The idea that copyright holders (or their thugs) think it is reasonable to have someone's internet access turned off because of infringement is insane. Internet access is just as important as many other utilities.
Would Gatorade demand that the courts order your water service turned off if you were using it to make and consume your own Gatorade? ...no. But their proprietary formula!
Copyright infringement is not theft. No resources are removed from the copyright holder. The whole concept is based on the idea that an infringer cost them a sale that would have otherwise happened. Couldn't the infringer clear up that issue?
"Would you have purchased the song if you had not pirated it?"
No infringement should be legally actionable without the alleged infringer distributing the work for profit.
Just like no individual making use of a patented technology, in their own home through their own creation, should be found to infringe on any patent. The courts and industry need to stop trying to regulate private usage as if it were a competing company. They are fundamentally different.
This is a point I wish more people fully grasped. The Constitution protects rights, but does not give any. A preemptive to government overreach that is all but assured in any maturing society. It may be better to view it as a restriction on government powers, rather than protecting people's rights.
Man, I love those Polish developers. Ever since I first found out about them and GOG.com I always check there for games before logging into Steam. I almost never pre-order games, but I am eagerly awaiting the Witcher III to be activated in my game library. Tim is right, they are more awesome to their fans than any other studio I have come across.
$55/mo is the lowest option of their new more granular plan??? Wtf were they charging for their base option before? $55/mo for rigid television does not seem like a step forward to me, but then again, I have completely forgot what it felt like to be a cable television subscriber.
the National Photo Group argued that because Examiner does at least some vetting of people who can post, provides them some instruction about the types of articles they can post and because it compensates them based on traffic to the articles, the people who post on Examiner.com are not "users" under the DMCA, but are really more like employees of the company...
Does this not basically describe YouTube? 1) Have to sign in with an account to post videos. Some vetting of people who can post, check. 2) Has acceptable use policy illustrating what content is/is not allowed. Provides some instruction about the types of content, check. 3) YouTube allows users to generate revenue from ad views. Compensates them based on traffic to the content, check.
You missed the entire point of the comment you replied to. You wanting to put Linux on a Playstation is exactly what I was talking about. My comment had nothing to do with piracy. I have never gone out of my way to root any device simply for pirating purposes. We are in complete agreement about how ridiculous it is that OEMs believe they retain control over OUR hardware. I root most devices I own within the first week. Not for piracy, but rather because I will be damned if I do not have admin rights on a device I own.
I do not think we mean the same thing we we talk about the content. The hardware is worthless without the content, meaning software, videos, ebooks, music, and various files. rooting the device does not create new hardware capabilities. The only reason to root the device is to gain greater control over the content.
I was surprised to read about my hometown on TD and then disappointed in Bell's. Oberon is some seriously good beer, but it is crap like this that will keep me from drinking it when I go home this summer...
There was a video floating around YouTube from almost a year ago when a young congressman was speaking during a press conference. He was discussing how strongly he felt the report from the 9/11 commission should be made public. Kept saying things about him having to stop every other page or so and just absorb what he was reading and reorganize what he thought he knew. I found the video a couple months ago and was reasonably shocked it did not get more attention. I doubt if anything rises to 9/11 being an "inside job," but it is not a huge stretch that it contained information that incriminates the Saudi's or something similar. Maybe it shows that our intelligence agencies had some sort of prior knowledge yet sat on their hands so as to not lose one of their precious channels of surveillance. Anything is possible, but to believe anything that has come from our federal government in recent history is pretty naive.