Not only are you factually wrong regarding automatic copyright, but also off-topic. The issue before the court was not whether or not the photo was covered by copyright (it was), but what terms it was licensed under.
I recall that it's already become one of the most infamous and obviously evil Supreme Court cases of all time, on par with the Dred Scott
Yes, a ruling stating that the government cannot stop groups of people from expressing their political opinions close to an election is "evil" and "on par" with a ruling stating that black people can't be citizens.
Well, that depends on where and when you say it. If it was on Facebook (as in the original story), you'd be in the clear. Say it when a cop pulls you over, and there's a good chance they might just "fear for their life" and have to put 12 rounds into you.
kim dotcom can send his lawyers to fight in in court
I know it's asking way too much of the mouthbreathing bootlickers who infest this comment section, but if you had exercised any reading comprehension whatsoever, you'd have processed that the government is trying to prevent him from even challenging the civil forfeiture in court.
While the idea of what a self-driving car should do is no doubt an important question to philosophers, in practical terms, the market is going to pick one, and I guarantee you it isn't going to be the one the promises to sacrifice the lives of you and your family to algorithmic utilitarianism.
I noticed the other day that a mis-typed domain name popped up my ISP's obnoxious "Couldn't find that site, so here are some ads instead" page whereas my traffic should have been flowing entirely through my VPN. A quick trip to my VPN software settings fixed the issue.
When I had my current house built, I was told by the builder that Brighthouse would be my cable provider (who I adore). Brighthouse's online tool confirmed coverage for my zip code, as did Comcast's. After signing the papers, I went to set up my utilities and Brighthouse said no. Damn.
Grudgingly, I turned to Comcast. But although online it said that service was available to me, it kept giving me an error when I went to actually complete the check-out process, and their online chat rep told me that I would have to go into a Comcast office in person to sort it out. When I did, the tech came back after 10 minutes and told me I was years away from ever getting service at that address, even if they were to start the process now, which, by the way, they weren't even considering. So, thanks to Comcast for wasting as much of time as possible.
I ended up with CenturyLink, whose best offered DSL plan in my area is 10 mbps, but who told me they could only offer me 6 mbps under it (with no discount of course). So I ended up going from a 150/10 connection to a 6/0.5 connection.
Still, it could be worse. At least I have a connection that can stream a video . . .
I think that once arbitrary decisions hurt somebody financially one can at least question the legality of such moves under anti-trust issues.
"Does not accept all uses of their platform that I personally wish they would accept" is not anti-trust. At all. Like, it's not just not in the same ball park, you aren't in the same state. There are multiple other competitors in the app store space, and Google themselves specifically allows you to side-load any app you want. They aren't a monopoly. If you don't like the app store's terms of service, use a different one.
Besides I'd say there's enough room for using fair use here and on similar cases.
There is nothing in the law that says Google has to allow content on its platform merely because that content qualifies as fair use.
Sure Google can reject applications but once they accepted all based on public guidelines then they should not discriminate.
If developers had a contract with them that stated they were owed damages should Google change their mind, that's one thing, but they don't. Changing their mind after approving an app is not illegal, or actionable.
I am interpreting it to be a civil matter at least in the fair use front
Fair use has to do with whether or not the developer or Google could be sued by the owner of the pictures in question, not whether or not Google must host a particular app.
So if it's an open platform and anybody can sell there why are they discriminating a few players?
Discrimination based on content isn't illegal, nor should it be.
My wording may have been poor but don't you agree that there are legal questions to be asked here?
No. There are no legal questions here regarding Google's right to not host an app.
Simple: all devs should start suing Google when they remo0ve their application without legal basis and proper explanation.
Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has a legal right to publish apps on the Google Play store in the first place, so they can remove apps as they see fit, even in situations that are unfair, short-sighted, done "without legal basis", and without "proper explanation". In short, Google owes you jack shit.
(Is this one of those "Everything I personally disagree with should be illegal!" arguments? They do seem to be all the rage these days . . .)
Hard drive manufacturers these days, in a quest for higher data density, basically squeeze so many bytes out of every platter that it is no longer necessary to perform a crazy amount of rewrites to truly delete data on a standard hard drive. There's just not significant extra space hanging out at the margins as a buffer anymore.
Also, wear-leveling algorithms in solid-state drives' firmware lets them remap which sectors of the flash memory are reported as what to the OS, so even if you tell an SSD to write to a particular sector, internally it may choose to write the data to somewhere different.