I was going to say the same thing based on this section:
Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided for the completed offense in subsection (c) of this section.
So if I read this right, if I sit around with my friends and we talk about robbing a physical bank location (for example), we haven't committed a crime UNTIL we try to rob the bank. On the other hand if we talk about robbing a bank via its website, we have already committed a crime just by talking?
This answer from Comcast is the perfect wet dream of executives at the big ISPs: "Continue to pay us money for a service you can't use or in a degraded state so we don't need to upgrade anything ever. Well except for the gold plating on my yacht..."
Based on Senator Murphy's "logic", I propose that we dictate that all video game makers replace all instances of any weapons with fruits and vegetables (banana rocket launcher anyone?). Once the video game weapons are fruits and vegetable people will find the courage to obtain said fruits and vegetables, thus increasing their health and helping to solve America's obesity problem and boosting sales to farmers (especially the local farmers' market which is an unregulated marketplace). Look, three problems solved with one small piece of legislation!
If the NHL would improve the center ice package, they could be golden for this. The infrastructure already exists, all the NHL needs to do is remove the blackouts and make sure it works on all the devices (my main sticking point with it last season, it never worked well on blueray box). I'd love a true streaming option so I could watch NHL games while I am attending AHL games.
Many of the NHL fans have been rooting for the NHL to make Center Ice free as a way of encouraging fans to come back post lockout. Making it truly streaming could be the golden opportunity the NHL has been looking for.
The promotion of extremist rhetoric encouraging violent acts is also a common trend across the growing range of Internet-based platforms that host user-generated content. Content that might formerly have been distributed to a relatively limited audience, in person or via physical media such as compact discs (CDs) and digital video discs (DVDs), has increasingly migrated to the Internet.
They left out the part where the news media also distributed the extremist rhetoric (think all of Bin Laden's video/audio). We need to regulate the TV news and lock it down so it only tells us what those in power want to say. That shouldn't be a problem at all should it?
Because of the First Sale Doctrine, couldn't I buy the book, make a new version with adaptions for the blind and then sell the new version at a price? While I know the knee jerk reaction is no, you are selling their content, aren't I just reselling the book in a usable form to an under served market?
So if you can be disqualified as a judge because you are a facebook friend with a lawyer, what do you do about the judges who take campaign contributions from lawyers who appear in their courts? (which is nearly all of them by the way, that's how judges fund their campaigns, other lawyers...)
Have you ever actually talked to a judge about technical matters at all? I used to help run IT for a courthouse and getting them to understand basics requires its own Rosetta Stone Geek -> Judge.
Rulings like this show that they don't understand the technology involved and what the difference is between the purported infringer and the platform being used. By this logic if someone advertised on a billboard using my trademarked words, I could sue the billboard maker, the billboard owner AND the entity who rented the space to the billboard owner. Does that make sense?