US Law and the rules of logic are not the same thing.
US Law clearly states "innocent until proven guilty" which means the negative is assumed, and thus does not need to be proven.
Logic holds that you cannot prove a negative, because there is no evidence to prove something does not exist, or did not happen. Another way to spin it is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is not a logical law, but rather an approximation first expressed by skeptic James Randi, who pushed the burden of proof to people who affirmed the supernatural.
More precisely, you CAN infer a negative to a fairly high degree of confidence in some situations, but you cannot fully prove it.
Your kind of thinking is that what causes unrest. You believe the natural state of information is locked up, and available for a fee. With that line of thinking, the Diary of Anne Frank is easily findable, acceptably available, and offered fairly.
But your premise is absolutely incorrect. The natural state of information is shareable, and freely passed from one human to another.
Now, through our laws, we DO agree to a temporary injunction on that natural shareability. For the sake of generating more content (by offering incentives to creators), we grant them a market-breaking monopoly on that content for a time. But, after that reasonable period of time, we expect the content to enter the public domain.
A "reasonable period of time" can be debated, but it is definitely shorter than life plus 70 years. The mechanism of incentivizing authors could easily be achieved with monopolies as short as 10 years - but I'll even concede you "life" at the extremely long side of the reasonable spectrum. But Anne Frank is dead.
In this context, the Diary is most certainly "hidden away". Removed from hundreds of free sites like WikiMedia, out of reach for billions who lack the ability or desire to pay the going price. The number of places that Diary is available is easily an order of magnitude less under Copyright than it is in Public Domain. It has been stolen from the Public Domain, and hidden to billions of people. You act like that is nothing -- like Mike is disingenuous to say it's hidden. Not even close. Mike could have gone further and said it was stolen from the people, and still been ethically correct, but unfortunately wrong in a court.
To summarize, your position is against the natural order of things, not Mike's. And yes, the Diary is now hidden. Maybe one can freely "find" it, but they can't then read it without being robbed...andfor a book, reading, not finding, is kinda the whole point.
I was at Infoseek 1999-2001. The company was based on strong search technology R&D, but de-prioritized that in a bid to become a better Portal.
Excite did the same, as well as the others mentioned by Mike. It was the Portal Wars, and Yahoo was winning.
Many of the portals thought so little of search that they actually were ecstatic to be able to outsource the trivial job of search algorithms to smaller, niche players. Many of them partnered with a small company named Google to provide search results within their branded portal. Even Infoseek, with a forte in search, outsourced some search to Google.
So, Mason, to your point, yes, everyone knew Google was doing search better...but very few that that search was important.
At the time was Google seen as a threat? Ha ha! No.
Airline argument is simply to point out that when any startup that can't afford the natural barriers to entry in a market, that's just life.
Like when many startups couldn't launch in the days before cloud hosting. There was no "crime" in that. It was expensive to set up your own hosting and datacenter, so you didn't. With Amazon Web Serivces, now many new businesses can flourish. That's awesome, but it doesn't mean there was a crime before.
"The ruling acknowledges that such models create an unlevel playing field for smaller companies who may not be able to pay to play"
I agree. But there should be nothing inherently illegal about an unlevel playing field. "Inability to pay to play" isn't inherently wrong - I can't launch an airline right now either, for lack of capital. I don't think that is unfair. It's just a question of available resources.
If all content providers are faced with the same price to enter the walled garden, and that garden is open to all, then I don't see it as anti-competitive. This applies as long as the network operator is NOT also a content provider, which would have perverse incentives.
I don't like the Facebook walled garden, and think it will harm the open web in India. But I don't see it as "wrong" unless content providers are unfairly blocked from participating.
I saw it before it's release, and stayed well away from it - but not for the reasons stated in this article, for different ones.
Though a beautiful design, and early to the "connected by wifi" thermostat camp, it has the common problem of trying to be "smart" but only going 85% of the way there.
"Smart" home devices are like speech recognition - until they are almost perfect, they suck. A thermostat that tries to predict your life will make countless mistakes. A thermostat that tries to know when you are home, but only senses presence in the hallway where your Nest is will make errors. So, yeah. It's a "smarter thermostat", but not smart enough.
OTOH, I bought three Nest connected smoke/CO alarms. Those are great. Battery lasts 8 years, gives you a monthly status report, and will alert you in advance if the battery needs a change. Funny to me that the shittier product is their marquee.
This is a Cable TV story, Not A Mobile Phone Story
AT&T's offer ensures that customers who get Unlimited Data ALSO have a paid TV subscription and thus will watch much of their content on a home TV, not the mobile phone. Also, many of the new unlimited customers will have U-Verse DSL as well. That means they'll be on Wi-Fi at home when they stream video to their phone.
The only customers who would get the most out of this (i.e. the cord and cable cutters) are the ones who are specifically NOT included in the offer. This offer is more likely to tip some customers towards an AT&T TV subscription versus a competing cable or Dish Network offer.
In the end, this offer is more about competing in the cable TV sector than the mobile phone sector.
To you and me, the definition of what their technology does is: it throttles video transmissions to 1.5 Mbps. Nice and simple, no semantic games. This COULD be presented as a feature, if it were done honestly, and one could opt-out [which one can]. So close, T-Mo, you almost did it. But the subterfuge is never appreciated by the market.
Legere isn't just playing with words. He's playing with words, their meanings, context, and implications. To him:
It's not "throttling" which is bad, it's "optimization [throttling] that gives you the benefit of not hitting your cap as fast" which is good. See?
To him, because of the existence of a cap, throttling IS a good thing, and is synonymous with optimization.
"HDCP plays a critical role in linking consumer electronics devices, personal computers, cable and satellite set-top boxes, and other Digital Devices to allow consumers to access and enjoy digital audiovisual content across a wide array of products, all while effectively protecting the rights of copyright owners and controlling access to copyrighted digital content."
Wrong. HDMI does that. HDCP's specific role is to PREVENT those connection.