That said, acting like it's the pinnacle of "clever hacking" and villainy to modify a device you own to get a service advertised as unlimited is a tad specious and theatrical. UNLIMITED DATA DOES NOT MEAN UNLIMITED SPEED!
What you claim is a defense by the carries is actually a valid response.
T-Mobile, by the way, makes it very clear you can have all the data you want, but if your 4G/LTE speed is used to grab the plentiful allocation, you will be slowed down but you will still have access to the data.
There's nothing nefarious about this. It's clear. Customers understand it. Customers accept it.
As far as I'm concerned, I see no problem with T-Mobile going after these users, because chances are, they're the bots we all hate sending out spam texts everyone gets.
If a few "customers" come along and take more than they're alloted, it ruins it for the rest of us.
Because, unlike broadband, LTE does have a limited throughput and I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want a spinning icon as my phone is trying to send and receive data because "customers", by your definition, can work around and tether all the LTE speed for themselves.
This article boasts a ridiculous attitude, and the opening definition of "unlimited" was a kick below the belt not only in its tone, but based on the perception "speed = data".
Guess who's going to get the negative feedback based on the article? Psst: it's not T-Mobile.
What you're actually reading are the states caused by these performers and their record labels.
In a time before royalties (and it took a new copyright law to get them, by the way), these performers had no choice but to trust their labels, many of which withheld thousands, if not millions, from the artists which actually created the music.
Their suffering had nothing to do with people stealing their music (trying to walk out with an LP tucked under the shirt isn't easy).
Their suffering was due to lost revenue by the labels, most represented by the RIAA (whose sole purpose is to extort as much money from artists as possible).
Don't fall for the ruse. Take a few months and learn business, economics, and the law so you can manage, market, and profit by yourself.
Because the second you take that advance and sign the dotted line, you'll be hitting the bottle and pain killers too.
During the first quarter of this year, "extra content" generated roughly $921 million out of EA’s total digital revenue of $2.2 billion, meaning there are plenty of people who now either think DLC offers a great value position or have more disposable income than brains. This is precisely why Techdirt will be writing about EA for many, many years to come. Job security for Karl and Tim (or is it Timothy, can never remember).
I personally ignore 99.7% of all DLC. Ditto. As it stands, the only company which gets my money for its DLC is (Zenimax) Bethesda, currently my favorite game studio.
I didn't mind one bit paying $20 for a virtual clouded leopard mount for Elder Scrolls Online (after buying two house cats and another lioness). This game gives me such a fantastic good time, I actually feel guilty I don't subscribe (a requirement dropped by Zenimax pre-console launch).
$70 for a game that clearly gives so much more than pretty much any other title out there (not yet played Witcher 3, which I heard was huge) that I'm hoping this plan doesn't backfire because we have idiotic gamers who want it all but want to pay nothing for it.
As for Ubisoft and EA, I don't buy any of their games direct. If I want it, I'll head to Gamestop where they get the money and I get the game, screwing EA and Ubisoft both.
It's not a coincidence small publishers are making big waves.
Oh, yeah, and a plug: Submerged is a really great game for $20. You can finish it in a day, but it's gorgeous and fun to play. Recommended.
The role of an ABI is to translate the compiled API's machine code and submit and receive the values returned by the chip.
The compiler is what translates the API into the register code expected by the ABI, which then processes the machine code.
This is why every language has keywords. Those keywords are then converted to machine code, which tells the ABI how to process the code.
This isn't hard to follow.
What it looks like people are confusing is the fact APIs can be transferred between software, necessitating their "need" and shouldn't be copyright. Or perhaps they're limiting API to "1+1=2", which means this "function" isn't copyright.
Either argument is wrong. While I certainly agree "1+1=2" shouldn't be copyright, this isn't the issue.
A statement isn't a function.
Which is why any programmer can write their own API (and have it covered by copyright, like it or not).
...these non-programmers don't realize that an API is not software. Sorry, but this is not accurate at all and I'm getting tired of people making the mistake.
First, let's the get the obvious out of the way. The "P" in "API" stands for "Programming", which means software.
Second, people are conflating API with ABI and it's ABI (Application Binary Interface) that cannot be covered by copyright.
All APIs are written in software. No, they are not a program, but they work with programs. They are the fundamental structures which allows programmers to code for the specific operating system the APIs were written for.
This is why Apple, Microsoft, Linux, Java, and now Android, have their own set of APIs, despite all of them having the ability to work on the same system.
By Google's admission, it took the APIs from Java to work with Android. Google did not write the APIs for Android.By doing this, Android and Java are now completely different operating systems using identical APIs.
What this means: if Google wrote their own APIs and the functions of the APIs are identical to those of Java, there is no copyright protection because the result of the API is the ABI.
It's why software has compilers.
API: program aka software aka copyright covered. ABI: compiled API aka system code aka not covered by copyright.
This isn't even an issue of "but, but ... they're the same!" No, they are not the same and continue making this claim, and we'll eventually see the results of how companies will eventually push to have ABIs covered, and we do not want this.
Repeatedly we've been told by ISP lobbyists and lawyers that if ISPs don't get "X" (no net neutrality rules, deregulation, more subsidies, the right to impose arbitrary new tolls, whatever), the Internet will choke on itself and grind to a halt This is true, though.
Let me rewrite this so it makes it clear: "Repeatedly, we've been threatened by ISP lobbyists and lawyers that if ISPs don't get 'X' (no net neutrality rules, deregulation, more subsidies, the right to impose arbitrary new tolls, whatever), the ISP will choke the Internet by itself and grind it to a halt."
Amazing how a few simple changes to wording can make a claim a reality.