It doesn't really matter unless Lorillard's trademark applies for the business of bars, nightclubs, etc. I'm not certain this is the right one but all the ones I could find that look even close are just for cigarettes.
For 1 and 3, probably because it was operated by people who don't know a great deal about computers. It wouldn't occur to most people to turn off wifi or automatic updates. Many wouldn't even know how.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that blu might branch into lounge/nightclub/alehouse/etc. sphere.
Trademarks are granted for a specific set of industries or business types. If Lorillard didn't get a Blu trademark for lounges/nightclubs/bars, they should not be able to complain to the judge that they might want to do so in the future.
File sharers often cue up multiple simultaneous downloads concurrently.
But they don't need 5Mbps for each one (I think HD video is something around there). I don't know that much about P2P programs, and maybe they generally make a best effort to saturate the connection if that makes the download faster, but that could be throttled anywhere along the route without major degradation of the usefulness of the application:
- downloading peer software/computer/router - home ISP - any ISP/interconnect peer in the middle - seeding user's ISP/router/computer/P2P software
That's all theoretical, but for whatever reason bittorrent is way behind Netflix in aggregate (up and down) traffic, and accounts for less than 3% of downstream. I don't know how much of that is because of the way the technologies work and how much is due to the number of people using them, but either way bittorrent (which I assume is the bulk of p2p traffic) is not a particularly large part of downstream traffic. It is, however, at the top of upstream usage, which is not surprising.
People get the games patched for modern systems, Night Dive gets to keep 100% of the profits from selling the patch and there's not a damn thing that any of the companies can do about it, since selling a patch/installer for a copyrighted piece of software isn't illegal.
That would not prevent one of these companies from suing them and costing them more money than they made from the patch, even if Night Dive eventually won the suit. It's just not worth the risk unless you can get some kind of agreement ahead of time. This is one way the intersection of the US civil court and copyright systems leads to messed up results.
Any time you apply any regulation to a market, it's going to distort the market.
In a tautological sense, yes. But good regulation improves competition, information balance, etc. Leaving markets entirely to themselves doesn't turn out well - and it often doesn't turn out to be a free market.
Making a bunch of rules about what ISPs can and can't do is one way to work towards that goal, but I'm really not convinced it's the best way.
No, it isn't the best way, but the best way isn't available right now, so we need to do other things. This is one of the things that is necessary IMO in lieu of the ideal solution.
(2) the original "owner" (victom) can be identified so that the entire "asset" can be returned to the "rightful" owner (no withholding or "fees" by the LEO).
That would only apply to stolen property. It seems reasonable to me to have illegally obtained money and goods forfeited, and maybe items used to commit a crime. There must be due process though, and I don't think what we have now qualifies. It would also be nice if this were applied to bankers as well as drug dealers.
It consists in being placed near to a large atomic bomb which is then detonated.
Being instantly vapourised is as close to painless as you can get.
A bomb doesn't need to be all that big to instantly kill someone right next to it. Certainly not atomic scale. A few pounds of C4 would definitely do it - probably a few ounces could do it if applied properly.
Startups, nonprofits, and small ventures are always at a disadvantage in terms of marketing and other treatment.
But that's a natural consequence of a market economy. Zero rated apps are a feature of an uncompetitive market where each player controls access to huge groups of potential customers. Imagine if instead of four national cellular carriers, there were 30. How far would one of them get trying to do business this way when some of their competitors were instead running a state of the art network with high speeds and no caps, and thus no need for zero rated apps? They'd be out of business in a week.
We're not at the point of having strong competition in wireless or fixed broadband, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something to limit the problems this lack of competition causes until we can get there.
I don't think that banning zero rating deals is the right way to deal with it.
What do you think is the right way to allow zero rated apps without penalizing services that cannot afford to buy them? Or do you find that penalty acceptable?