I think he was replying to AC's assertion that CD stores are out of business due to piracy -- although admittedly it's not *that* easy to tell when your only reference is how far a comment is indented once there are a half dozen comments to another reply above it.
Perhaps before (re-re-re-)making a movie, they could ask themselves, "Would I ever actually watch this?"
If the answer is "not in a million years" perhaps it's time to move on to filming movies that consumers actually want.
Of course, it seems worth pointing out that a sewing kit is not a dangerous object?
T-Mobile's contract family plans do not include texting, so I don't pay for it. They used to give you a dozen or so messages a month for free, then they threw those away and started charging a nickle, then a dime, and now twenty cents to send or receive every message. If I send a message to my wife, it costs me nearly as much as it would to write a letter and send it through the USPS. How does that make any sense?
A lot more than that; the video game industry still isn't listening.
Or arms.
They're just trying to make the web 'armless for their clients.
I don't know; it doesn't make a whole lot less sense than our Congressmen trying to legislate how the internet should work, without any real clue how the internet does work.
Which, I guess, doesn't exactly invalidate your argument...
Depends. If Google identifies your IP as Australian, it may 304 you from whatever.blogspot.com.uk back to whatever.blogspot.com.au. I would expect them to do this.
Of course, there will always be ways around that to mask your IP's location (proxies and VPNs).
A ccTLD, when it appears, corresponds with the country of the reader?s current location.
They don't; that's just the name most of the press use for the as-yet-unannounced next console (because it's 2x360).
So, basically what you're saying is, they already have the tools (lie, deceive, make up facts, get the right people to believe them -- tools they've proven and continue to demonstrate they're very adept at wielding) to take down any site they want.
Conclusion: no law needed.
Perhaps, but the net result is the same: SOPA was not "needed", as the takedown proved the site was most definitely not "out of reach".
He expects to just lay down some tracks and get a steam train for free.
How can you kill that which has no life?
I'm sure they could get the RIAA to jump in with some lawyers, an amicus brief, and a load of cash. Rejecting a court case because of some "fair use" hogwash is something up with which they will not put.
Tenenbaum has botched this so thoroughly, it smells like he's being paid by the MAFIAA to get favorable (to them) court rulings on the books.
Author owns a copyright on some work. Person takes work, copies it, and distributes it across the internet.
Is the person legally wrong? If so, what is the correct legal recourse for pursuing redress?
If not, why? (Maybe I don't understand the law clearly, but it seems copying and redistributing is not exactly legal...)
If the bill contains a written statement to the effect of, "This does not change existing law," and then it is found to change existing law, can that whole section be thrown out since it contradicts itself?
Wishful thinking, I know, but would it hold up?
The way some do it could count as a TOS violation
I was "invited" to join a gaming site called PlayFire.com. During the sign-up process, their site asked me for my Windows Live ID and password, so they could invite my friends to the site. That's how I got the invite in the first place -- someone created an account on their site, in the process giving them their username and password, with which PlayFire logged in as my friend and sent messages to all her friends.
I saw that form and closed my browser. Giving your username and password to some third party is a very basic "NO" when it comes to security.
LinkedIn lets you "find friends" on a variety of networks. If you use Hotmail or Yahoo, their app takes you to that provider's site to log in and explicitly grant access to LinkedIn. (I think one of them lets you select specific contacts to share, and the other lets you set a time limit on the access; both of them send you a link you can use to immediately revoke LinkedIn's access to your address book.)
If you choose Gmail, however, LinkedIn asks for your Google login and password in a form on LinkedIn's site, so it can log in as you to get your contacts.
I presume this is because Hotmail and Yahoo provide an API for this, and Google does not (or LinkedIn hasn't implemented it yet). [Note this is based on my trying it out a year or so ago; things may have changed since then.]
No site should ever directly ask for your login credentials to another site. That's just asking for trouble.