Re: Users (and browser vendors) can help fight this
I second that. But as an active user of RequestPolicy I have a request for the sites: express explicitly which requests are absolutely needed for minimum functionality to the site. And don't lie, I will absolutely test it.
Techdirt is a good example of a site with too many goddamn requests for external stuff. Which should I allow for minimum functionality? With some testing you can eventually figure out but it makes things easier.
Now it takes another level of evil like adobe where you must have their tracker unblocked to use basic functionality...
This move is actually what may save cable TV from vanishing entirely. Think about it. Why pay for a pricey bundle of useless channels just to get a handful you may enjoy a little bit (if you ignore they are moving towards 30% of advertising time in goddamn PAID channels) when you can save the money and use on online 'a la carte' services like Netflix? "But, but... That super sports channel that I MUST have!" you sai. Well, keep being raped my friend. I'd rather go without. So far it isn't being too hard to go without.
I think that once arbitrary decisions hurt somebody financially one can at least question the legality of such moves under anti-trust issues. Besides I'd say there's enough room for using fair use here and on similar cases. Sure Google can reject applications but once they accepted all based on public guidelines then they should not discriminate. Apple is as guilty of it as Google. Except that at least you can install the things form external sources on Android devices.
(Is this one of those "Everything I personally disagree with should be illegal!" arguments? They do seem to be all the rage these days . . .)
I am interpreting it to be a civil matter at least in the fair use front and it should be tested into the courts as means to crub such types of abuse (I may be proved wrong and I'd love to since it would mean due process). So if it's an open platform and anybody can sell there why are they discriminating a few players? My wording may have been poor but don't you agree that there are legal questions to be asked here?
That's all cool and dandy but the average joe won't be aware of these options. Besides Google ominously warn (correctly) that you may compromise your phone depending on which app you install which can and will scare a lot of people. Hopefully if there's enough advertising on alternative stores you can emerge with good, trustful ones.
Still, it's one way to work around the restrictions.
I personally think it would have been much more effective to claim Netflix CEO Reed Hastings is a cyborg-vampire hybrid fueled by virgin and puppy blood, but then again, clumsy character assassination has never been my forte.
Demon, you forgot demon. With full, pentagram fueled pact with the devil.
Ahem. I think this is going to be an uphill battle for the ISPs shills. I mean, between a guy that's trying to deliver you what you want when you want and your ISP that most likely has decades long of history of screwing you, delivering crappy services and charging weird stuff all the time it's hard not to be sympathetic towards the former...
It's about time. I have this fear that law enforcement may start doing their jobs lousily if this bill goes into effect just to 'prove a point'. Then the numbers will obviously 'prove' they were right.
Do not underestimate the crooks that are in law enforcement key positions now.
So Google wants to protect themselves against lawsuits. Simple: all devs should start suing Google when they remo0ve their application without legal basis and proper explanation. And Yatse should sue Google under fair use grounds for the first set of images and for bogus requirements in the second. If devs start seriously suing Google it won't take long before they review their ways. Sure the MAFIAA may sue but they are a few and the devs are a lot.
Now, we also know of Music Biz Island which is where the natives start firing cannons as you approach
Too modern, I'd picture them throwing rocks while brandishing a few roughly assembled weapons made of wood and stone and making grumbling noises. The mere sight of the led lamps in the boats is met with wild and violent reactions. It seems they haven't discovered fire yet.
Sounds like Back To The Future IV: Jurassic Music.
Well, at least they are being honest that it has nothing to do with your safety but rather their whims.
It's interesting that I had two similar cases happen near me. A girl I know had her phone stolen recently. The phone was locked loosely with those patterns and the criminals found out the pattern to unlock it and wrecked havoc on her online presence. Luckily she was able to drop them off her mail before they could complete the reset password procedure they started for many of her accounts so she lost nothing meaningful (she had almost no pictures or other personal things either. Close to this case another girl, friend of mine lost her phone and I had taught her to encrypt it and secure with a password. She remotely wiped everything and locked the phone via her imei so if anybody stole or something (we aren't sure) then the person now has a nice paperweight.
Moral of the story: the FBI wants you to get screwed.
One thing I don't understand is, once in such agreements, why won't countries simply raise a big middle finger to the corporate sovereignty provisions when they are abused? I mean sure there may be some useless sanctions but, really, who cares?
I understand some country leaders go into those treaties due to incentive$ but really, when somebody comes that has nothing to do with those they can simply ignore the treaty or even scrap it. After all if it does more evil than good the supposed 'consequences' of getting out of them unilaterally can't be much worse.