This isn't happening in the US. the US is trying to get New Zealand to do whatever it is the US wants. Hence government refers to the US government arguing against Megaupload being able to do anything in New Zealand court.
Re: Privacy does not need to be defined by victim status.
What public interest is served in arresting someone who tweeted public factual information?
If they want to maybe go after whoever originally started it, I can understand that. Perhaps that is what they are planning, but it sounds more like they want to try getting anyone they can identify who tweeted this information.
Arresting people who repeated information accomplishes nothing and the information will still be public.
I'm sure people will go find a legitimate stream now...
I'm sure everyone that would've used these sites will now find a legitimate stream. Of course that assumes such a thing even exists.
Most likely they'll just find someplace else to watch the ads/superbowl.
Especially since many of the users are likely not even inside the US and can't even legally get access to the event if they wanted to fork over gobs of cash.
Shoved through my ass. Both my Senators are Republican and both voted for this to be passed. I knew one of them would vote for it, I was just hoping DeMint would have some balls and stand with Rand Paul and others against it.
Re: Re: Apple doesn't need to win to come out ahead.
as a droid user you can still get the appstore, and most people i know have it including me. They have 1 paid app for free everyday which has been very much worth it to me. http://twitter.com/#!/amazonappstore
Other than that it's not much different then the Google Market.
you have obviously never used an Android phone have you.
This effects absolutely no one. Google Market still works the same.
Amazon Appstore works just fine and is still called appstore until a court tells them otherwise. In fact I downloaded the free app of the day just a few hours ago. Even if they do have to change what it's called they'll just update their app and everything will continue working as before.
This hurts effectively hurts no consumers, and does nothing for apple except to make them look petty and wrong.
Re: Google can suppress Foundem for "low quality", but they can't suppress blatant piracy sites for illegal activity?
yes, because link farms are the exact same thing as a site full of downloads.
As has been pointed out again and again google has no way of knowing what is authorized and what isn't that isn't there job.
This is clearly shown in the Viacom vs Youtube case. Many of the videos complained about where actually uploaded by Viacom employees. So how is google supposed to know which videos/files are legit and which aren't when even the copyright owners get confused.
This isn't even close to a real threat. You do realize that pretty much every movie is released online before it even hits theaters let alone 2 months later. Many of them are even dvd quality or better from advanced screeners. Nobody is going to cam a movie 2 months after it hits theaters.