Spridningskollen, the troll, could simply pay the settlement, change their name and keep moving. Because in the end, does the recipient of a settlement letter really care about the name of the copyright troll?
This is not a scam. From what I have read, SelectTV aggregates videos that are generally found on the web for free. So it might not scammy, but it seems like a service that most can easily live without.
Sony has announced this epiphany several times in the past and little has come of it. I recall them calling for openness shortly before the root kit fiasco, so if that is what they mean to be open, I prefer their closed platforms, thank you.
This looks like a desperate move to stay relevant since they no longer make products that excite consumers. And badging a product as "open" means little if nobody cares. Sony's answer is easy to identify but very difficult to implement. They need to make the best widget ever. What widget? It doesn't matter. It just needs to blow all of the other widgets out of the water. Their new vision of television doesn't seem to fit the bill since history has shown bolting features onto a consumer device generally does not create a hit product. The only way they can pull this one off is to provide an intuitive user interface that has never been seen before. The show is over if they release the product with a standard remote control since the "arrows + select" interface is a clunky dead-end. Even Apple's stab at it sort of sucks. It would be easier for Sony to cleverly apply Android technology to a device that has not already been targeted by Apple.
That leaped off the page for me as well, for how reasonable the judge was towards the children.
There may be images that could cause discord between the child and the parents, putting the child in further jeopardy (reading an old XY magazine for example). The child is probably traumatized by the invasion of privacy as it is. There is no clear reason to make the child suffer further by having to explain her actions to parents as well.
I'm starting to think that Nina's goals are lofty but she has a basic misunderstanding about how Netflix works. Netflix has only streamed media in its electronic delivery service. I could see her point if a copy were stored on the user's device. But it is not, so I imagine Netflix never thought to design some sort of DRM-free mode, and I don't see them falling all over themselves to develop one now. It just doesn't make sense. If hackers break the DRM, I'm sure they would be bright enough to know how to get "Sita Sings the Blues" for free off the web site. Meanwhile Netflix customers will probably be happy to watch the DRM-laden film because it was delivered to them in a way that was convenient. Is it really a big deal to pay for something that can be obtained for free?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by zeiche.