Any word as to whether or not they plan to enforce this on a global scale like the EU has done? The US and other countries begin receiving requests to have people extradited to Saudi Arabia for prosecution.
Environmentalists lobby for ferns to be granted copyright for their fractals
They may not have the creativity to make great works. They need to find they calling in life. What their place in this world is. My place is to be a digital forensic analyst, not a Beethoven, Picasso, or Shakespeare.
If it could be based on an IP address alone, then these people would be even deeper in a digital hell-hole than they already are.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/09/maxmind-mapping-lawsuit-kansas-farm-ip-address
not for their children's, children's, children's children to commercially exploit something their ancestor created over a century ago.
When a talented individual creates a great work, They get to commercially exploit that great work for a limited time. When that time expires and they still seek commercial exploitation, use that superior talent to create another great work and commercially exploit the new great work. That was to original intent. To motivate the talented people to continue showing us their talent by continually creating new works.
I'd be interested in seeing what level of liability would fall on Verizon if the throttling/delaying of emergency services led to someone's death.
FaceBook VPN. Oxymoron
An investigation leading back to the person who made the specific choice execute the throttling on the public service.
Say in the Union Carbide case. The CEO may have said to someone further down the chain of command to find a way to cut costs at the plant. That person decides to cut costs by reducing safety checks and proper maintenance of the plant. Despite the dangers, the plant manager follows through as do those below him. The employees at the plant, damned if you do. Damned if you don't. The person who decided on what costs to cut made poor judgment which resulted in the homicide of many. The CEO's trust in that person to make proper decisions was misplaced. So if the scenario was like this, then it would be debatable as to whether or not to charge the CEO.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/us/schlitterbahn-waterpark-death-arrests/index.html
Also,
Though this involves a different country, the case of Union Carbide and the Bhopal disaster. India had a warrant for Warren Anderson's, Union Carbide's CEO at the time, arrest for multiple homicides. So responsibility would fall on the one who is ultimately in charge of the decision making. Multiple senior staff at the plant were also arrested and charged with homicide.
I do not know of California's laws, but in Ohio there is Section 2909.04(B)
(B) No person shall knowingly use any computer, computer system, computer network, telecommunications device, or other electronic device or system or the internet so as to disrupt, interrupt, or impair the functions of any police, fire, educational, commercial, or governmental operations.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disrupting public services, a felony of the fourth degree.
Could Verizon possibly be slapped with a 4th-degree felony? Especially since the public service warned them before that throttling could hinder response time.
And if the question comes up about the Ohio law stating "Person"
Corporate personhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v ... tores,_Inc.
I like the "from the 640K-ought-to-be-enough-for-anybody dept"
What about turning the DMCA against them? Title II, Section 512(g)(1)
Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright
owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent. Failure to comply substantially with the statutory requirements means that the notification will not be considered in determining the requisite level of knowledge by the service provider. If upon receiving a proper notification, the service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the
material identified in the notification, the provider is exempt from monetary liability. In addition, the provider is protected from any liability to any person for claims based on its having taken down the material
"Upon receiving proper notification" Proper notification under penalty of perjury. Perjury under federal law is a felony that gets you a prison sentence of up to five years. Why are these people not in prison for the many blatantly false takedown notices?
Is it law that Google blindly accept and comply with all notices? False or not.
If I were Google, I'd implement a policy in which each time a company's content scanning bot sends in a false DMCA notice, that is one strike. After "X" number of strikes, no longer accept the automated notices for that bot. Instead, the bot's discoveries must first be reviewed by people from the company which develops the bot. Then they can be submitted to Google.
Consumers have a demand. The owner refuses. The consumers seek other sources (ROM sites) And thus the owner is creating that which they seek to destroy.
I would like to see a system in which these new tiny units that come with a limited number of titles, can have new titles downloaded to them. Use a system similar to iTunes. Each title costs $0.99 or $1.99 and is downloaded to the unit and stored in flash memory. Also, have bundle sales.
The Konami Kollection. Life Force, Contra series, Castlevania series, and more for a discounted price. The roms take up so little space that you could easily store the entire library of Nintendo games in one unit
Right there
https://www.techlicious.com/blog/geek-squad-searching-your-computer/
Future of the first amendment
I know the first amendment does not apply to private companies. But with every means of communication run by a private organization, would the first amendment eventually shrivel down to standing on the corners of public streets or out front of city hall waving your picket signs? The means to reach the masses would be obstructed if your views are not popular with those who own the platforms.
I am not saying it should apply, but if everything becomes privatized, then what's the point of freedom of speech if it applies to nothing of significance?