Theoretically, you are right... but didn't you notice that AD only states "you are right / I was wrong", which in the absence/reporting of his original posts does not add anything to the discussion.
He carefully didn't actually state anything which is worth reading on its own. If he had stated "I was wrong, and the US government has no justification to seize Dotcom's assets", then I would agree with you that the posts shouldn't have been reported (and I have a suspicion that "you" are actually AD).
> because it doesn't cost any money to publish a book
Well, nowadays, exactly how much does it cost? From my personal non-professional viewpoint, it would seem to require a one-time payment for editing and cover art... and that's about it.
I don't believe that Tehranian himself cares about making money from his book; what's important for him (academic-karma-wise) is that it is published (and not by a vanity publisher).
The really stupid thing about your post, however, is that instead of making fun of Mike finding the ebook price ironic because of the supposedly significant production cost of said ebook, you should have instead made fun of Mike for ignoring obvious economic principles which drive academic ebook prices, namely that most such ebooks are bought out of research grant funds which often "just need to be spent", anyway. (Or am I missing something from my non-professional-economist viewpoint?)
No, you forgot to add a loop of string and the toy lock from your 8-year-old's diary... since either cutting the string or breaking the toy lock to get in the room is "criminal".
This seems to be an interesting example of people overrating their own importance: the judge, in effect, is claiming that mere fear of the justice system ("Watch out, I'll throw the book at anyone who hacks those locks!") should be sufficient to secure a hotel room door.
Wait a sec, this is the behavior we expect of a company backing "notice and staydown"? Given what they expect of others, even if they have a valid license, one would think they'd have the courtesy to at least take it down for appearances sake, right?
> Sure, it's easy if you have a long standing reputation > like Hitchcock or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
I see no reason this would necessarily mean it would be easy; one could easily be in the situation of having to traverse a large tree of estate administrations, since the post-mortum extension period could be several generations long...
I agree that that mainly works, but it's a pain to start to temporarily enable domains/subdomains one by one hoping that you manage to enable the serving of the media you're interested in, while still blocking the ad networks.
One wonders if this "wet/dry" was planned from the start, and only necessary because the authorities needed time to review the requested documents and make sure the really damning ones could be falsified.
Re: In Consistent Disagreement with Your Stance on Piracy
> continually growing problem of piracy
We see what you did there. Or possibly you meant "continually growing work to hide the continually growing box office profits from the continually more savvy actors who we are continually screwing over on their contract percentages"?
The prosecutor should certainly be aware that if they go through with this and photograph the teen's erect penis, they better be able to justify it --- that is, for a "match" between the penis in the video and the evidence collected to be significant evidence, there must have been studies done which quantify the likelihood of this match being falsely generated in some other way, like the teen browsing the net for penis videos which just look like his. Somehow I am doubtful that a lot of research has been done in this field, especially compared to DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence (and the quantitative research into both of those has come into question recently)...
So this is just another twisted attempt to force a plea bargain rather than going to trial, just like the more plebeian "piling on the charges"...
Cell phone users often may not know whether particular information is stored on the device or in the cloud, and it generally makes little difference.
Another "like a duck"-like ruling, but this time it seems to pull the carpet out from under the use of Smith vs. Maryland for accessing cloud storage. The same, unfortunately, can't be said about most email (i.e., email older than 180 days), since that was explicitly allowed by Congress in the ECPA in the '80s.