Here's the funny thing though, at the same time as they're trying to invoke client-attorney privilege, both sides(Hood and the MPAA) are insisting that they had no connection to each other beyond maybe small chats, and certainly nothing that would be related to legal matters.
Their own claims mean that there is no client-attorney privilege to be invoked, unless they want to admit that either Hood was working for them, or they were working for Hood, and so far they've continued to insist that the relationship between each other was casual at best, despite the evidence to the contrary.
They don't care if, after gathering all the data, they get hacked and all that data is grabbed by a random third party, so long as they still have it, and as long as the data grabbed doesn't impact them in some way.
Always remember, they don't care one bit about the lives or rights or privacy of the citizenry, so why should they care if those things are negatively impacted, whether through their actions directly, or someone else's actions thanks to them?
Better question: Why are you not already doing that?
I mean, sleazy moves like this are hardly new for the major studios and labels, so why would you even consider giving them any of your money anyway at this point? Forget them, forget the crap they push out, and spend your money on people and companies that deserve it.
Ms Ardern addressed the question of whether—there was conversation at the select committee—bloggers were really “media”. I would make this statement: media can certainly be bloggers; bloggers cannot, and should not, ever be considered as media. The media has actually taken training. They have criteria. They have boundaries that they work inside of, and they can be held accountable inside of them. And most importantly, we've got them nice and tamed, so they say only what we want them to, something we haven't yet managed with bloggers."
You can be sure however that politicians and the higher ranked individuals from companies will not be subject to this new tracking scheme, because it would 'violate their privacy', and 'present a threat to the security of the government/company'.
Can't track the ones that write the rules, or the ones who buy them after all. /s
Seems like they're trying the same argument that the government does, where even when something is widely known to the public, it still remains 'classified'.
Now, in both cases, I can certainly understand why they would argue this point, as it eliminates probably the most damning information possible to bring, that being their own data and communications. Remove that and you take away a very strong pieces of evidence, damaging if not entirely eliminating cases as the central piece of evidence is barred from use.
Hopefully the judge will shoot this attempt down by reasonably pointing out that public documents are not 'privileged' ones, and that it's fair to use them as evidence.
And yet you can be sure that they would throw an epic fit if someone proposed a EU-wide licensing scheme, with mandatory set prices, as it would completely screw over their attempt to grab as much money as possible from each person wanting a particular bit of content.
A company that makes(well, made...) it's money selling programs and exploits to compromise the security and privacy of others, has it's own security broken, allowing the world to pour through their personal communications and files, just like they helped others to do. Now that is some world class turn-about there.
Can't wait for them to start screaming about how 'unfair' it is for their privacy to be violated like this, and how it's completely unacceptable, though I imagine given what's been revealed a little 'violation of privacy' is going to be the least of their worries soon.
Well clearly you just need to move to the proper country. That's not too much to ask is it, in exchange for such 'awesome' content?
I mean, how greedy are you, expected them to treat the internet as a global network, and allow anyone to watch content whenever, and wherever they want, for a modest price, rather than having it locked up and blocked depending on where you live so they can make lucrative deals on a case-by-case basis and have the content cut up into tons of pieces such that if you want a decent selection(assuming it's available at all), you need to sign up for only half a dozen or more services with insane prices and worse restrictions.
Because the ones who could shut them down, or investigate and potentially prosecute them, all in on the scam. Why would you shut down a revolving door agency when you might end up 'working' there yourself down the road?
Completely unlike the cable companies of course, who demand huge tax breaks and other financial incentives to lay out networks, fail utterly, and then basically bribe their way out of fulfilling their half of the bargain by getting them pet politicians to nullify the deal after the fact.
No, you're completely right, municipal broadband always fails, and taxpayer funded private broadband always delivers, so clearly people should be blocked from being able to decide where their taxes are being spent. /s
Nah, setting it at 0 works fine, because if it changes at all, then that means they've received at least one order for a given category, even if they can only list the range as 0-999.
The usual government trick won't work here, where a company can only give a range including 0, therefor making it impossible to tell if a company has received 0 orders or several, because they've already set the baseline, and any deviation will indicate a change.
The rights of non-authors and artists? Violated. AC's concern about it? None.
Such a douche.
Be careful what insults you fling, lest they be easily thrown right back in your face. 'Authors and artists' aren't the only ones with 'rights' to be violated, and while you may not care about the rights of the public, some of us most certainly do, and don't see 'Protect imaginary property rights at all costs' as an acceptable idea.
Oh that's not just a GEMA trick, the US collection agencies pull that stunt too, where they'll 'collect' for everyone's music, but only pay out to the top acts, leaving everyone else screwed.
Hopefully a separate collection agency will help, but given past actions in the courts in Germany, which seem to bend over backwards to give GEMA anything and everything they ask for, i can't help but think the 'competition' will be hamstrung somehow, and/or GEMA will still demand to be paid for everything regardless.
Your second and third points seem to directly contradict each other. First you say that artists don't have to sign with GEMA, and then you say that even if artists don't, GEMA still treats them(and their music) as though they did.
In a situation like that, I imagine most who sign with them, assuming they're smart enough to do their research on the matter, do so not because they want to join GEMA, but because they feel they have no option not too. Either join and maybe get the 'benefits' of doing so, along with the downsides, or don't join, and only have the downsides.