Their logic (I use the term loosely) is: The posted soeed limit is 65. But since you were going 64, it shows that you were trying to skirt the law, so you meant to break it.
derp.
I agree with the decision so long as those reasons behind it are legitimate, at which this stage they probably are.
However, it DOES highlight how easy it is for authorities to cut off communication means...
Instead of making new laws, why not encourage physical stores to create websites, and sell their stuff there, too?
Looks like Microsoft just sold another PS4. Sony should really send them a fruit basket as thanks.
I have a 360. It'll be the last and inly Microsoft console I ever buy.
Oh, and my two kids who are too young to play consoles (they're 2) will grow up as PS fans, and be taught to avoid MS products wherever possible.
I don't believe the DOJ will go after kids for reading news sites.
I do however believe the DOJ will add these charges on to someone arrested for something else, when an internet search or computer search reveals they accessed a site contrary to the TOS to bolster the charge sheet.
Also, this broad law gives the DOJ the leeway to go after people it doesn't like, because many millions of people have violated a site TOS, or played Counterstrike on a school computer at some point.
Would the Guy Fawkes mask count?
Doesn't this kind of help people arrested for hacking? If you have a Fawkes mask, does that mean you get special POW rights?
But it also sucks, because the "war" can be indefinite.
What if ReDigi developed a cloud based service you could download songs to, and then give the buyer a "key" to sign in and listen to those songs, and stream them to the buyers computer. Then, the buyer could sell the key, without physically transferring or "creating a new copy" and the new buyer can stream the same file to his/her computer? That way you buy access, not the file. Sort of like how the **AA want it to be.
I just graduated law school, and it seemed like HOAs were the villian in most scenarios, and used in many examples of questionable actions. I had to write many a paper about the evil doings of HOAs, and many Bar prep materials dealt with HOAs.
I guess that was one area of law school that actually translates to the real world...
What if the music and movie industry went the way of Humble Bundle?
Music: Pay what you want for these base 10 songs, but pay more than the average and get 2 or 3 bonus tracks plus behind the scenes content!
Movies: Pay what you want for this movie, but pay more than the average and get these mini features that add to the experience (much like the Marvel short scenes and movies) or;
pay more than the average and get digital copies of these other movies from the same director/actor/genre.
I have a feeling that if Marvel had followed this model, it would have made plentyvof money. Imagine Avengers at pay what you want, but add all of the marvel shorts if you pay more than average.
Maybe next time the lawyer should get a white board and draw it out for him:
1. Advertiser: "Google, here is $100k. display X ad when Y word is found in user emails."
2. Google Machine: *scan email searching for key words, inserts X ad when Y word found*.
3. User: *Opens email* "hey, my mom invited me home for a steak dinner and there is an ad next to my email for Outback Steak House. Google, you cray."
Notice, not once did the advertiser get to see any emails.
I R Congress?
Actually, Copyright was intended to "Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" and not "only the creators get the rewards from producing the works.
It is not meant as a permanent crutch creators use to support themselves, and actually limits the lengh creators can have exclusive rights to their creations. What DRM is doing is locking creations up indefinitely, and extending that Right beyond the "rewards from producing the works."
DRM is more that protecting the rights of creation, but actually restricts what someone can do with something they paid full price for after the purchase. The ONLY way this type of DRM should be allowed is if the product is priced at a RENTAL price, not full retail.
Blockbuster used to rent movies at 3 bucks a pop. They didn't charge 19.99 (full price for a dvd) to rent it. Instead of paying 60 bucks for SimCity that is "unplayable" (look at reddit), or 10 bucks for a digital graphic novel that can be erased at the seller's whim, why not charge rental rates? because that's what this type of digital DRM does. It makes the product a rental.
But news executives and media lawyers should think twice before treating Mr. Assange as if he were a journalist. If leaders in the news industry blur the distinction between their journalists and self-proclaimed enemies of the state like Mr. Assange, they may encourage prosecutors to make the same false equivalence.
Seems to me he is bluring the distinction between journalism and his self proclaimed enemy...
Maybe this was all an elaborate hoax to boost sales of SimCity 2000?
In all seriousness, I love SimCity franchise, and am completely staying away from this game until the "always on DRM" is changed/removed (just require an online registration? Sounds simple enough). I'm not holding my breath though...
Maybe this is why we have not seen a new MEGA man game for so long....
Wow. I failed at the whole italics/bold thing. Goooo me!
Lets expand this to it's illogical conclusion: Why not DRM guns?
Think about it: The NRA is the ONE LOBBY that is AGAINST control of ANY KIND.
I don't personally agree with the NRA at all, but maybe the *IAA should take a page from them. Not the crazy page though, they've already mastered that.
It's OK to regulate [i]videogame[/i] sales to people because they [b]might[/b] make their way to minors, but it's NOT OK to regulate [i]gun[/i] sales to people [b][i]even though[/b][/i] they [b]might[/b] make their way to minors, the mentally ill, and cirminals?
The "cause" (not really a cause, it has not been proven to be true. In fact, it was proven that it is completely inconclusive) is more dangerous than the ACTUAL OBJECT THAT ACTUALLY KILLED THE ACTUAL PEOPLE?
My brain just pooped.
1984
We have always been at war with Eastasia!