So, what it looks like this issue boils down to is that the pols in the UK are worried about people looking at porno in public places.
"Clean wi-fi", what a joke. Is there an epidemic across the UK of people setting up their laptops in cafes and watching porno in the middle of the day? Textbook grandstanding.
What he's suggesting is censorship and an infringement on network neutrality. When will people learn that on the internet, it's pretty much all or nothing(or whitelisting, in which case I'd probably still prefer nothing) in terms of access. This is especially true for something as prevalent as pornography. That's about as possible as blocking people from reading news online.
As to blue's comment here, I'll say this: "You're out of your element, Donny! Shut the fuck up!"
Exactly how are they stealing something which is broadcast -for free- to the world? I'm just not following your logic here. If they wanted to restrict who can receive it, they'd do some kind of encryption or a poorly implemented and administered 'six strikes' program.
Also, you were stereotyping, so Ruben was just returning the favor.
So the question remains. Areo is not altering the broadcast stream in any way. They aren't removing ads, or replacing them with their own. They're adding value to an increasingly irrelevant product. What harm is Areo causing to the broadcast networks. These lawsuits look very much like a thinly veiled attempt to stifle innovation.
Seriously. Why haven't the media companies banded together to inundate Google with lawsuits of one kind or another. I mean there has to be a good reason, right? Like maybe the media companies are grifting off of Google's hard earned profits? Could it be?????
Every day, I hear the same old tropes about how one person or another is infringing copyright or otherwise contributing to it. Yet there's so little direct action against the infringers. Instead, it's just little bitch moves like 6 strikes. Fucking cowards, all of them.
No you're the moron here. Norms and laws are independent of one another, as JMT stated 5 comments above. I know you're aware of his comment, but you probably stopped reading after the first sentence. Jim Crow laws, like slavery are an example of where morals and law came into disagreement. It's a concept which really doesn't require much thought to understand. Bruce Schneier elaborates wonderfully on this concept in his book, Liars and Outliers.
All that little tagline did is point out how ridiculously deluded it is, the notion that you can stop someone from doing something on the internet. It's a battle that can't be won, which certain parties insist on fighting.
Also, this whole notion of guilty by accusation is utter bullshit and you know it. It also happens to be one of the tenets of the DMCA, and I hate it.
We both know that you are going to milk this thing for all it's worth.
Features are added and cut throughout the development cycle of any software. Besides, to prove false advertising you have to show that their remarks weren't true under any number of interpretations. That one's decisions make a difference at the end, shit you could just say that's something that's true of all games.
What Titov did here is just egregious by comparison.
Lol, trichordist. I'd give that site a shred of respect if they didn't moderate all of my comments to hell. That site's nothing but a circle jerk for Lowery et al and the only dissenting comments they allow are taken totally out of context and twisted and spun so as to make them fit their narrative.
And if you're persistent, Lowery will threaten you personally.
I'd really love for some population of TD commenters to decend on trichordist.