"Southwestern Community College is excited to announce that we have reorganized as a newspaper, though we 'regret' to inform you that all our records are now private. Don't bother asking how this is going to work, that's private, too."
10 Google half-asses a new service
20 Few people use it
30 Google cancels the service that few people were using
40 goto 10
Nope. As always, you have to follow the letter of the law, while the government only has to do what they think the law should be. See also: https://www.techdirt.com/search.php?tid=Legal%20Issues&search=Search
I just created a database that my friends and family can use to write quick updates, and see each other's updates. It's stored in the cloud, so it can be accessed from anywhere. I named it Social Network.
I INVENTED THE IDEA OF SOCIAL NETWORKS!
Also without reading it, I'm going to guess it says something to the effect of "Adobe reserves the right to update or change the terms of this license with or without notice." You pay, we get to make all the rules, and the only thing you can do is stop paying (assuming you aren't under contract).
Call me cynical, but I think there's another angle, here.
The EU has simply gotten drunk off of literal monopoly money. They've fined Microsoft, twice, totaling over 1.4b euros. Google has been hit three times for 8.2b euros, all over anti-trust concerns. Throw in fines to Facebook and others, and they've gotten judgements of over 10 BILLION euros outside of normal taxation. Sure, taxes a whole other fustercluck, but suffice to say their payments, whatever they are or aren't, are legal. It's easier to blame the American companies than to lobby the Irish and Dutch governments to fully close their tax loopholes.
Now that those cases are settled, what better way to continue to siphon funds from American internet companies than create unrealistic demands and charge penance every time they fail to bend space and time?
This isn't about terrorism, it's about money.
This is a symptom of the 21st century news. The lines have been blurred so thoroughly between news and entertainment that the higher-ups at news organizations see themselves as no different than record producers or film directors.
This is also what's driving the renewed push for the Hot News doctrine. Anything pushed out by news organizations is getting so highly processed that it has just as much "artistic input" (in the minds of the producers) as any piece of multi-media art deserving of more strict copyright protections.
News organizations are increasingly in the entertainment business, so demanding more rights at the expense of their consumers is really no shock.
[citation needed]
I suspect there are a fair number of people who pay for accounts who do not consume enough content to make the purchase worthwhile on their own. It's only because they are allowed to share the account that the service becomes a viable purchase. A crackdown on such accounts might well lose a significant number of subscribers. e.g. Unrelated roommates (or a parent/child living apart, whatever) all use the same account, but each only watch 1-2 films/shows per month. Neither would pay the $12 alone, but it's worth it for half that amount, so they split the cost. Netflix cracks down, so they cancel altogether rather than pay double for the same service that each individual person barely uses.
"One bad apple is no big deal?" No, that's not it. "One bad apple ruins the whole bunch?" Close, but doesn't quite capture this situation. "A few bad apples infected law enforcement decades ago and nobody did anything, so the whole system is corrupt by now?" There it is.
Seriously. If anybody has a spare industrial shredder, I've got a business proposal for you. You can have that thing running 24/7 for the next week by taking it city to city in California.
accidental discharge
"Nope, nobody did anything wrong here. Guns just do that sometimes. ¯_(ツ)_/¯"
In the US, anyway, a valid contract (even something as simple as a purchase of consumables) requires a "meeting of the minds."
Both sides have to agree on the item being purchased and the price. If one side claims the unilateral ability to alter the agreement, it's not a valid contract.
Outlawing the practice is not only entirely reasonable, it's almost certainly already illegal, even if it hasn't been adjudicated.
"People still ride horses. Obviously this whole 'auto-mobile' revolution has been much ado about nothing."
Cord cutting isn't just about moving to paid IPTV, either.
At least one other MLS team (RSL) airs all their games on a free OTA local channel, and via a mobile app, also free.
I had signed up for a Yahoo email address a very (very) long time ago, and kept it around for all this time. Until they sent an updated T&C in late spring/early summer this year. Some highlights:
- We’ve added a mutual arbitration clause
- We’ve updated how we collect and use data.
- Analyzing content and information (including emails, instant messages, posts, photos, attachments, and other communications) when you use our services. This allows us to deliver, personalize and develop relevant features, content, advertising and services
- Linking your activity on third-party sites and apps with information we have about you
- New information regarding personalization
It had been a backup email for a while, but I was finally pushed to just delete my account.
Let's not forget that Cisco itself was the one targeted by the NSA for installing backdoors into foreign-bound equipment.
Cisco's market position was being eroded precisely because their firewalls were sending information back to a government power, exactly what they are now accusing Huawei of.
In other words, the US government got caught with it's hand in the cookie jar, and is now attempting to right its own mistake by saying everybody else is doing the same thing.
I understand what you're saying, but I think this is the wrong way to frame it. The First Amendment absolutely applies to private companies, just in the other direction than the pro-regulation crowd is wanting. (The difference is between "bound by" and "applies to," but I think it's important to hammer home the fact that support of private moderation is a protection of the 1A rather than a violation.)
The freedom that companies enjoy to speak their own minds have resulted in the Citizens United case that the right has traditionally defended vigorously. It takes some Olympic-level mental gymnastics to try to have it both ways.