The other problem is the lawyer who took this case: I'm sure he keeps coming back to and court only to say "I went to my client and doesn't agree to the terms [and he wants to keep paying me to fight for him]". At what point do we hold lawyers responsible for putting billing hours and income before what's right?
What does Voltage Picture really have to gain by going after this one guy? Is he the head of a Chinese cartel that's selling millions of bootleg DVD's? Is he part of a North Korean smuggling ring that's trafficking millions of DVD's? If not, then why spend all this time and effort to get a few thousand dollars from the guy?
Can people say, "Please don't talk about John Smith because there's an injunction about talking about him"? That way, people know you're talking about him, but you're actually telling people not to talk about him, so you're following the law.
then we are entering cloud-cuckooland, where ANYONE can get 'offended' by ANYTHING when they get a whiff of moneies to be extorted... Yes, we do live in that kind of society. If I think this comment offends me and I can find a lawyer who's willing to take the case (either because he wants money or attention), then I can sure. Whether I win or not is another issue, though it may not even get to the point if I can get a lawyer who can hound the other party into a settlement.
I'm sure people have heard this before, but it's the boiling frog analogy: as the water slowly heats, the frog gets used to it, then all of sudden, it boils to death and it wonders what happened.
So, sure, a loss of 5 million subscribers over a few years isn't too bad. And another 10 million next year still isn't too bad. And another 10 million after that isn't too bad. But, wait, that's now 25 million out of 100 million or 25% of the total. Is that still considered not too bad?
Me: I run a shady business and I want to place an ad in the Yellow Pages. Yellow Pages: Sorry, we see that you've scammed people and we choose not to run your ad. Me: Fine, then I'm suing you for anti-competitive behavior and because my right to run an ad supersedes your right to reject ads in your own book.
When has this ever happened? Can someone find me a case where someone was able to push a lawsuit against the Yellow Pages for not running their ad? Then how is this any different besides the usual "on the computer"?
For example, would someone be held in solitary confinement because he refused to open a safe that someone said might, maybe, contain something illegal? Then shouldn't a phone be treated the same as a safe, as in: people have the 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves.
But I think a previous poster is correct and the guy (or his lawyer or both) aren't "playing the game", which is causing the judge to get upset and make this kind of ruling.
I mean, come one, it's just a 4-digit code to the phone. If he has nothing to hide, then he should have no problem unlocking it. So what if that's against the constitution- he's been accused of having child porn, so he must be guilty of something. *sarcasm off*
If they want to censor all extremist activity, then they need to be fair and across the board about it. We all know their goal is to cut down on ISIS recruitment, but how about radical Christians who want to burn down mosques because brown people are different?
Will these rules censor people like Kim Davis? Like what was said so often back then, if her beliefs won't let her do the job she's being paid to do, then she should quit.
Can someone please explain the real difference between how Iran is ruled by the teachings of Islam and how so many "Christians" want the US to be ruled by the Bible? Oh, right, one is a "good" religion and the other is "bad".
Maybe the hospital or doctors were talked/ bribed/ convinced to get this software from this vendor. And if the vendor knows they have a monopoly on the market, will they do their best to make robust software? Or will the developers say "There's no chance a virus scan would interrupt the process, but even so, let's just tell the users not to do it instead of adding code to handle the error".
Re: Here's the plan to fix this oversight on our part...
And what, exactly is your plan to do this?
The main problem is that the politicians who get elected into office have the money to run for office in the first place.
Then we have such polarized politics that the public will never agree on which candidate should be elected. Just look at who we have running for president: A socialist who will take money from the rich and give to the poor. A woman(!) who might be indicted by the FBI. A woman! And a reality-show real estate mogul with no political experience.
Given these choices, who would you vote for? Sorry, but those are the only choices.
I think a more accurate statement to explain the actions would be: "Well, we would have kept zoomed in, but the police told us over the radio that if we didn't zoom out we wouldn't be invited to any more press conferences and the other local stations would get the news before us. So we need to be polite to the powers-that-be lest we find ourselves shut out of other press junkets."
This a little off-topic, but: I still remember when I went to a beach town for Senior Week after high school. The parking rates were something like $5 an hour at a lot or 25 cents an hour a meter, but with a 2-hour maximum. And if the meter expired, you could get a ticket that might cost $25. The ticket was a no-points, no-reporting to insurance type of ticket, so it didn't go on your record if you paid it.
The catch? If you stayed all day, it was cheaper to park illegally and pay the ticket than to park in the paid lots!
That's what a lot of people think, especially since Paramount's "Star Trek Beyond" probably costs $200 million to make but the trailer looks like "Fast and Furious". Yet "Axanar" was made for a few million and has a lot more fan support.
How else can Paramount/ CBS explain why they went after Axanar? So no other production tried to make money? What about productions made before crowdfunding websites? Were there really no movies made in the 1980's that went around the convention circuit and slipped below Paramount/ CBS' radar?
I hate to generalize, but it seems like this is simply conservatives complaining that their point-of-view isn't getting pushed out as much as they want.
I don't see them complaining about FOX News' bias towards conservative Republican causes, yet that channel has the word "news" right in its name. Facebook doesn't claim to be a news network. And in the case of FOX News, they absolutely control what's news and what isn't by what they decide to talk about.
On an average day, more than 20 percent of the traffic to WIRED.com comes from a reader who is blocking our ads. So they've decided that that no longer want 20 percent of their audience? That's kind-of a slap in the face.
Let me give you a better example: "Diablo" by Blizzard.
I purchased the first Diablo when it came out years and years ago and every so often I load it up and play it again. The point is that I can still do this after 10 or 15 years.
Diablo III uses an always-on Internet connection to validate your license, to connect to the auction house, and any number of other reasons. What happens in 10 or 15 years when Diablo V is released and Blizzard decides they don't want to support Diablo III? Sorry, you can't play your $50 game any more because the company shut down the servers.
Or a better example: Photoshop. I bought a copy of Photoshop on a CD and installed it on my laptop. I can use it wherever I take my laptop: the house, the garage, even the beach. If I subscribe to Adobe's monthly cloud service, I can only use it over an Internet connection. And when the service goes down (as it did a few years ago), I'm ****ed and I can't do the work my clients are counting on. Why? Because the company owns the software, not me, so I'm at their mercy.
block off access to anyone using adblocker software, apparently so that it could successfully allow malicious "ads" to infect its readers' machines I love this sentence and I think it needs to be said more often simply because the argument over using adblockers is usually worded as "you're stealing content by blocking ads". Yet not many people talk about the malware that gets served as ads.