Dude, his freaking dad had no choice but to hand over rights for those videos/images while working for CBS and Paramount because the law was written by corporations like that to make sure a simple actor has no rights.
the cost/benefit is done by gut feeling.By observation, it's done by hand-waving, random "moral" panic and at best cronyism, rather than anything more based in reality like "gut feeling"... or Ouija boards.
3) It really is operationally sensitive because they'd been tracking his porn habits for months and that's how they found him since every copy of "Naughty Jihadists 5" and that month's edition of "Mature Martyrs" have secret CIA GPS chips embedded....
4) The list of porn is all identifiable as coming from the private stash of the CIA used as part of honey trap operations and would show that OBL was really a prisoner before he was caught....
5) Oh, I've run out of conspiracy theories... guess I'll just have to go with the prevailing "They lied" theory :-)
It's kinda worrying when an over-the-top comedy sketch from the 1970s starts looking like behaviour that might be a step in the right direction! Constable Savage At least this guy's boss calls him on it!
Re: "File sharing" is not a gateway! -- SEZ anyone with 1/2 a brain
To set morality aside is step toward criminality.
Except you already blew that argument yourself by not talking about morality:
Is crystal meth a "gateway" to criminal behavior like robbery / theft?
Taking Crystal meth is not immoral. Stupid, maybe. Illegal, certainly - but arbitrarily illegal. Other recreational drugs are available legally and are often socially accepted, many drugs now illegal were also socially accepted previously (Heroin for example, Opium, E). Clearly drug-taking is not a matter of morality.
Also, much of the problem caused by illegal drug use stems from their very illegality and the crime that surrounds anything declared illegal that people still demand. Look how well prohibition worked out.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it immoral - even if it's illegal - and making things that are generally normal human behaviour illegal for the same reason usually ends up creating a bigger problem than you started with.
That's a truly remarkable graph if you consider the number of amazingly petty and stupid things that have become "offences" since the '90s. The "real" crime rate must have plumeted.
And there, perhaps, lies (if anywhere) a tiny, tiny grain of validity in the "gateway to bigger crimes" argument - If you're going to make blatantly normal human behaviour criminal, it can hardly come as a surprise if those growing up in that environment start finding a certain contempt for laws in general whether they actually break them or not.
and that this gives him confidence Netflix will thrive when it launches later this year in Spain -- a country that has traditionally had a high level of piracy
If Netflix fails, it will be little to do with piracy and lots to do with the content lobotomy forced upon it by the studios. Even though I rarely bother to watch the trash Hollywood puts out these days, I'd pay for a service like Netflix if I could watch what I want, whenever, wherever... but I can't so I don't.
It seems pretty likely from the user end, that the studios hate the idea of services like Netflix and are trying to kill them, whether they find piracy useful or not. Of course, the old saying might apply; "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity"
Why is it that grandstanding American politicians always want to blame the platforms for people doing bad stuff on those platforms, even when those platforms appear to provide all sorts of useful information that apparently help law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the military do their jobs?
A fine question, to which the answer is "because morons". Whether it's actually true or not is another good question - probably not since surely they're not quite dumb enough to reveal an effective method of intel gathering? If it is true, though, it strikes me a better question might be: If public social media can produce more actionable intel than, for example, hoovering up every email, phonecall and internet log in the world seems to... Why are you invading everyone's privacy again, Uncle Sam?
So it's official? The US is a plutocracy? It must be if a law so blatantly aimed at preserving the wealth of a very few of Wyoming's 1/2 a million citizens at the expense of the health of the rest can even be contemplated seriously, much less enacted.
Further, it would be clear that this change would make "ripper" tools entirely legal (ie, they would not be against 1201 because there would be "non-infringing uses"). Yet clearly, people would use these tools to rip stuff and put it on torrents or otherwise "infringe".
One assumes you're in favour of repealing the 2nd amendment then?
The same argument applied even more so to firearms, which people use to kill and indeed are designed primarily for the purpose, or knives... or... well computers in general or really, pretty much anything at a stretch.
It's impossible to know who the next person will be that commits an evil act. So as opportunities come up to possibly stop some future act, I support eliminating the threat.
OK, let's pretend for a moment that this argument makes sense....
Where's the bar set? This guy apparently committed no criminal act (since there was in fact no actual bomb involved at any point in the "conspiracy") and it appears that he's pretty much all talk and seems too stupid to actually plan anything on his own.
So, that means it's OK to arrest people who: 1/ Are easily led and might be convinced by someone malicious to commit a violent crime if they happen to meet the wrong person. 2/ Are unthinking and at least borderline sociopathic enough to maybe commit some random act of violence if the right set of circumstances of anger/means/trigger/target happen to come their way at the wrong time.
So that leaves me two questions; Where are you going to put all the people that fall under that definition? How are you going to find enough people who don't to look after them?
To me, this is like setting a building on fire and handing some poor person the matches and running off.
No, it's not.... it's like making one of those fake fires with a fan, some silk and a light, handing some poor person a huge, plastic Swan Vesta match that wouldn't burn if you tried... and then having him arrested for killing hundreds of people by burning down a building that doesn't in fact exist.
No, Wikileaks has always been an Evil Cyberhacker.
Of course it has! In the "Democracy Dictionary" (Author, Mr. H. Nilats), "Evil Cyberhacker" is defined as "Anyone who shows, or might show, evidence of corruption in the Regime... uh... Democratically Elected Leadership, or anyone who depicts same in an unflattering light while using a computer"