Um, no. An advertising firm would be one of the first entities to happily dance the corporate party tune and try to get people back onto the good, clean, God-fearing "main" internet... this isn't much of a revolution. Assuming they do actually believe these websites are the Tortuga's of the web whose visitors firmly abhor paid consumerism, why advertise there? Rather like putting up Christian dating site stickers at a peep show parlor. I don't remember seeing many Ford ads the last time I went to torrent sites... maybe I just wasn't paying attention.
GroupM is well within their rights to blackball sites that involve an independently useful and morally impeccant software application. It's their fractions of pennies after all. Maybe unlike the rest of us reprehensible skells, they don't want to promote the spread of child porn.
Being critical of the US government is a good and necessary thing. Our government is very corrupt and in need of several sweeping overhauls, but come on. Even if you felt the players were every bit as dirty and immoral, the disparity in oversight and transparency keeps politicians honest in ways they certainly would not be otherwise.
As for Manning, it's a slippery slope. Who are you to judge what is and isn't appropriate for a member of the military to leak based on his/her own beliefs, and what begins to undermine our security and/or diplomatic status in the world? Is it wrong to keep friendly-fire incidents secret? Of course. But it's not as though the chopper was inbound and he was going to save an innocent life. The diplomatic cables? Please! That had little or nothing to do with leaking corruption and everything to do with impressing his hacker idols on the interwebs and the charismatic albino counter-culture Jesus over at Wikileaks. For an officer to break trust and pass on classified data there ought to be a huge violation of law and/or elements of the military clearly acting against the interests of the United States. Exactly how easy and safe do you want to make it for 19-year-old geeks in a secure office to publicize whatever they choose based on their vast life experience judging social moral implications? If you got convicted of assault for a bar fight at 18, how'd you like the old lady in human resources to anonymously warn all the employees that report to you about your possible violent tendencies? Yeah, she signed agreements about confidentiality, but protect the whistleblower, right?
Of course the US is just as bad as Russia, so the army will murder 30 Afghan informants and blame it on Manning, and then the CIA will shank him in prison.
Elsewhere I saw comments attributed to the "journalist" in question stating they intended to hire lawyers. It's up to them not to stop at getting the video reinstated, but to attempt to prosecute the misuse of DMCA take-down. Even if it doesn't amount to much, getting it into the limelight will draw attention to Fox's actions and hopefully scare others away from using the big red easily-reachable "censor" button youtube and other providers make available.
I have faith that Iran will actually try to go through with this. Of course, whatever IOS' and hardware they choose to use will be either be duplicates or knock-offs of existing products. Not only will this potentially insulate their economy, it will make their gateways the new favorite target of people who have already thoroughly hacked the second-generation gear they'll be using. Of course, taking away the internet might just be enough to turn peaceful protests into an armed insurrection.
I highly doubt any of the surrounding nations in that region will be using Iran as an ISP any time soon, even the terrifyingly ignorant ones. But if they're successful in securing Iranternet and keeping the unwanted out and hiding their dirty laundry, Sony might be throwing a few security contracts their way.
I think it's exactly because you can't easily make a top-down determination on what protests or actions are and are not appropriate that the court ruling went the way it did. Agreed, it's a slippery slope, but nobody wants to be bombarded with street performers and demonstrators inside a national monument. Would you feel it was appropriate if someone stood around the Lincoln Memorial and quietly whispered to visitors his beliefs that the United States would have developed into a more secure and powerful nation had they not abolished slavery and "forced" the secession? Are you going to want a televangelist trying to convert you at the Ground Zero memorial?
You can't have a court stationed at the top step of each memorial ready to rule on every attempt at individual expression. You have to rely on the duly-assigned government agents, in this case the park police, to use proper judgment and act professionally. I'm sure the court wanted officers to exercise restraint the way they did on Saturday... give some leeway for a few individuals calmly slow-dancing or the like, respond slowly and politely to larger and obviously staged demonstrations by calmly directing people out of the memorial.
Unfortunately we are seeing a rash of grossly inappropriate actions by police officers lately. That sense of scumbag entitlement has always existed selectively on every force... society determines how much it's accepted or rebuked and muted.
I'll defer to people who are more well-versed in the particulars of the case, but a question comes to mind: if this were a case of bad actors playing games with the letter of the law, it should have become obvious prior to this final hearing; that and the notion that this is a very ambiguous and convoluted situation badly suited to clearly defining the intention and correct application of the law might have dissuaded the Supreme Court from taking the case and creating more confusion with their ruling. That may seem selfish to a rightfully worried appellant but given the state of copyright/patent/IP law in this country right now it's eggshells, every single step, every day of the week.
Re: You want the content, but dont care if the content creaters cease to exist. !!! smart..
The internet has maimed the newspaper industry, yes it's true. NewsPAPER. The internet killing the "news" industry is something between a myth, a misconception and a bold-faced lie. The major players in the industry have never made any significant money off of papers or articles from months or years in the past. Ever. If anyone has a legitimate dispute to that statement, please enlighten everyone. Otherwise, it's not the consumer's responsibility to prop up a struggling industry with new previously-untapped source of revenue simply because said industry no longer has a monopoly over the flow of breaking information.
This isn't about copying today's newspaper articles and making them available free on Google. This is about an archive. If newspapers were still the only game in town and still made a fortune telling people what to read, no one would even think to ask for money for this.
Not believing everything you read on the internet is wise advice, and everyone should follow it. But this argument is about the ability to choose whether to read or regard an online review, and the review-ee's attempts to take that power out of your hands.
For years, movies have been making profits based on advertising hype. On today's internet you can find a half dozen synopses and perspectives on a movie within hours of it's first screening. Should you trust amateur bloggers' opinions implicitly? Of course not. Should movie studios be able to shut down review sites because they don't like what's on them? Of course not. The entertainment industry can circumvent or otherwise trample the constitution when it comes to potential alleged piracy... defamation isn't piracy, and thus doesn't threaten our national security.
The lawsuit is a win/sort-of-win scenario for Falun Gong: either Cisco is held responsible for facilitating what the international community considers immoral, or Cisco suffers a public relations backlash for getting into bed with China. The former will never happen, because as stated China considers it perfectly legal and the international community can just barely agree to condemn mass-murdering psychopaths leading rogue nations... they won't be taking China to task anytime soon except in media soundbytes. The latter is the real prize, as they'll scare other IT companies away from doing the same thing.
15 years ago or so when I was interning at *harumphharumph* I remember working on an internationalized version of Unix that was being prepared in part as a result of contracts with the Chinese government. That was back when most people in the US thought the Dalai Lama was the kid from The Golden Child, and it still gave me a queasy feeling. Nowadays every IT company playing on the global stage should be sweating every email and phone conversation with the Chinese government... not simply because of the moral dilemma, but because any technological development you attempt to rent out will likely end up duplicated and home-grown for 1/50th the price.
... installing software on someone else's computer to track or identify them is exactly the same as lurking in a chat room. Just like planting a bug in someone's house is the same as listening in on them from the next table over at Starbucks.
I'd say the agent who sent that ridiculous email should be put through a re-education course, but his bosses are probably still trying to figure out how P2P works 4 years later.
Lots of overly emotional posts, not the typical intellectual snarkism you get on a techdirt topic.
You have to approach the situation as though it were modular, address each decision within the limited scope of context.
It certainly sounds like there may have been rape, and the boy may have gotten off the hook. I wouldn't find it hard to judge him a typical high school boy / local town hero with a scumbag sense of entitlement, but we don't know what happened, and it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. The verdict at that time was misdemeanor assault, we take that and move on logically.
It was the school's decision to allow the boy to return to the team. I'm sure their decision was 90% selfish desire to improve their sports achievement and 10% concern for the individual's right to pursue happiness. However you feel about that decision, remember: misdemeanor assault, school was still legally in-bounds.
It was the girl's decision to remain on the cheerleader squad when she failed to convince the powers that be that their decision was boorish and inappropriate. Cheerleading is similar to school theater... if you have personal convictions that conflict with the dialogue of a particular play for which you applied and got a part, and you proceed to deliberately change the lines during the production, you will be removed from the club. You are within your rights as a student to petition against the play's content or school's decision to reproduce it, and you can take it up the chain as high as you want, but you can't accept a spot and then sabotage from within. The production is not a vehicle for your free speech. It's really just that simple.
The school's reaction was, just like most Texas school sports administrators, overly aggressive and insensitive. The girl's lawsuit was frivolous, absolutely. The appeals court's decision to label it so is surprising given how many other BS lawsuits don't get the same treatment. And lastly, the Supreme Court was ENTIRELY correct in not touching this case with a 10 ft pole.
The obvious desired result would be for said bullies to catch Spidey in the parking lot and berate him mercilessly for his morality-laden interpretive dance in unflattering spandex as he drives away to the Johnson backyard birthday party.
Said bullies should then be allowed to punch and kick Anonymous Cowards who fail to detect obvious sarcasm.