There's even less correlation than that. Take the media's favorite punching back for example, Grand Theft Auto. GTA V sold 15 million copies within the first ten days after its release. There's a whole lot more been sold since then. What does that mean? It means, if you grab a random teenager/20-something, the odds are good that they have a copy of GTA V. Add in all the other violent games (older versions of GTA, the Saints Row series, Manhunt, Etc.) and it would be far more surprising if a violent kid didn't have at least one of them.
That's... terrifying. What really scares me though, if they can't be bothered to even hash these passwords, what else are they not securing properly. Is credit card information stored in plain text? How about SSNs? If they really are getting this big, this is a news story waiting to happen.
Obviously, the documents were secret and should always be secret. Just because some hackers STOLE the documents doesn't mean they're not still Sony's property and Google shouldn't be allowed to use them. If you don't agree then obviously you're a Google SHILL.
I think it's supposed to be obvious because he stole very valuable and maybe irreplaceable INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY from the hard working EA. I think now I'm supposed to say something to the effect of you pirate everything and don't want to pay for anything. (Is freetard still used? If not, let me know and I'll start using a more appropriate word.) I'm also supposed to imply you're a Google shill somehow.
Also, I think I should completely ignore your comment about how all works are derivative, so I'll do that now.
(I'm trying out the advise of the commenter above you. How'd I do?)
So, here are some quotes that illustrate the differences between the Meltwater case and what Google is currently doing.
"Furthermore, the court made the distinction that, unlike public search engines, Meltwater's search service was a commercial product closed off to paid subscribers."
"Meltwater copied 4.5% - 60% per Registered Article, including the lede which summarizes the article. Meltwater failed to show that it copied this data for the functionality of its search engine."
Additionally, while this case was going on, a nearly identical case was going on in the UK. In that one, Meltwater eventually came out on top.
So, to summarize: In response to reporting about a European law, you pull out a U.S. case that has enough relevant differences to be completely unrelated, even in the U.S. And you want us to take you seriously? Try again.
AT&T says it'll follow Net Neutrality rules if it gets approval for the DirecTV deal. I wonder if that means they're worried about their lawsuits failing? Wouldn't it be smarter for the regulators to flat out deny the DirecTV deal AND tell them "tough shit, follow the rules anyway." I mean, the rules apply to them whether they agree to them or not, right?
What confuses me most is why they would choose that particular mech. It looks fine in its own show, but in that context it looks like a fisher price toy. They could've at least picked a Gundam or something
Read it. Saw the corporate fraud angle kind of half-assedly mentioned to give it a little air of legitimacy. One thing I also read though, is they don't want "owners of equipment, including Deere competitors or software developers, to access or to hack Deere's protected software to repair, diagnose, or modify any vehicle software."
Yes, they do throw in the "competitors" remark, however, it's clear from that sentence what they think of "owners". You may not diagnose or repair your John Deere product. You must take it to an authorized dealer for service. Any repair where we are not getting a kickback is not authorized and is illegal.
Not everybody goes to a "service centre". I have never once gone to any kind of "authorized agent" or "service centre" to get machines repaired. There's also the problem that most farms prefer to fix things on site if at all possible because that gets it back in the field faster, making everyone's life easier. If it requires a "service centre" the farm isn't operating as smoothly as it should.
Sorry, I'm in Kansas and tractors are a big deal here. I can tell you it's not about pirating music (didn't even know that part). Farmers tend to get pretty pissed if you tell them they can't tinker with something they own, and that's what this is about.
Also, I'm not buying that corporate fraud angle. I'm betting it's more about forcing farmers into "authorized dealers" for repairs, since they can't modify (or really even know anything about) the software themselves.
You know, it occurs to me that this would be a perfect opportunity for Case IH to eat John Deere's lunch. All they have to do is say "you can do whatever you want with YOUR tractor when you buy a Case IH!"
Well... No (and duh) John Deere never said "You don't own your tractor", that would probably be the quickest case of corporate suicide ever. They did, however, say that you aren't allowed to modify certain parts of the tractor you supposedly own. Since the classic definition of ownership involves the ability to modify, like a book, or a bag, or even an older tractor, it's not hard to contend you don't own your John Deere tractor. So, while they may not have said it in so many words, it's still the same effect.
I guarantee that mechanical and software engineers had no input on whether consumers can modify the software. They have, however, made sure it runs to spec while unmodified. That is what they've always done because, as long as someone is running an unmodified tractor, John Deere is liable for any malfunctions. If the customer has modified it, either physically or via software, John Deere can claim no liability. No matter what way you look at it, this is a stupid move on their part.