If there's any chance at all that some corporation's profits will suffer as a result of a new law or other change, that corporation and all of its stooges in government will fight it to their last breath. From their perspective, there is no other option. Even if it makes absolutely no sense.
Don't forget that a lot of police work is really boring and annoying. Which means that cops look for any chance to do something more fun, including kicking in doors, brandishing weapons, and yelling a lot. Good times.
As long as uninformed people let lawyers talk them into these idiotic lawsuits, it will keep happening. Lawyers are, after all, just trying to find business. Unless we can find a way to punish lawyers for engaging in this kind of behaviour, we can expect it to continue.
Anyone who is a CEO or holds any other senior management post at (almost) any corporation is - first and foremost - someone who can lie with a straight face. Someone who can lie so convincingly that they can make you question your grasp on reality.
Tim obviously didn't want to go there, but I will. I think that the most likely explanation for her unwillingness to provide data is simply that she has none, and the numbers she talked about ($30K, millions) came out of her ass. If those numbers had any basis in reality, she would have provided them. It's not that I don't sympathize, but based on her statements, I have serious doubts.
Assuming they ever pull their collective heads out of their asses and stops wasting money on copy protection, it's going to take EA a long time to regain any customer goodwill lost by years of abuse. People who wouldn't normally download pirated games will do so simply out of spite. Allowing their games to be easier to pirate is still EA's best long-term strategy, but in the short term, they are going to lose more to piracy than your average game publisher, even after they smarten up.
Krug's book, "Don't Make Me Think", was the reason I had to break up long pages in a previous job. I hated needless pagination then, and I still hate it. However, I'm increasingly convinced that it's a personal preference, and there's no 'right' way to do it. In a perfect world, all sites would offer both options and a browser preference would set my default for all sites.
Willingly, true, but at the time there was no other way to achieve 'success'. Yes, the band no doubt benefited: being such a big act, they surely recouped and made some money. But if you compared the amount made by the band with what the label (and their cronies) made from the band, you'd rethink your statement.
For this suggestion of goading to make any sense, the people doing the goading would have needed to find or create security vulnerabilities on their web sites/servers. Nobody would do that. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)
Anyone who is surprised when a cop lies just hasn't been around cops very much. Cops' lying is a natural reaction to how much lying they face every day from the people they normally deal with. Which is not to excuse it by any means. In fact, I feel that cops should be held to a much higher standard of behaviour than us 'little people' because of their position of trust and the fact that they have so much power over us. If a cop decides they don't like you, they can - quite simply - destroy your life.
Because they are publicly-traded companies, which means that management is responsible to the shareholder. They cannot and will not make a change that they know will reduce the company's profit, until such time as there is no other option. Some won't do it even then, and those companies will die.
This ridiculous 'feature' with the cutesy name (I can just imagine the marketing meeting where they dreamed up that one) sends a message to potential (and actual) customers: "We think you're a criminal." They're going to lose a lot more customers than the hobbyists. The only company that can get away with this sort of crap is Apple, and that's only because the same idiots keep buying Apple's stuff and will never be swayed.
When this revolution is over, musicians will be - quite rightly - in control. The labels will provide services to musicians, including recording, promotion, tour organization, and so on. Some bands won't use the labels at all (think Radiohead), while others use the labels to do the stuff they aren't interested in doing themselves. Very few will continue to let the labels do everything, but even those artists will still be in control and make more money from their own creativity than the labels. The digital revolution is Pandora's Box, baby. Eventually all musicians will realize all they have to do is tell the labels to take a hike, and the labels will crawl back for any kind of deal they can get. Because the labels no longer control the process. The labels will still be profitable, just not obscenely so.
Whenever I read this kind of thing, I try to imagine what the world would be like if these bozos got everything they wanted. The only real winners in the resulting Orwellian landscape would be - as usual - lawyers. Every other person would be a lawyer. ::shudders::