Maybe I'm missing something here, but what exactly is the point of seizing his computers and issuing a restraining order against him? Since the project is hosted on Github, everything he's done with the project can reasonably be expected to be found there, and there's nothing stopping someone else from forking it and releasing a version.
As soon as someone mentions 'terrorism', everyone seems to forget that this program isn't about collecting data on people with suspected ties to terrorists. They are collecting data on EVERYONE, regardless of your affiliation. EVERYONE. How exactly can people still think this is about catching terrorists?!
There is nothing that would prevent them from strictly targeting the right group of people IF this was really about terrorism. Why hasn't any 'journalist' asked the people trotting out terrorism the simple question: "Why is data being collected on everyone, instead of only people with suspected terrorism ties?" After all, isn't that allegedly what those laws were supposed to be about?
To make the analogy less bad, the comparison should really be between someone that's never had Starbucks, or never had coffee, and someone buying an app. The marginal costs in that situation seem to be lined up better. I wonder how many more regulars the coffee shops would get if they offered a $0.99 demo?
I like the adoption of the 'Carreon Effect' into everday parlance. It can easily be used in the context of someone who has created a huge spectacle, but wants everyone to ignore it, such as: 'Nothing to see here, Carre(y)-on!'
Erickson just did it wrong. He should have applied for a patent for "a system or method of assigning musical notes to the numbers or numerical sequences of established mathematical constants." Then he could have filed in East Texas and been home free.
First of all, thanks! Your trolling inspired me to actually read the bill, and the codes that it will affect. In addition to what you cite above, it basically authorizes the US Marshall service to "(C) issue administrative subpoenas in accordance with section 3486 of title 18, solely for the purpose of investigating unregistered sex offenders (as defined in such section 3486)."
Great. Who wouldn't want unregistered sex offenders (as definined in such section 3486) to be investigated. But wait, 'unregistered sex offender' not only isn't defined in section 3486, it doesn't appear to be defined anywhere (Please point me to the definition if you happen to find it, and I'll correct my post.)
The wikipedia non-citation "The bill does not, however, allow for unwarranted governmental surveillance." is certainly accurate, but  seems to be an understatement. This bill couples an enormous store of personal information with immunity to the ISP's that provide the data, and only a subpeona required to access it (legally). No potential for abuse there.
Since the government has demonstrated restraint in requesting subpeonas in the past, surely, they'll exercise similiar restraint if/when this bill passes. Since unregistered sex offender isn't explicitly defined, one could probably argue that pretty much anyone falls into this category.
They wouldn't do that though, right?
So where is the spying? Well, there isn't any, because there's no way the government would request subpoenas for this information that would include innocents, right? Since IP addresses are always tied to a particular person.
What about the huge data warehouse? Oh, you mean besides the ones that the ISP's already keep? Well there isn't one, as long as the government doesn't decide some point down the road that well, you guys already have all this data, and we can access pretty much anything, at any time, why don't you just send that directly to us? We could be so much more efficient at catching unregistered sex offenders if we didn't have any oversight...
Forgive me, just ignore that totally unlikely strawman, something like that could never happen.
I bet TrueCar.com appreciates the interest the dealers are generating for their service. If middlemen are complaining, then TrueCar is obviously doing something right. I'll now be sure to use them the next time I buy a car.
You seem to be adding something to the 'gift' line that isn't there. It doesn't say "Allow users to gift movies to friends for free". Steam allows anyone to purchase a game and gift it to friends. Everyone would still get paid.
It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who used to rely on them for entertainment. It is also an abuse of power given the monopolies these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. Itís a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that used to serve as gateways to entertainment intentionally skew the facts to incite their lawmakers in order to further their corporate interests.
A so-called "necessary law" is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish American jobs creators. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to pass this "law" to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat copyright infringement.
Netflix has/had been massively successful in it's campaign to get people to embrace streaming with all of the excellent moves it made at first. I have to think that many more people now get their entertainment through this avenue that would at this point had Netflix never bet it all on streaming.
Now, the studios/MPAA are going to reverse all of that, and all these people that have come to rely on watching movies/shows/whatever over the net are going to have trouble finding that movie/show/whatever they want to watch. They'll search for it, and the wonderful 'DVD only' caption will pop up.
Does anyone honestly think these people are then just going to pony up more dough and add DVD's by mail back to their subscription? Or rush out to the store and buy what they want to watch?
My money is on them clicking over to their favorite browser and searching for an alternative to netflix, and finding torrents or whatever, since there aren't any *legal* alternatives.
I think the MPAA did much worse than kill the golden goose this time. I think they just introduced an entire new group of disgruntled consumers to 'piracy'.