If Google or the government don't care, why should I? Google obviously doesn't feel like it's loosing any money. Mike often makes the claim [indirectly] that economics isn't a zero sum game. Here's an [albeit strange] example. It doesn't matter how bizarre the licensing is, if the final price to the consumer is competitive.
In Lady Gaga's case you could almost make the argument that the persona she has created is a scarce good. It's certainly more scarce then her music. So, she's on a better track then most others in regards to protecting her scarcity.
I totally agree with jduhis on this. If the goal is public safety it's Ok to flash, since they do slow down. If the goal is revenue, flashing is a bad thing. The cops could accomplish the same thing as the civilian headlight flashers just by sitting there with the cherries on [instead of the radar gun], but there isn't any money in that, is there?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Will this contersuit open up discovery again?
I would think that none of it violates the DMCA. Use of the tool may not be an official takedown notice depending how an official notice is defined by the DMCA itself. WB put itself in a dubious position by asking for a tool in the first place instead of official notices. Any lawsuit by Hotfile for abuse of it's provided software would be outside of the scope of the DMCA.
That's not what I read at all. WB had full opportunity inform Hotfile of any infringing material and did not. So, how is Hotfile supposed to magically know the status of the content? Hotfile's argument is why should we do anything if WB isn't willing to? If there's something copyrighted and the owner allows it, no law has been broken. That's licensing for $0. Promoters license for $0 all the time.
I like this comment a lot! It points out the futility of security theater. Put it in the mail, one lead encased dirty bomb in a freight container, one bomb vest detonated at a TSA inspection point, and on, and on...
Re: Re: Physical searches make sense if your already spying...
The government mentality is to collect the data as it believes any encryption can eventually be broken. However, encryption is off the point. The government is doing the border searches as a data collection point[possibly the last], encryption or no.
Physical searches make sense if your already spying...
"If you wanted the content of your laptop to go over the border you'd just send it using the internet."
At which point, the NSA has it.
I know this isn't the point of this particular topic, but Mike keeps rolling out the 'this makes no sense' argument. With the NSA tapping the cables, physical searches make sense (to the feds, at least).