This is the same agency that routinely ignores double parking by churches with no statutory basis for doing so but aggressively tickets people who part in front of other non-profits like goodwill. The 1st amendment is not something they are familiar with so it comes as no surprise that they don't seem to grasp due process or the idea that you might want representation.
In any future case where software is in question any good defense attorney should be citing VW as an example of why software can't be trusted and companies can't be trusted to certify their own software.
Clickbait much? Somebody asked a media flack if the something was infringing, he said he'd have to ask the legal team to see what action they could take. That's not a threat that's an admission that he didn't know.
Pretty much every news outlet has spun this into "threat" when it's really not. Following private email exchanges I've had with one of the event founders I can confirm that their are well aware of the limits of copyright ant trademark and also the Streisand effect. I'd be very surprised if they take any legal action.
It's brilliant don't you see - the government forces ISP's to block all porn. Then some kind soul comes up with a free work-around that happens to proxy all your traffic. Could that kind soul perhaps maintain a large data center in Cheltenham? or maybe they got their cousins in Maryland to help out ...
News is an information product, for a paywall to work the customer has to perceive that this information source has more value that the free source one click over. The Sun was never known for being a high value information source.
The UK market is particularly interesting because there are multiple, national, daily papers each carrying the same news withe a different editorial slant. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M for an explanation). What's been interesting is the Daily Mail and the Guardian, have embraced the web and seem to be riding the wave and the rest still seem to be struggling with how to adapt.
Google could easily solve this - they could rate the accuracy of DMCA takedown notices and negatively rank companies that send bogus ones as a penalty for wasting everybody's time. Watch how fast the studios clean up their act when their own sites stop showing up on page on.
Hopefully on appeal this will get reversed and the judge will get suitably reprimanded. I do find myself mentally speculating what motivated the judge to be so intemperate. I'll leave the actual reasoning to your imagination because imagining judicial corruption isn't illegal yet.
So does charging for facetime data constitute a material change to ATT's data plan (I have unlimited data grandfathered in, this is a limit on data, ergo a material change)? If it does then that means I'm off the hook for my contract and can dump AT&T when the iPhone 5 comes out ...
This could be a huge issue for ATT if the idea catches on ...
If the forged uTP data backed contains the address of a legitimate uTP node and if the target uTP peer responds with a FIN, sent to the real node, due to the invalid sequence this would provide a mechanism to force peer disconnects which matches closely the Pirate Pay description. If this is the case it's very easily defeated by discarding invalid sequences instead of sending FIN. If it were a legitimate connection the a correct packed will eventually arrive and all will be good and if it's a spoof there is no harm done.