I think you are failing my point. Ive done the uber thing when my car was out of commission. It costs way more then the cost of car ownership. And general economics of scale mean a lot of general driving conditions can't support an Uber economy. Even when Driverless Uber brings that cost down, you still have rural areas that couldn't support a big enough fleet of ubers, and the large number of people who travel for a living and cant just rent a car each leg of the trip, because they are going 500 miles tonight, and thats gonna screw up general distribution of the uber cars and rise the cost greatly.
Why aren't you renting everything? because the cost of renting is more then the cost of ownership (Uber vs my prius, static cost of ownership goods like dishes, low cost goods like some lawnmowers), or the renting economy doesn't provide convience for your situation (going out to the store to rent dishes for every meal seems like a time waster, my driving habits versus general economics for ride sharing) The fact that my arguments can be used for any sort of sharing economy doesn't discount them, I'd say it enhances them.
Yeah, two things, one thats the first time ive heard that claim, including the linked original annoucement, so no wonder this doesn't show up in discussion.
Two, he did not upload any infringing content. He had links, to torrents, that may have themselves been infringing. That is still secondary copyright infringement. And there remains a question as to why the supposed ignoring of DMCA notices is a big thing. The DMCA does not require the Delisting of links no matter what google started doing. Everything ive heard, and why everyone compares this to Megaupload, is that their case hinges on the ignoring of DMCA notices, not the upload of content.
cda 230 specificly exempts Intellectual property disputes. For Copyright, a similar, but less effective safe harbor was established in the DMCA. One of the key assertions in the lawsuit is that KAT ignored the DMCA. Of course, not hosting any content, there was nothing to remove, and given no law actually requires the delisting of links they shouldn't be charged, but DHS is fucked up that way.
If you think people wont want a car when the self driving uber future comes, you clearly have no concept of anything besides in-city urban, or lightly suburban, driving. i drive long distances, I drive in rural areas, I don't have the cash to afford an uber every commute. I spend about $20/biweekly on gas. That's one uber one way to work. Of 20 I do biweekly, not to mention going to the store, the movies, ect. uber costs me a minimum of $300 just for work. plus all the other stuff i do, plus the time cost of waiting for my ride, I easily pass $400. Whereas I budget $300 total for car, gas, insurance, and maintenance. even if driver-less uber possibly undercuts me, there is quite the necessary convenience factor to owning a car, esp. in rural areas, or people who travel distances too short to efficiently fly, you know, 3-5 hour drives. Or road show people. Or one of several other situations where car travel is the best travel and yet rented cars are no where near as efficient as just owning a car.
Re: It's like paper, it's a medium not the content
Blizzard has actual servers, but torrenting is such an efficient way of distributing file data that they use (or at least used to use) the torrent protocol to distribute their games and patches. D&D online uses torrents as well. Just because you don't use BitTorrent to download it doesn't mean on the back-end they aren't using the torrent protocol.
Wasn't this exactly how good net neutrailty showed up in the US? Namely bad net neutrality got passed and Verison STILL complained, and that got the FCC in such a tizzy that they went and did things mostly right?
I love how you made this an anti-liberal political post. The supreme court, which has done the most damage to the fourth amendment, is currently split between liberals and conservatives. Its not a 'liberal' court.
The problem is, you know the court has violated the law in this case. You can't hope to be contacted by another plaintiff who got their case disappeared who is less sympathetic so you can address this problem. Inaction will lead to more problems.
I have been told by those more knowledgable than me that people with certain mental abnormalities (such as certain places on the autism spectrum) will not ever realize that people will find certain interactions harmful or unwanted. Meaning such a person could certainly Harass and Stalk me and even after it is explained to them will be unable to understand that the attention is unwanted. Is your understanding of intent such that the person I have described can't be charged with intent? By my previous understanding they are directly attempting to contact that person and are actively seeking that person out, so they could be charged. But the new definition of intent I read suggests not.
Well, if you are renting your hopper it would be a solid argument to make with customer service. Assuming of course you are paying more for the hopper then a lower priced regular DVR option. Then you might be able to argue that you paid for the hopper specifically for a feature that is no longer operating as advertised. But then again in that situation They'd probably just switch you over to a new plan with the cheaper dvr you didn't want originally.
Im not sure i understand the scope of the intent requirement. As I have read it on previous similar articles there needs to be intent to express the harassing behavior at the Harassed. So you have to actually talk shit to their face, not just talk shit in general.
But the discussion on the vanilla Stalking law seems to suggest you need intent to Harass or Cause emotional distress. So does this mean someone without the emotional/empathic ability to recognize the potential for harm can't ever be convicted of harassment?