Exactly. When AT&T starts putting in 1GB service someplace Google isn't already, or announced they are going to be, then I might believe AT&T is actually interested increasing service for it's customers.
If what I understood from the ARSTechnica coverage is right, the problem wasn't that they gained entry by lying, but the fact that they didn't say that they gained entry by lying on the warrant request.
The judge basically said that getting in by pretending to be who you are not was okay, but not telling the judge while you were getting your warrant was a no-no.
If I record a show on my DVR during a normal broadcast, I can fast forward through the commercials. If on the same DVR I happen to miss it, or the service was out, or the national broadcast was preempted by a local weather alert, if I get the same show On-Demand, it is locked and I can't fast forward through the commercials. Same with watching the show on-line on the network site.
The commercials on-line are more irritating because they repeat the same two or three over and over in every break. That doesn't encourage me to buy the product, it makes me swear to never buy it.
I can't make either one of your math work. If you increase by 13% each quarter, each quarter the amount increase will be more, because you had a bigger base. I show getting to 100% of the show (or 1 hr of commercials) in only 3 years.
On sites with an active community, often the contents interest me as much as the original article. On this site while there are the regular trolls, there are also well thought out additions to most articles, and the weekly "Insightful/Funny" post is one I look forward to.
There are other sites like the "Shark Tank" blog on "ComputerWorld" where I might still go there if they didn't have comments, but I certainly wouldn't be as regular, and I never comment on that site, but love the input of the regulars, much of it totally off topic.
Taken from the Class Action filed against Rightscorp:
“It has been well-established for a decade that subpoenas may not be issued under 17 U.S.C. § 512(h) to ISPs merely acting as conduits for electronic communications. In re Charter Commc 'ns, Inc. , 393 F.3d771, 776-78 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding that Section 5 12(h) does not authorize the issuance of subpoenas to ISPs acting as mere conduits for communications between Internet users and vacating order issued by district court enforcing improperly issued Section 512(h) subpoenas); Recording Indus. Assoc. of Am. v. Verizon Internet Svcs., Inc., 351 F.3d 1229, 1236-39 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Section 512(h) inapplicable where Internet service provider acted as conduit for alleged peer-to-peer filesharing between Internet users)."