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.
I understand where you're coming from, but as a parent, I feel that I messed up once or twice when I recommended a book which, in retrospect, my child wasn't emotionally developed enough to appreciate (or possibly, even, just absorb it without negative psychological effects).
I get the "we overprotect our children" bit, but your post throws up a false dichotomy. Do you actually believe that all children of all ages are capable of absorbing any or all experiences without negative effects?
Your comment was quite insightful, until this. You obviously don't understand how open-source works. Quite a large part of the widely-used projects are developed by paid employees of interested companies, and the majority of the remainder is developed by people who are quite aware that they are not working for monetary compensation (and I would guess that most don't even expect egoboo).
A very, very small minority GPL their stuff thinking that they'll rake something in via parallel licensing deals. A minuscule number of those, actually do (disclaimer: I know one such FOSS developer).
Art museums have been claiming copyright on the public domain since time immemoriam, or at least since the first art museum gift shop was opened. Just look at the back of any postcard in such a shop...