Often I am amazed by these companies who want to hack back, to "punish" the hackers. Willing to spend considerable resources to teach the bad guys a lesson... if only they cared enough to pay for basic network security in the first place. This is a bad idea, the tit for tat just leads to more hacks as each side tried to prove who has the bigger dick. In the end the losers will be smaller players who couldn't afford better security and were drafted into the original hack without their knowledge. When the rules are an eye for an eye, everyone ends up blind.
They have been given a whole couple truck loads of cash, and there is more if they can keep cyberattacks in their area of concern. If after jumping to a conclusion, which seems untethered from reality, someone might decide someone else should do the job. Also it helps consumer confidence that corporations are secure, and only nation states can hack them not 3 guys and Becki from accounting. Keeping everyone worried about the balance of power in the world and distracted from the truth is how the nation has functioned for a very long time now and why not DPRK? The odds of a land war are slim, so other than some posturing there can be no downside... except if the reports of nukes are true.
They are locked into the idea that if Google is involved it must be evil, because they still think Google is the entire internet.
Rather than ask Google or any other respected tech company to help them develop a system to sell content in this brave new world, they pay little startups who offer them snakeoil solutions. We can keep your content secure, we can offer everything, it'll be everything you want... and they deliver systems that require you to register on 4 different websites & all of them have to work just right for you to view the content they promised... and they wonder why people aren't jumping on this amazing system that is overpriced, underfunded, and is absolute crap.
Perhaps they should embrace what it is the consumers want. They want access to the content, at a price they are willing to pay, when they want it, where they want it, and without 1000 limitations. Imagine if a big studio digitized their entire back catalog, and put them up for sale for $2 a movie... imagine how much they would make vs how little they make now sitting on it hoping for a small payment when a cable channel needs to buy filler content. You'd think if they were willing to risk, even a decades worth of movies, they would see it is not the end of the world and this could be a new revenue stream like what happened when they finally stopped calling the VCR the spawn of satan.
So what appears to be a Louisiana based lawyer fronting for a made up company that appears to be a Guernsey Trust established so someone can try and use legal gymnastics to make people ignore the actual law that covers this.
Annnnd my hate of lawyers is still intact.
Well done response, it is really sorta sad when these master of the universe style lawyers get schooled.
And now there are even more incentives to keep content locked away. If someone looks for it in the market & can not find it (because in the digital age, so there is totally no way to provide content at nearly no cost o_O ) and they find it, the rightsholder can sue. We made it worth it to not meet the public demand, and reward them for locking it away.
The rights can be transferred with a piece of paper, that doesn't need to be filed anywhere. This keeps anyone who wants to bring things back to market from even thinking about doing so, because the lawsuits are so insane. You can be sure that the work is in the public domain, but still face large lawsuits (Doyle Estate anyone?) and threats... that make it easier to just let them keep it locked away than to spend money fighting to prove the truth. (And with Garcia v. Google out there, it can be death by 1000 lawsuits and filings by anyone who ever touched it.)
Reform needs to happen. The original intent has been warped by corporations to protect their business model, allowing them to ignore the public who is the stakeholder who gave up so much and gets jack shit in return. Copyright was never meant to keep a family in the style to which they wished to become accustomed for generations. The benefit to the creator is minimal, the benefits are all to the gatekeepers who extract a pound of flesh over and over even after the author is long dead. They exist only to rend a few more cents from the corpse of what once was a great work, but anyone who remembers it is long dead & is not telling others about these forgotten gems. Dare to try and introduce a new generation to the content, and the gatekeepers are there demanding their cut when they have done no work to promote the work. They lie in wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting then pounce.
Which is why they created the end run of suing property. Property has no right to a trial, and a good citizen can totally access the legal system to get back the property without any fuss... (falls over laughing).
Again it is the result of bad laws passed to get the "bad guy" that people supported until it happened to catch them too, then suddenly they can see how wrong it is.
Which is why copyright trolls always want a settlement, and not a judgement. The amount of settlements for many of these films is often well in excess of $150K, if they got judgements instead of settlement they would have to inform the court of how much they were already paid to be made whole.
Someone infringes copyright and makes $25 million, and it is just a booboo. Someone else infringes copyright makes nothing, and is left on the hook for $150,000. (working with the assumption that corporations are people)
Perhaps it is time to separate commercial from noncommercial infringement.
At least while this movie was burning up the filesharing outlets, they still managed to make a shitload of money for what is allegedly a shitty film. I wonder if one of the small reptilian brains in control of the industry had a small stroke that the sky is falling claims just didn't hold water in reality.
Perhaps this should serve as an example of needing to consider things fully.
We have a "horrible" problem, we give them a solution (without boundaries, because we trust them), they get bored of how the new toy is supposed to work and push the limits, when they discover there are no limits they keep going.
Drug War - Lets sue the money! - Oh hey we can get that dudes Mercedes because of a crack rock - Look we fixed our budget issue. Now this isn't what was intended, kid sells $40 of pot and forfeits the family home... but without any limits this is where we are. And the rules pretty much do not matter, IIRC eastern coast US PD actually has a line item in the budget about how much they need to seize to keep the PD going... despite the whole do not use it that way rules.
Society had a problem, a solution was given to calm the hysteria and call the problem solved... and made a much worse problem in its wake. Sound familiar? Perhaps if we stop looking for the magical one size fits all fix, and do that hard work that doesn't make for the better soundbite, we might get better solutions... because it takes time to fix things. This isn't a sitcom where it all gives solved in 30 minutes, and we really need a better attention span to make sure the fix isn't worse than the problem in the end. Or do we want to claim TSA, Patriot Act, "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", lets hand military surplus (read as DoD budget pork no one else wanted) to local law enforcement, and a whole host of other chickens that have come home to roost good ideas.
Society is hard work, perhaps it is time we stop letting it be driven by the whims of those who can scream the loudest but can't think 2 steps ahead.
Because the driving force behind this at DOJ didn't work for the cartels, get hired at DOJ, start this clusterfuck, and then run back to the cartels.
Oh wait, that actually did happen... unlike most of the fantasy presented in the DoJ version of the truth where the **AA's can have unfettered access to data on the MegaUpload servers but paying customers can't have their personal data back because it MIGHT be infringing.
Meh I like comments sections, and that is just not because I like telling people to fuck off. :D I enjoy debating, learning more (people sometimes post new links to more stuff), and sometimes just making fun of things.
I think more sites could benefit by giving the unwashed masses the tools we have here. When a majority dislike a comment, it just sorta folds down... but you can still look and see if it was actually relevant. (protip often they are not). The community engages trolls, and pisses them off to no end by dragging them back to the topic and watching them squirm (or just run away) when it doesn't devolve into a mire.
I think much of the oh its to hard is also driven by fear that someone will sue. Why yes the site has protections under the law, but if we turn off comments we don't ever have to pay to have a lawyer file the answer & motion for dismissal.
This is a common tactic, it is all about having the big scary number to trot out... the problem is the numbers have grown so large they aren't realistic anymore. They are designed to scare settlements out of the otherside or people who might cross them.
This is just yet another example of how copyright is being turned into a magical tool to bludgeon people into doing what you want.
I'm starting to think this is all a plot by European Governments to get the internet to blacklist them. They hope they can make sure that the flow of information stops by suing everyone so that they block access. Spain pulled the news site trick we've seen tried and fail before and this time Google called their bluff by leaving rather than paying them. The businesses who needed protection now are lost online, because they've depended on Google to bring them traffic from the snippets and many are suddenly wondering why they shot themselves in the foot.
Italy also tried scientists for murder for the earthquake predictions being off, and had a prosecutor pitching witchcraft angles in a murder trial he was running, while he was being investigated for misconduct in a previous trial.
The governments seem to like the simple answer of blame the internet (the Internet is always Google) for all of the ills and sue to get the money.
Yes he should have entered the arena against an opponent to holds the purse strings to his defense, who is willing to steal evidence, violate sovereign nations laws, and violated the law in setting this scene in motion. He can TOTALLY have a fair trial under these terms, and we should embrace that the law can be broken if some corporations claim the target is a very bad man. (Pay no attention to that lawyer RUNNING from his job after starting his fiasco, and going to work for those corporations in a nice cushy job.)
There is no single wiki or document that lays out any of the information. Searching for it yields multiple places, with varying answers. You could try to puzzle it out in game but the costs for trial and error represent 40 real world hours per item to try and figure it out and there are 32 items to try. Some things work in mysterious ways because there is no indicator that the bonus is working.
I can play most games without having to look up the most basic concepts, this one leaves me confused and frustrated, I'd rather spend my limited free time toying in a 10 yr old MMO than exploring this new one at all.