Of course, if Google truly wants to be "transparent" with users, it might consider adequately informing them they're being shaken down by a particularly hairy copyright troll.
In principle, that's a great idea. In practice... where does "informing customers" end and "legal advice" begin? If something bad happens to the customer because Google essentially tells them it's OK to ignore this, does this present liability to Google? I can see why they might not want to go down that road.
This really is a problem without any good solutions, at least not at the victims' level or the ISPs'. Comcast has picked one bad solution and Google has picked a different one, but the only real solutions involve fixing copyright trolling itself.
It seems to me that the biggest problem here is the cost of a court case. The First Amendment is best known for guaranteeing freedom of religion, speech and the press, but it also guarantees the right of the people to have their day in court, and the current legal system violates that particular clause seven ways from Sunday. Simply put, if I know I'm in the right, but it would simply be too expensive to defend myself in court anyway, my First Amendment rights are being violated. Fix that and copyright trolling, patent trolling, and any number of undesirable legal extortion practices fall too.
This is an odd case. I'm all for fair use, but I'm also aware of history, and if there's anything that absolutely should not be considered Fair Use, it's what Mr. Prince is doing, because this is literally the problem that copyright was first created to solve: publishers appropriating a creative work in its entirety and selling it without compensating the author.
We already have horrendous laws like the DMCA enshrine in law a publisher's right to abuse people rather than curtailing it. If we now say that this is fair use, it would seem that Copyright's journey to the Dark Side is now complete.
Really? If I go to work, or a grocery store, or a restaurant or whatever, and I walk around in the parking lot, I don't smell gasoline. I'm surrounded by cars, but I don't smell gas, not even "a little but not so much that it makes me think there's a problem." I know that if I smelled even a little from my car, I'd immediately take it to the dealership and have someone look at it. But that's just me, I guess.
"Odor of gasoline" emanating from a vehicle that operates on gasoline? Do tell.
I'm sorry, but that's so wrong it's not even right enough to be properly wrong. It's so wrong it makes me ask "has the person who wrote this ever driven or even ridden in a gasoline-powered vehicle?"
Because anyone with actual experience with motor vehicles can tell you that if you smell gas and you're anywhere other than at a gas station (or knowingly working with a gas can), your immediate assumption should be that something's wrong and you're in danger. Gas tanks (and the entire fuel system) are sealed air-tight for a reason, and said reason can be summed up rather succinctly with the word "KABOOM!"
As several people have already pointed out, the response to this was entirely appropriate, and if it was a genuine mistake as the guy claims, then he's quite right that he did something stupid.
Yes, Facebook is super popular, but it's still a voluntary system that you can choose to use or not. If you really don't like the company, it's not hard to not use it and to block it from tracking you on various other sites.
Really? I know it's been a couple years, but have we forgotten about their system of shadow profiles already?
Even from a "helpful to consumers" perspective, tailored ads still fail. In my experience, tailored ads tend to show up in my browser one of two ways:
1) It's something I was looking at recently, but decided not to buy. Bombarding me with advertisement about something I decided not to buy going to annoy me, which is not a good way to make me decide to buy it. Or...
2) It's something I did buy recently. In this case, I already bought it, so why are you advertising it at me?!? Most of the time it's not something I'll need another one of anytime soon, if ever.
Exactly. It may make for a good movie plot, but the fact of the matter is, nuclear devices, both of the "reactor" and "warhead" variety, are deliberately engineered to make a mushroom cloud showing up by accident virtually impossible.
Well, apparently someone's doing something right; plot those numbers on a graph and you'll see a steadily decreasing line. Assuming those figures are 100% accurate, automobile deaths plunged almost 25% in the 12 years from 2001 to 2013. That's huge!
Not a list of government duties? What does "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men" if not exactly that? Sorry, but if you're going to make claims that directly contradict the plain meaning of the text as-written, the onus is upon you to support your interpretation.
This is outlining the philosophical justification for the existence of an ideal government, and putting Life ahead of Liberty is actually very important. If we truly valued Liberty (the right to choose to do as we wish) more highly than protecting Life, there would be no valid reason for a government to outlaw any number of harmful things, up to and including murder.
That's not to say that protecting American lives wasn't high on the founding fathers' list of things to do. It certainly was. It appears just below protecting their freedom, however.
Actually, in a very literal sense it appears just ahead of protecting their freedom:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men