around with USB cords in the departure lounge". "But...it's free! Look, you can get it from Project Gutenberg or the Google Play Store" "Yeah, but it was only $2 and it was more convenient to just get it from the Kobo store" "But... you could have got it for free!"
I followed this case closely and I wish it had come down the other way. All we needed was one judge to go the other way. Sigh.
That said, I think you misinterpret what the court was talking about when it talked about evidence disappearing. They weren't talking about the contents of the phone disappearing but other evidence that they would locate via the contents of the phone. For instance, in this case the evidence was stolen jewellery, which could be easily fenced or otherwise disposed of if it wasn't located quickly. There was also a gun involved, which the police obviously wanted to locate very quickly.
I'm not saying that just because it makes the cops lives easier, we should let them do it. But if we're going to criticize a decision, it's important to get the details right.
While I play GTAV and enjoy it and I agree that it's clear the people who wrote that petition have never actually played the game or even talked to anyone who has, I'm not sure I like the way you're spinning the free speech issue in this post.
The second thing we must be absolutely clear on is that for anyone that values free speech, be it government or a corporate entity, the fact that these women issuing their petition are abuse survivors doesn't matter even a little bit.
First, as you identify, these are private entities so the legal conception of free speech doesn't really factor in to it (unless Australian law really does offer free speech guarantees which apply to private entities, which I doubt). So this must be that vaguely defined "free speech as a social norm" concept that people love to toss around. But even then, I still don't see it.
Target and KMART aren't preventing Rockstar from speaking. They just aren't providing them with a platform to do it, and I don't think they have an obligation to. They have free speech interests too. Clearly they see choosing to sell or not to sell the game as a way to send a message to their customers, and they have the right to choose which message they send.
It doesn't mean I support their decision, I just don't see this as a free speech issue.