The government doesn't know you visited that hooker. But they know someone who spent the hours of 6pm - 7am at your address, and who spent the hours of 8am - 5 pm at your place of employment, visited a hooker.
No one's saying this is effective as a DRM strategy, especially since pirates can easily release a cracked clean copy of the game (and probably have, by this point). It's simply a funny little action that results in some free publicity, as well as possibly making a pirate or two think a little about their actions.
Are you trying to argue that 'gun violence' doesn't exist, or that it's not a 'problem?' I get and agree with the idea that banning violent video games won't solve the issue, but there's obviously an issue.
If you think The Pirate Bay is more user friendly than HBO Go or Netflix, you're crazy. Not to mention the fact that The Pirate Bay offers downloads, not streams. Many people use things like Roku boxes, which don't have a dedicated hard drive to store media.
The fact of the matter is that HBO Go fits all those promises they made. The problem is that the thing they actually ended up offering is not HBO Go, which is not available without a cable subscription.
Bullshit. Your actions certainly contributed to the ending -- the entire game was essentially a denouement, and it played out VERY differently depending on your choices in previous games. Just because the last 5 minutes weren't changed doesn't mean it was false advertisement. And being disappointed in a game's execution is far different than a game that out and out lies about quantifiable features (and 'your actions contribute to the ending' is not very quantifiable, which is why the whole ME3 argument is so heated).
Promising multiplayer and delivering a single player game, for instance, would be a quantifiable false advertisement and grounds for a refund. Or in this case, promising multiple maps with large areas and delivering a single small one.
I'm about halfway through, and I'm really not a fan. Far too absurdly bohemian and utopian even when it's trying not to be (of course you can find gourmet meals dumpster diving; isn't everyone else soooooo stupid for paying for food?). But have fun, y'all.
Obviously the decision regarding the "original" photos is silly. But I'm not a fan of your dismissive attitude about the whole affair, particularly the legal actions taken. No one has the right to film me in my private, intimate space and then publish those pictures. That's a huge invasion of privacy, both legally and morally, and it's not a matter of being uncomfortable with nudity or anything other commenters have implied. Somehow, I doubt y'all would be so nonchalant if you found a camera that had been placed in your bathroom (or your child's bathroom) by a repair tech or something.
I normally like your reporting, even if I sometime disagree with your conclusions. But define your damn acronyms. I had to jump to other publications to find out what the hell was going on, and ... isn't that sort of the opposite of what most journalists are going for?
EFF (I know that one, but still), TPP, USTR, SOPA, ACTA, DMCA (the linked article defines that one, imagine that). FFS, IDK WTF.
Fair enough, but you realize the market has spoken pretty vocally that $10 is an acceptable price for a new book by a big-name author.
Also, I'm not sure why you think $10 is unacceptable for a text file with a thumbnail, but it's acceptable for a paper book. There's not really much more inherently valuable with a paper book. It costs less than $2 to print a hardcover book (printed in bulk, of course). So it's equally valid to say "I refuse to pay $10 for ink on wood pulp."