You know, I had this idea that in order to show the danger of meta data, we should just have 4chan doxx the hell out of politicians supporting bulk metadata surveillance. Encourage them to determine what "crimes" politicains are commiting (based on metadata). See what happens.
PDF is not 'failing as a format'. It might be failing as an Ebook format, but then again that's not why it exists. PDFs hold a very special place in contract law, ensuring that the document you see on the screen is the document the other guy saw. Without PDF, electronic transmission of contracts wouldn't be possible, and PDF is of heavy use in that field.
As an accountant, I make heavy use of PDFs to send invoices, Recieve invoices, and keep electronic copies of all my important documents.
YOu see, thats what bothers me about the lawsuit. As far as I can tell, onr of the arguments is about keeping realmedia from being played on an ipod, and somehow that improved the value of the ipod. Its about the ipod's DRM from what ive read, not the Music's
You know what the terms of service are? The contract. THe product description? no where in there.
You can't buy an unlocked phone from AT&T, even if you buy one in the clear.
The point of the cell phone unlocking debate is the locking terms are considered unfair and are only accepted because the carrier has so much leverage over you. There is a whole region of contract law talking about how unbalanced contracts can be rendered unenforceable.
Did you know there is an entire area of contact law dedicated to unfair contract terms and the unenforcability of those contracts?
Or how about that sales rep will tell you that you can get your phone unlocked at time X or by calling person Y. Sales reps will LIE to you to get that sale, and then you are not 'willfully ignorant'. You have been 'bilibrately misinformed'. And yet somehow we just 'know' its locked.
Surprising that they are going after tmobile when at&t and verison also do this shit and are bigger. Almost like they are targeting the smaller disruptive company rather then the bigger incumbants for some reason.
Moreover shouldn't the FTC be going after the third parties signing people up for these services rather than the the secondary liability target?
But when does negligence end and that unknown zero day hit me begin? Negligence generally runs off some standard. For the FTC to not set a standard it falls to "Your Neglgent cause the FTC says so". A rule requiring a minimum of existing standards for data security would make negligence obvious.
Which goes back to the argument that if this was a music video, youd have no problem with it. Because more 'work' would have gone into it, somehow. I mean remixing a song with new vocalists, and creating an entire rube goldberg machine wasn't enough work.
I think you assume lyrics have no artistic value to a song, and are meaningless. By completely flipping around how the lyrics play out, you completely change the meaning and intent of the song. The only lyric they took from beastie boys was Girls. Everything else is new. The lyrics are handled quite transformatively. Weird Al creates PARODY not by changing the instrumental line but by changing the lyrics. (look to RICKY or I LOST ON JEAPORDY for examples of music that only changes some of the lyrics) Their is no requirement that the instrumental line change for parody to occur. (and before you say it, Weird Al always has said that while asks as a courtesy, he isn't REQUIRED to under law)
Artistic definition of parody (which I think is a bad word here) is met by the Transformative changes to the intent and meaning of the song by the lyrical changes. No requirement for changes to the instrumental line comes up.
Because you mistake the visuals to the what the brain learns. The brain learns and trains pattern recognition, hand eye coordination, and desicion making skills, not how to shoot. not that violence is good. but more basic, more applicable skills.
DMCA likely wasn't mentioned because the cource doesn't specificly cite that is was a takedown. The source specifically cites they used Youtube's "Copyright Claims System", which has grown in response to repeated whining on the part of Rightsholders that youtube wasn't doing enough.
How is that misuse of trademark law? Its the American indian equivalent of Nigger. Its a clear example of why the law is written the way it is, to prevent the perpetuation of hurtful epithats being protected by law.
Now, there's kernel of truth in "video games are bad". It is generally accepted fact that children (age 5-10) should play video games little as possible. Not that it's some kind of "harmful influence", but it bring nothing for child development. And no, "educational games" are useless too: there's plenty of research about it.
Aside from the anecdotal evidence contrary to this (i.e. me), I can't find links to widely published research or any articles downplaying educational games in google under the educational games are useless moniker. Moreover, if you had solid research about that perhaps you could tell us WHY? I learned so much from early video games. I also demand a source for these claims.