Now now, there's more than enough blame to go around.
The FCC is to blame for letting companies get away with blatantly dishonest anti-customer moves like this by buying the absurd claims from the companies regarding 'creative pricing' and 'network congestion', while the companies are to blame for pulling the stunts in the first place.
The mighty asterisk, where they explain in barely visible, only slightly contrasting text buried as deep as they can manage that it's only called 'unlimited' because you never actually lose your connection entirely if you go over your 'allotment', you'll just be throttled down to a speed that makes dial-up look blazing quick.
Same reason they get away with selling a certain speed for their connections, and then when people don't even get close to the promised amount they trot out the 'well technically you're paying for up to that speed, we never said you'd actually be guaranteed that speed'.
Actually, they should teach children to respect government employees, at least until they give one a reason to no longer respect them (which will not take long and will have few execptions).
Not so, if you're going to be teaching kids who to respect the default position is no-one until they demonstrate that they have earned it. Withholding judgement either way until they demonstrate that they deserve, or don't deserve respect.
Yeah, no matter how the extradition goes the odds of him getting all of his money back are non-existent, most very low, some moderate at best.
Whether he ends up with a guilty verdict or not is beside the point at this stage, a US judge has already ruled not only that his money is guilty but that he has no grounds to assert otherwise as far as the US legal system is concerned, meaning his only chance to regain even some of it is through non-US courts and convincing them that he shouldn't be punished for exercising his legal right to fight extradition, or punished before a finding of guilt.
Makes sense, I mean obviously the DOJ's statements and actions regarding the case would count as good influence of the potential jury, whereas anything Dotcom or his lawyers might say would be bad influence. Can't have potential jurors being exposed by the wrong viewpoint now can we, that might get people to start questioning the actions and statements of the DOJ instead of taking them at face value, and that just won't do.
Honestly, it's not at all clear why the government lawyers are opposing this other than to just oppose stuff and be generally obstructionist.
With a huge number of people watching there's also a huge number of people able to spot any shady claims or actions on the DOJ's part, and while that sort of instant fact-checking might not be immediately useful to Dotcom's defense team it also makes it a lot riskier for the DOJ to make claims if they know there's a bunch of people watching that can call them out on bogus ones.
Much easier to lie when you're only doing so to a small group, whereas lying to thousands is just asking for some of them to spot the lie.
I don't understand why TD insists on burying its good message (i.e. illegal downloading isn't necessarily a problem worth fighting and can be a good thing) within this sophomoric game of switcheroo semantics.
Because often the ones using the word that way are not doing it just because, they do it because they feel it benefits them, but only to the extent that it benefits them, leaving it an ultimately empty emotional argument.
(An idea I've kicked around a few times and have yet to get an answer on is that if someone believes that copyright infringement is theft do they also believe it should be treated as theft? For most that claim the two are interchangeable I'm guessing the answer would be 'No', given if copyright infringement was treated as actual theft it would drastically weaken how it was treated legally, making conflating the two dishonest on their part.)
It would be like if someone went around saying that their arguments are perfectly sound, and if people were only smarter or more honest they'd agree with them. It's a poisoning of the discourse by using loaded, incorrect terminology when there are more accurate, less emotionally biased terms to use.
Not really. Ignore the badges, the suits, the official positions and statements and look only at what they do. A person can say anything, what they do is what really matters and shows their real goals and positions.
Using that method of sorting it's pretty clear that the NSA and the other government agencies are not the 'good guys', as they demonstrate time and time again that they don't care about the public and will even actively work against the best interests of the public as they only care about their own power and are willing to do whatever it takes to protect it, even at the public's expense.
Personal accountability for public officials? Perish the thought, who would ever go into politics and/or law enforcement if they were actually personally held accountable for their own actions?! Are you trying to get rid of vast numbers of politicians and police by taking away one of the biggest perks of the job?
In addition, The Intercept reports the blogger's lawyers will be moving forward with a lawsuit against the parish for Sheriff Larpenter's actions, so this may end up costing taxpayers some cash as well. Hopefully, this unneeded spending will be on their minds when Larpenter's up for re-election.
Isn't it just great how those with the most power, politicians and law enforcement, can abuse that power as much as they want and never be held personally accountable other than maybe not being re-elected a few years later, as opposed to pretty much any other job where you are held accountable for your own actions, generally immediately at that?
Must be nice having a job where you can just shift all the blame and punishment on to others with a blithe 'Hey, it's their fault for electing me!'
It generally only comes up in situations such as this where someone thinks they've got a 'Gotcha!' moment only to fall flat on their face when Mike or someone else at TD point out that no, they've got no problem with other people copying their stuff.
On the one hand it would be nice if they had a disclaimer of some sort, perhaps at the bottom of the page noting that the articles on TD are public domain(or as close as you can legally get anyway), on the other hand that might decrease the faceplant moments such as described in the article, and losing out on the chance for such hilarity would be a sorry thing indeed.
I've got no problem with a politician being willing to change their mind once they realize how flawed their previous position is, so long as they admit it and act accordingly. If she's for encryption for herself and her party then it's massively hypocritical at best if she also continues to hold an anti-encryption position when it comes to everyone else.
If she's 'seen the light' as far as the value of encryption and is now of the position that her previous anti-encryption stance was not only wrong but dangerous then awesome, one less stupid idea held by a politician and she should make her change of heart public so that it's clear that she recognizes that she was wrong before and won't continue to make absurd 'Nerd harder!' claims and continue to insist that encryption can absolutely be broken 'safely'.
On the other hand if she's only pro-encryption when it comes to encryption she's using then it's not a change of position at all, she's still anti-encryption in general she just realizes the value of it when it comes to her stuff, while continuing to believe that the public at large shouldn't be able to have the same level of privacy and security.
Moreover the related right granted to press publishers under this option would be different from the ES law insofar as it would be an exclusive right and not an unwaivable compensation
'It's not an unwaivable right, it's just one you're not allowed to not charge for, totally different!'
Yeah, they tried to force Google to pay for linking and Google wasn't stupid enough to oblige, instead opting to drop those that charged and only display those that were fine not being paid for the extra traffic Google sends them, so now they're trying to remove that option entirely so that sites have to charge.
Hmm, I wonder if history has anything to say about how that is likely to work out...
They need to stop all this pathetically transparent blather about how this is about 'protecting creators' and just come out and admit that Google has money because it provides products and services people like and use, the old companies didn't bother to actually keep up with what people wanted and assumed that they could just continue doing the same forever without a problem, leading to decreasing profits and control, and they want to force Google to subsidize said failures.
The NSA doesn't care because the exploits aren't likely to be able to be used against them, which means they don't care who else is impacted so long as their security isn't compromised and they can continue to use exploits to make their job/whims easier.
The NSA cares about their privacy and security, they couldn't care less about the privacy and security of anyone else, and if anything they tend to actively works against the privacy and security of others so that they can scoop up more personal data easier.
As if the rest of corporate sovereignty wasn't bad enough, this just adds further to the idea that any agreement of any sort that involves corporate sovereignty clauses is one that should be rejected if those clauses can't be removed. Doesn't matter how good the rest of it is, if it's got corporate sovereignty contained within the agreement it's toxic and should be rejected.
As funny as that would be to see cases like this take money, lots of money, drastically more than just a 'standard' case I imagine, which means that the USG trick of stealing all the accused's assets pre-trial would make it impossible to avail themselves of that option.
Yeah, pretty sure the last paragraph from his comment is applicable to those with opinions similar to yours.
'But when fortune turns around, and it happens to you, or your grandchildren or your descendants down the line, when they become the persecuted, when the death camps are cooking once again, you had best hope that the people controlling those borders are kinder, more empathetic or more honorable than you are.'
Every nation gets the government it deserves! We are destroying ourselves, EU is destroying itself and are begging to follow suit!
Absolutely right! That's why if you voted for someone that lost, and the other person who's ideas and policies you disagree with made it in instead, suck it up, you still got the government you deserve!
Didn't have a good option available, such that you don't agree with any of the choices? Deal with it, it's your fault for not voting properly!
Politicians acting contrary to what they claimed they would do, such that even if you did vote the 'right' person in their either acted in a way that you didn't want them to or their efforts were nullified by all the other politicians? Too bad, it's still your fault!
Government agencies lying to the public and the ones supposedly in a position of oversight, such that the lawmakers have no idea what they're doing 'in the public's name' until someone brave enough comes forth to (almost literally) trade their life for informing the public? Tough, they(but more importantly you) should have known anyway and stopped them!
Oh by all means, please explain how demanding a fee to display images, whether the one who posted the image wants to be paid for it or not, somehow qualifies as 'checks and balances'.
While you're at if you can also explain how Google and Facebook have 'too much power over the internet', and how this is supposed to reign that in by putting them in the position of dropping images entirely for anyone in france, or simply shutting down service in france if that's not enough to bypass the idiocy that is this law.
Yeah, that sounds about right, though I am rather surprised they even tried to give him 'his' share in the first place.
It's not even close to just a french 'collection' agency problem though, all the 'collection' agencies seem to think that the only way someone should be able to listen to music is if someone pays them first, so it's not surprising that a composer that had the utter gall to claim that they shouldn't collected money from his stuff got a hostile reception. They are owed that money after all, he should have just shut up and let them keep it if he did't want it, not have the audacity to claim that they had no right to collect it in the first place.