That's the risk you take when you gain power by joining a secretive cabal. If Cameron et al were decent people, there wouldn't be this kind of dirt on them in the first place. Personally, given previous scandals & hush-ups, I wonder if there isn't much worse dirt on Cameron & colleagues that we may never know about.
"claiming the FCC is INTENTIONALLY trying to ban all third-party custom firmware."
It doesn't matter in the slightest what the intention is. I'm sure that the people who framed the kiddy-porn laws didn't intend them to be used to prosecute 15 year old kids for sexting their boyfriends, & put them on Sex Offender registries for the rest of their lives, but that's how they're being used anyway. I doubt that the people who wrote the DMCA intended it to be used as a stick to bully small content-creators, or as a way to eliminate Fair Use, but there are stories every week on this site about it being used in those ways. With laws & regulations, 'intent' doesn't matter.
"So in essence the FCC is saying that third-party firmware is just fine, just as long as it's not pushing the radio outside of legally-mandated parameters and causing a safety hazard."
I'm a former modem designer. The problem is that the easiest way for the OEM to meet that requirement - & show the FCC compliance people that they've met it, is to lock down the firmware so that it can't be updated. This is why people are, rightly, freaking out about this.
Google (and thus Youtube) would be *required* by law to put the video back up without much delay once they realized the DMCA takedown was invalid
As much as I agree with you on the ethics of the situation, there is zero chance of a court forcing a private business into hosting content if they don't want to. Moreover, I'm 100% sure that the YT TOS says that they can take down anything they like for any reason or no reason. Better to concentrate on punishing the actor making the false accusations.
Big Pharma has every reason to be paranoid about cheap/easy mechanisms to invalidate bad patents. Their practice of patenting minor tweaks to existing products whose patents are bout to run out ("Evergreening") could be decimated by laws like this one.
It's anonymous in the sense that you don't need to create an account to use it, but the site prevents posting from TOR exit nodes & other IPs known to be associated with proxies, so it's not all that anonymous in any useful sense.
Unlike so many ridiculous judgements on Internet cases, this one was completely reasonable: "In this case, Veck basically republished an entire article, which as the courts have read the law, make him just as liable for the defamation as the person who actually wrote the article."
In my view, the question is very clear to Google: respect the wishes of corporations, or those of ordinary human beings; being a corporation, they side with with other corporations against humans. Google has sufficient power to decide each dilemma to suit themselves, & they have.
I remember when the book was first published in Australia, back in about '84. It could only be sold in over 18 premises (typically adult books shops) & was shrinkwrapped, with an warning sticker on the wrap. When I read that these guys had been busted for it, I guessed that the censorship dinosaurs went back to the original classification rules from '84, & used that as their excuse to satisfy the puritans who reported it.