Yes, so since you basically agree with him, it is perfectly reasonable to chew him out over the writing style. How wise.
Note to self: Use a crack when buying Ubisoft games.
I wish we had this when I was in High School.
Thankfully, EA has recently realized that DRM only pisses customers off. Their more recent games (at least the Bioware titles) have included free DLC for those that buy the game new, and charge those who buy it old. While they're still using it to get around the first-sale doctrine, it's much nicer that they're using the carrot instead of the stick.
That would not be fair at all. Everyone in management, possibly, but not every employee.
I agree on your first point; it sounds to me like he is using this lawsuit to make sure his heterosexuality is public knowledge.
You compete with "thieves" by creating a product/experience they can't steal.
I was unaware that Van Eck Phreaking was still a serious threat to anything these days. Now, to my knowledge, the person who is intercepting the signal must be fairly close to the source. Shouldn't preventing individuals with monitoring devices from loitering around the voting area eliminate this problem?
Simple: write a new law stating that anyone who attempts to claim copyright over the national laws will be put to death.
I'm surprised that they didn't sue the Dallas Cowboys for their enormous display screen at their new stadium. Oh, wait, the East Texas court might not go for that one.
You couldn't honestly expect Jack Thompson to understand modern technology, could you?
More seriously, Jack Thompson is a Public Figure. I don't see that any of these people he's suing qualify for the "Actual Malice" standard for libel. How can this not get thrown out of court?
Which would completely violate due process.
While he probably doesnt't have the money needed to win, I think suing them would still be the right thing to do. The coverage of the legal case would certainly increase his name recognition, the story would almost certainly hurt the reputation of the Recording Industry, and he would have a (small) chance of winning and recuperating his costs (plus a few decades of profit). And I'm sure that there are several advocacy groups such as the EFF that would sponsor him.
What's interesting is that EA will lose either way. If the case is appealed and the plaintiff wins, they have to pay out. If the case isn't, they lose some of their exclusivity.
I'm not saying that the immunity itself was Ex Post Facto. I'm saying that there's a good chance that revoking the immunity would be Ex Post Facto.
Wouldn't repealing the immunity be considered Ex Post Facto? While I think that the retroactive immunity should not have been given, I think that legislatively repealing this immunity would be unconstitutional, however appealing it may be.
That's assuming that the video stay so on Fox. If it gets out onto the wider internet, there's no stopping it.
Unfortunately, there are no laws about copywrong.
Re:
EA has certainly been on the rise recently on the Consumer Relations angle. I'm split between hating Ubisoft and Activision-Blizzard