As I recall, the USA has tried this before. In the 1980s, encryption was covered under the same export laws as munitions, and export of high strength (>40 bit keys) encryption was banned. The result? Since importing full strength encryption was legal, almost all encryption development moved offshore. If the USA starts to require backdoored encryption, the exact same thing will happen again.
Until that end of the exchange is taken more seriously, there's nothing stopping DMCA takedown companies from solemnly swearing that every single bogus URL is correct to the best of their knowledge, even when the most cursory review shows otherwise.
Well, that only shows that the DMCA encourages the takedown companies to know as little as possible about the copyright status of a given page. If they can honestly say they know nothing at all about the page they want taken down, then they can also honestly say they have no information that would contradict the assertion that that page is infringing.
given the current state of facial recognition software, and the lack of any provable science behind what they are claiming. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict they will have an error rate approaching that of a coin flip.
Around here, smart meters have been used to push through a hidden hike in the price of electricity. How? They were supposed to work by allowing the utility to charge more for peak power use, encouraging people to put off large power useage to off-peak times when the rates would be lower. The sneaky part was that the off-peak "lower" rate was set to exactly the same as the previous flat rate. This means that if you push all of your power use to off peak periods, you pay exactly the same as before the smart meter was installed. If you use any electricity at all during the peak hours, you end up paying more.
I'd say that this is not a case of "fair use" but rather a case of trademarks working as intended. The trademark holder has created an association between the trademark and a particular venue. Using that trademark to refer to that venue is exactly what trademarks are intended to protect. Having someone else use the trademark to refer to that same venue does not harm the association created by the trademark holder. If anything, it reinforces it.
True, but if the DOJ goes after someone like a manufacturer of hard drives with whole drive encryption, and force them to break the encryption, the DOJ can then use that precedent to come back after Apple.
Are they in the business to provide entertainment and news to readers or to provide an audience for the ads? I'm starting to think it's the latter.
This has always been the case. Newspapers, magazines, and blogs are all a method of aggregating reader attention and then selling that attention to advertisers. It's just that most of them won't admit it.
And once implemented, providers will likely look to simply recoup that lost revenue from broadband users in uncompetitive markets in the form of more fees, usage caps, zero rating and other potentially anti-competitive behavior.
It's also possible that when this does happen, it will provide the FCC with more ammuntion for forcing the cable companies to share their last mile infrastructure with other companies.