"Every word you wrote above has been copied, every concept you have tried to proclaim is copied so by your own definition you are a downright thief, a pirate, a lowlife corrupt individual. "
Show me the copyright on it. Until then, you are just a really horrible, stupid, wasteful troll.
"If you cannot see the utter ridiculousness of your own arguments then there is no help for you in this life."
At least I can put an argument together. You, well... not so much.
If you think about WHY they buy it, you will understand that it's not about the content, but about the delivery method ("I always wanted a rare copy on VHS-C with the spanish subtitles"). They already have the content and no real reason to buy it again just for the content.
You know that, but you ignore it.
"Only if the artist is utterly lacking in imagination and has no communication with their fans to work out what extra they'd like to have. "
Of course - because they have to provide extra because the original product no longer has a market price... it's free. At that point, people are buying the extra, and not the content.
Thanks for proving my point. Like a blind rat, sometimes you stumble over the truth.
Hi Paul, nice to see you are an idiot troll as always.
"Yep, if you have nothing, just base everything on a prediction of what someone *might* do, according to your strawman construction of them. Much easier than addressing reality."
Actually I address reality and point out how Techdirt would treat anyone else in this situation. They would call it "losing their shit". You can almost here Mike ranting and getting worked up over this one.
"What does UK law have to do with this, and what is deceptive about copying something for personal use?"
I cite UK law only to show that the term theft has been used in many ways over the past - and well, the English language seems to have come from England, right?
Copying for personal use, providing you are copying something that is already yours, generally is a non-issue. If you give that copy away, then it's a problem. If you copy someone else's stuff and keep it for yourself, problem. It's basic.
"Techdirt logic requires an stupid reductio ad absurdum fallacy?"
No, it just requires idiots like you to try to avoid the point.
"yet, search Amazon and you'll find huge amounts of public domain content for sale that proves you to be a liar."
Liar? Gee Paul, I know you are an idiot, but stop trying to prove it. When you buy something that is otherwise free, generally you are paying for the DELIVERY method used, and not the content itself.
Would you care to cite some examples, or are you just talking off the top of your head again?
"Would you like to state your points again, this time based on objective reality?"
You wouldn't know objective reality from the hole in your ass. Seriously, stop making yourself look stupid. I know you desperately want to troll me, but how about dealing with the points instead of redirecting and avoiding? Mike isn't going to hire you to write here, they already have Karl doing the village idiot routine!
Trading a stock in any manner with inside information is right on the edge of legality all the time. Knowing a problem exists and taking stock position that would benefit from it's disclosure would appear to be a perfect example.
It certainly makes the MedSec look like scumbags profiting from the failings of others, rather than just reporting things as they find them. Making the report to the FDA without taking a stock position would be the moral thing to do.
Then again, as is often said around here, morals are not the issue.
Activation fees aren't really something new. It's a way to assure a minimum charge legally separated from the actual subscription fee. You might run into it in other places as an account setup fee, a paperwork handling fee, or similar.
I want to point out that, any other site making pro-copyright posts like this would be branded here as "losing their shit". It's almost farcical to see what lengths you will go to in order to claim that copying (without permission) isn't theft.
While pirating (aka copying without permission) does not deprive the artist of the original, it does take away certain rights that the artist had, namely the right to license it as they see fit (and to deny you a license if they so wish).
It's clearly impossible to deny the idea that the end result of piracy is you having something, where before you had nothing. Morally, it's not hard to draw the conclusion that you have stolen something, even if it is just a copy. At best, your copy was fraudulently obtained.
It should be noted that until 2006 or so, the UK legal system treated fraud as theft - obtaining something via deceptive practices.
Now, let's apply some standard Techdirt logic to things here. If everyone copies the original instead of purchasing it (or not being able to have it because the artist / creator has decided only to give it to a few friends), then the value of that work is diminished greatly. Instead of being an exclusive work shared by only a few, it's a widely pirated piece available to everyone. What do you think the real value if the artists grants one more copy to someone at that point? Piracy has absolutely stolen the economic value out of the product. Infinite number of copies, market price zero. Having a copyright on something because meaningless, value is lost, therefore yes, something has been stolen. Perhaps each copy steals such a minute amount that nobody seems to notice, but there is a point where enough pirated copies would reduce the value of the artists work (economics wise).
So there is theft, but the value of the theft is perhaps very small when calculated by itself.
Actually, mostly it's not enough time. I have guys handy, any color gildan shirts, the thicker ones and not the skinny ones, and he can screen them pretty much the same day - or print them as one offs on a really neat sort of dot matrix printer contraption that will turn out one at a time shirts if need be.
If you want to place an order for 1000 shirts and send me a 75% deposit, I would be more than glad to have them run. Oh, and FOB here, which is a long way from there.
It's hard to find any sympathy for any of the people / companies involved here. Idiot blows off his own hand, I have little sympathy for someone seemingly that stupid. Whoever gave / sold / profited from giving the medical records to EPSN is a douche nozzle and gets no sympathy. ESPN gets even LESS sympathy, because they double douched in paying for the records and then making them public pretty much in direct violation of doctor patient confidentiality
ESPN is the biggest douche of all here, so it's not hard to see the courts finding against them. I am just surprised actually that no criminal charges are pending.
Re: Re: Re: operating companies in various countries and living in another one altogether...
Not really. All that is needed is (a) proof of knowledge of infringing materials, (b) proof that they did nothing to mitigate the problems, and even (c) proof that they facilitated piracy with their "fast upload" feature that basically allowed people to re-upload something in seconds, even after that file had been hit with a DMCA.
Kim Dotcom realizes now the errors made, which is why his second file storage site went to extreme lengths to avoid all of these situations. No top lists, no indexed internal links, and so on.
I also believe that his external sites (owned by his other companies) were encouraging people to the site with promises of pirated material.
Knowing that your site is filled with pirated material and profiting from it is a crime - and moving the money from the illegal enterprise to other held companies to get the money away from the corrupt enterprise is money laundering. The DOJ has already shown the NZ courts enough for them to tell Kim he needs to go to the US. Now it's just the endless delay tactics of appeal, appeal, appeal...
Actually, yes he does. When everyone has a copy, there is no longer a market to sell it. When everyone can get a copy for nothing, the market price is determined and it pretty much ends there.
The only thing the artist would have left is some sort of moral high ground to try to guilt you into paying for it. Otherwise, if everyone had a copy (or could get one for nothing without any additional effort) then there is no reason to buy it - just go get it.
Re: operating companies in various countries and living in another one altogether...
Umm, one problem with your analogy: Apple and Microsoft (and Google, dare I say) have core businesses that are LEGAL, not illegal. That the source income is illegal is key to the discussion.
It's actually pretty easy. Kim set up a number of companies around the world (outside of the jurisdiction where MEga was located) in order to "sell" memberships and for money to flow to those companies as commission away from Mega itself. The idea was to make it so that Mega itself turned lots of money but was not profitable, so that if it ever got shut down, Kim could keep the ill gotten gains. He never expected or even considered that the US would go after the whole ball of wax.
Anyway, you need to read number 19:
19. Receiving and transporting any money, valuable securities or other property knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained.
Since it's easy to show that Mega as a company and Kim as an individual were aware of the pirate material on their sites (see emails, top lists, and the like) and that selling access to it was an illegal act, then the rest follows.
If Kim honestly believed Mega was entirely legal and above board, he wouldn't have gone to these lengths to try defeat the legal system by operating companies in various countries and living in another one altogether. The only reason such a system would be set up would be to create a legal buffer between the illegal acts (pirated file hosting and distribution) and the money it makes.
Hi. I would figure a Techdirt staff member would log in to post, but I guess not, right?
Two out of three posts appeared pretty quickly, someone must have been around to review held comments. The third one, well, it's more critical of Techdirt's stand on "theft" and thus is likely held until Mike can whip up a windy response.
"And let's say the US does make some viral statement, it'll add to the list they've already chalked up since this whole debacle started."
All the sound bites you want add up to nothing really. The NZ courts are ruling on extradition, not guilt. Once you get over that, you can understand that it's all just Kim's way of trying to slow down the process - because he knows if he makes it to the US, he will be found guilty because there is just too much against him and very little to excuse his behavior.
Oh, did you read the story on Torrentfreak? It read like Kim's dream press release, calling him a "serial entrepreneur" rather than a "serial criminal" (Germany, hong Kong, and now NZ and the US).
"Hillary Clinton has been somewhat hard to pin down on the encryption debate -- because she's done what she's done with plenty of issues, generally spoken in broad platitudes without ever making a statement that allows her position to actually be clear. "
She could be a writer for Techdirt, you guys are pretty good at keeping things muddy as hell!
Seriously don't worry about Hillary's position. It's pretty typical political stuff: The great good would be to make it so criminals can't hide their action so we need to break encryption, but since I don't want anyone to know what we are talking about we will use encryption for now.
It's about the here and now versus the theoretical future. Good politicians keep a foot in each.
" There has been a decades-long campaign to hammer the idea into people's heads that your rights in a creative work are no different from property, but that's by no means natural or the norm. "
See, this is where I think you lose the plot a bit.
Ownership of anything (aside from the clothes on our back) is all un-natural. The rights to own land, buildings, and things beyond what you carry on your person are all constructs of our legal system. Your right to hold the name Techdirt (and the domain) exist not as some natural law, but rather as a legal construct within our structure of society.
Copyright is something granted under our legal systems. The rights granted to consumers come out of that initial right - if you have the right to "own" your work product for a given period, then you need a legal mechanism by which you can grant others the rights to enjoy it without selling them the rights of complete ownership.
With physical product it was simple: you buy an album, you sell it to someone else, and the rights transfer with physical control. No, you don't OWN that AC/DC song, but you do own the copy in your hand.
With digital, it is easier for things to get fuzzy. It hasn't always been easy to transfer rights from one person to another. The concept however remains the same.
Now, obtaining those works without a license does not steal the original, it does mean that the work was obtained without license and thus, is illegal. In reality, it's not any different from sneaking into a movie theater or making counterfeit tickets to get into a concert. You obtain something for nothing.
It's also important to remember that copying is effectively the same as taking a CD from the store and not paying of it. The physical CD isn't what matters (blanks are pennies a piece), it's what is on it. You didn't steal a blank CD (unless you are an idiot), you stole the rights to the music. Stealing the rights to the music online really isn't any different.
Once you get over the lack of physical form, digital material really isn't any different. Copying bits isn't any different from photocopying a book (or money, for that matter).
"think it's more important than ever for our culture as a whole to start absorbing the idea that copying is its own unique thing, sometimes good and sometimes bad, but distinct and not just a form of stealing."
This is the other place you fall into a hole. Copying when permitted by the artist is good. Things like CC licenses make this possible and it happens every day. But trying to mix that in with piracy and trying to excuse piracy by saying "look at all these good uses" is intellectual tiddly winks. It's the same sort of vapid arguments that the NRA uses to justify everyone walking around with an AK47 over their shoulders.
At the end of the day, Techdirt as a whole plays a game of "since some copying is good, clearly all of it is good in some way". Leeches on wounds are good in some ways too, but not recommended for most things, we know better.
Kim has pretty much lost the legal battle. Extradition is pretty much a foregone conclusion here, and now Kim is down to trying to score some small win in the court of public opinion.
What he is hoping is that some statement made by the US during this hearing will go viral, and somehow magically make him innocent of running one of the largest repositories of pirated material at the time it was shut down.
My guess is his next stop will be 71 Symonds St in Auckland...
I have not hatred here. Karl writes some reasonable articles, but often has way too much hatred for the companies themselves. it makes it harder for him to understand their logic and the ways they want to work.
Re: I See Someone Who Doesn't Know Spectrum Policy
"Modern telcos are not stupid, but neither is the modern FCC. Nobel Econ winner Ronald Coase started to modernize the FCC's thinking to market-based in 1959, and its improved steadily since. The FCC knows that spectrum is a scarce resource, which ultimately belongs to the public."
I agree. But the typical deal is a certain amount of time to start using it, but what will happen is that "technology will move" and it will take much longer than that to roll out anything meaningful. The FCC will continue to monitor but realistically can't constrain companies to roll out services that would be overtaken by technology in a short period of time.
So what you get is the same sort of roll out that LTE had - a little bit, a little more, a little more, and finally a big push to make it nationwide when they were absolutely certain that the technology was stable, wasn't going to get wiped out by something new, and that enough consumers were "device committed" to the new format - all of course while supporting the existing 3G and 2G devices.
In the meantime, the spectrum is locked up, nobody else cna move in, so there is little chance for disruption - just slow and steady progress - that is the way big companies like it.
"Indeed, how could anyone possibly object to a government agency not just running a site hosting child porn but actually making it more efficient, to attain absolutely nothing they didn't already have?
Guess you missed this part in your haste to defend the government's actions in assisting the distribution of child porn on a wider scale:"
In the overall scheme of things, using such an EXISTING site to locate more predator types in the world isn't a bad thing. Without law enforcement action, the site would have gone on forever.
"Had they shut down the site the day they took control of the servers they would have been in the same position as they were after two weeks of running it and facilitating the spread and viewing of child porn."
Short term thinking. Have you considered that, rather than prosecuting those people, they are instead working with law enforcement around the world to look into these people to see what they may be up to? Charging people is the END RESULT of investigation, not the starting point. What they collected in a couple of weeks might take a year or more to work through, and might take even longer than that for different agencies to investigate the people involved.
I wasn't born with the internet already in place, so I guess I have every so slightly more patience than you do.
On the post: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt Seems To REALLY Upset Some People
Re: Re: Re: Re: I want to point out
"Every word you wrote above has been copied, every concept you have tried to proclaim is copied so by your own definition you are a downright thief, a pirate, a lowlife corrupt individual. "
Show me the copyright on it. Until then, you are just a really horrible, stupid, wasteful troll.
"If you cannot see the utter ridiculousness of your own arguments then there is no help for you in this life."
At least I can put an argument together. You, well... not so much.
On the post: Head Of Anti-Counterfeiting Lobbying Group Says He's Going To Make Counterfeit Techdirt T-Shirts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you think about WHY they buy it, you will understand that it's not about the content, but about the delivery method ("I always wanted a rare copy on VHS-C with the spanish subtitles"). They already have the content and no real reason to buy it again just for the content.
You know that, but you ignore it.
"Only if the artist is utterly lacking in imagination and has no communication with their fans to work out what extra they'd like to have. "
Of course - because they have to provide extra because the original product no longer has a market price... it's free. At that point, people are buying the extra, and not the content.
Thanks for proving my point. Like a blind rat, sometimes you stumble over the truth.
On the post: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt Seems To REALLY Upset Some People
Re: Re: I want to point out
"Yep, if you have nothing, just base everything on a prediction of what someone *might* do, according to your strawman construction of them. Much easier than addressing reality."
Actually I address reality and point out how Techdirt would treat anyone else in this situation. They would call it "losing their shit". You can almost here Mike ranting and getting worked up over this one.
"What does UK law have to do with this, and what is deceptive about copying something for personal use?"
I cite UK law only to show that the term theft has been used in many ways over the past - and well, the English language seems to have come from England, right?
Copying for personal use, providing you are copying something that is already yours, generally is a non-issue. If you give that copy away, then it's a problem. If you copy someone else's stuff and keep it for yourself, problem. It's basic.
"Techdirt logic requires an stupid reductio ad absurdum fallacy?"
No, it just requires idiots like you to try to avoid the point.
"yet, search Amazon and you'll find huge amounts of public domain content for sale that proves you to be a liar."
Liar? Gee Paul, I know you are an idiot, but stop trying to prove it. When you buy something that is otherwise free, generally you are paying for the DELIVERY method used, and not the content itself.
Would you care to cite some examples, or are you just talking off the top of your head again?
"Would you like to state your points again, this time based on objective reality?"
You wouldn't know objective reality from the hole in your ass. Seriously, stop making yourself look stupid. I know you desperately want to troll me, but how about dealing with the points instead of redirecting and avoiding? Mike isn't going to hire you to write here, they already have Karl doing the village idiot routine!
On the post: Security Startup MedSec Shorts St. Jude Medical Stock To Punish It For Flimsy Pacemaker Security
It certainly makes the MedSec look like scumbags profiting from the failings of others, rather than just reporting things as they find them. Making the report to the FDA without taking a stock position would be the moral thing to do.
Then again, as is often said around here, morals are not the issue.
On the post: Washington Post Charges An 'Activation' Fee To Let You Pay Them To Get Around Their Paywall
Nothing really special here.
On the post: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt Seems To REALLY Upset Some People
I want to point out
While pirating (aka copying without permission) does not deprive the artist of the original, it does take away certain rights that the artist had, namely the right to license it as they see fit (and to deny you a license if they so wish).
It's clearly impossible to deny the idea that the end result of piracy is you having something, where before you had nothing. Morally, it's not hard to draw the conclusion that you have stolen something, even if it is just a copy. At best, your copy was fraudulently obtained.
It should be noted that until 2006 or so, the UK legal system treated fraud as theft - obtaining something via deceptive practices.
Now, let's apply some standard Techdirt logic to things here. If everyone copies the original instead of purchasing it (or not being able to have it because the artist / creator has decided only to give it to a few friends), then the value of that work is diminished greatly. Instead of being an exclusive work shared by only a few, it's a widely pirated piece available to everyone. What do you think the real value if the artists grants one more copy to someone at that point? Piracy has absolutely stolen the economic value out of the product. Infinite number of copies, market price zero. Having a copyright on something because meaningless, value is lost, therefore yes, something has been stolen. Perhaps each copy steals such a minute amount that nobody seems to notice, but there is a point where enough pirated copies would reduce the value of the artists work (economics wise).
So there is theft, but the value of the theft is perhaps very small when calculated by itself.
On the post: Head Of Anti-Counterfeiting Lobbying Group Says He's Going To Make Counterfeit Techdirt T-Shirts
Re: Re:
If you want to place an order for 1000 shirts and send me a 75% deposit, I would be more than glad to have them run. Oh, and FOB here, which is a long way from there.
Let me know, oh anonymous troller :)
On the post: Court: Okay For Trial To Move Forward Against ESPN For Tweeting JPP's Medical Chart
Sympathy
ESPN is the biggest douche of all here, so it's not hard to see the courts finding against them. I am just surprised actually that no criminal charges are pending.
On the post: Head Of Anti-Counterfeiting Lobbying Group Says He's Going To Make Counterfeit Techdirt T-Shirts
On the post: New Zealand Court Grants Kim Dotcom's Request To Have Extradition Hearing Livestreamed On YouTube, Despite DOJ Protests
Re: Re: Re: operating companies in various countries and living in another one altogether...
Kim Dotcom realizes now the errors made, which is why his second file storage site went to extreme lengths to avoid all of these situations. No top lists, no indexed internal links, and so on.
I also believe that his external sites (owned by his other companies) were encouraging people to the site with promises of pirated material.
Knowing that your site is filled with pirated material and profiting from it is a crime - and moving the money from the illegal enterprise to other held companies to get the money away from the corrupt enterprise is money laundering. The DOJ has already shown the NZ courts enough for them to tell Kim he needs to go to the US. Now it's just the endless delay tactics of appeal, appeal, appeal...
On the post: Head Of Anti-Counterfeiting Lobbying Group Says He's Going To Make Counterfeit Techdirt T-Shirts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only thing the artist would have left is some sort of moral high ground to try to guilt you into paying for it. Otherwise, if everyone had a copy (or could get one for nothing without any additional effort) then there is no reason to buy it - just go get it.
On the post: New Zealand Court Grants Kim Dotcom's Request To Have Extradition Hearing Livestreamed On YouTube, Despite DOJ Protests
Re: operating companies in various countries and living in another one altogether...
On the post: New Zealand Court Grants Kim Dotcom's Request To Have Extradition Hearing Livestreamed On YouTube, Despite DOJ Protests
Re: Re:
Anyway, you need to read number 19:
19. Receiving and transporting any money, valuable securities or other property knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained.
Since it's easy to show that Mega as a company and Kim as an individual were aware of the pirate material on their sites (see emails, top lists, and the like) and that selling access to it was an illegal act, then the rest follows.
If Kim honestly believed Mega was entirely legal and above board, he wouldn't have gone to these lengths to try defeat the legal system by operating companies in various countries and living in another one altogether. The only reason such a system would be set up would be to create a legal buffer between the illegal acts (pirated file hosting and distribution) and the money it makes.
On the post: New Zealand Court Grants Kim Dotcom's Request To Have Extradition Hearing Livestreamed On YouTube, Despite DOJ Protests
Re: Re:
Two out of three posts appeared pretty quickly, someone must have been around to review held comments. The third one, well, it's more critical of Techdirt's stand on "theft" and thus is likely held until Mike can whip up a windy response.
"And let's say the US does make some viral statement, it'll add to the list they've already chalked up since this whole debacle started."
All the sound bites you want add up to nothing really. The NZ courts are ruling on extradition, not guilt. Once you get over that, you can understand that it's all just Kim's way of trying to slow down the process - because he knows if he makes it to the US, he will be found guilty because there is just too much against him and very little to excuse his behavior.
Oh, did you read the story on Torrentfreak? It read like Kim's dream press release, calling him a "serial entrepreneur" rather than a "serial criminal" (Germany, hong Kong, and now NZ and the US).
On the post: Clinton Campaign Happily Using Strong End-To-End Encryption To Communicate; Will They Let The Rest Of Us Use It Too?
She could be a writer for Techdirt, you guys are pretty good at keeping things muddy as hell!
Seriously don't worry about Hillary's position. It's pretty typical political stuff: The great good would be to make it so criminals can't hide their action so we need to break encryption, but since I don't want anyone to know what we are talking about we will use encryption for now.
It's about the here and now versus the theoretical future. Good politicians keep a foot in each.
On the post: Head Of Anti-Counterfeiting Lobbying Group Says He's Going To Make Counterfeit Techdirt T-Shirts
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, this is where I think you lose the plot a bit.
Ownership of anything (aside from the clothes on our back) is all un-natural. The rights to own land, buildings, and things beyond what you carry on your person are all constructs of our legal system. Your right to hold the name Techdirt (and the domain) exist not as some natural law, but rather as a legal construct within our structure of society.
Copyright is something granted under our legal systems. The rights granted to consumers come out of that initial right - if you have the right to "own" your work product for a given period, then you need a legal mechanism by which you can grant others the rights to enjoy it without selling them the rights of complete ownership.
With physical product it was simple: you buy an album, you sell it to someone else, and the rights transfer with physical control. No, you don't OWN that AC/DC song, but you do own the copy in your hand.
With digital, it is easier for things to get fuzzy. It hasn't always been easy to transfer rights from one person to another. The concept however remains the same.
Now, obtaining those works without a license does not steal the original, it does mean that the work was obtained without license and thus, is illegal. In reality, it's not any different from sneaking into a movie theater or making counterfeit tickets to get into a concert. You obtain something for nothing.
It's also important to remember that copying is effectively the same as taking a CD from the store and not paying of it. The physical CD isn't what matters (blanks are pennies a piece), it's what is on it. You didn't steal a blank CD (unless you are an idiot), you stole the rights to the music. Stealing the rights to the music online really isn't any different.
Once you get over the lack of physical form, digital material really isn't any different. Copying bits isn't any different from photocopying a book (or money, for that matter).
"think it's more important than ever for our culture as a whole to start absorbing the idea that copying is its own unique thing, sometimes good and sometimes bad, but distinct and not just a form of stealing."
This is the other place you fall into a hole. Copying when permitted by the artist is good. Things like CC licenses make this possible and it happens every day. But trying to mix that in with piracy and trying to excuse piracy by saying "look at all these good uses" is intellectual tiddly winks. It's the same sort of vapid arguments that the NRA uses to justify everyone walking around with an AK47 over their shoulders.
At the end of the day, Techdirt as a whole plays a game of "since some copying is good, clearly all of it is good in some way". Leeches on wounds are good in some ways too, but not recommended for most things, we know better.
On the post: New Zealand Court Grants Kim Dotcom's Request To Have Extradition Hearing Livestreamed On YouTube, Despite DOJ Protests
What he is hoping is that some statement made by the US during this hearing will go viral, and somehow magically make him innocent of running one of the largest repositories of pirated material at the time it was shut down.
My guess is his next stop will be 71 Symonds St in Auckland...
On the post: One More Time With Feeling: Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment In The Slightest
Re: Re: Fail
Thanks for trolling!
On the post: One More Time With Feeling: Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment In The Slightest
Re: I See Someone Who Doesn't Know Spectrum Policy
I agree. But the typical deal is a certain amount of time to start using it, but what will happen is that "technology will move" and it will take much longer than that to roll out anything meaningful. The FCC will continue to monitor but realistically can't constrain companies to roll out services that would be overtaken by technology in a short period of time.
So what you get is the same sort of roll out that LTE had - a little bit, a little more, a little more, and finally a big push to make it nationwide when they were absolutely certain that the technology was stable, wasn't going to get wiped out by something new, and that enough consumers were "device committed" to the new format - all of course while supporting the existing 3G and 2G devices.
In the meantime, the spectrum is locked up, nobody else cna move in, so there is little chance for disruption - just slow and steady progress - that is the way big companies like it.
On the post: FBI Apparently Made Darkweb Child Porn Site Faster During Its Hosting Of Seized Server
Re: Re:
Guess you missed this part in your haste to defend the government's actions in assisting the distribution of child porn on a wider scale:"
In the overall scheme of things, using such an EXISTING site to locate more predator types in the world isn't a bad thing. Without law enforcement action, the site would have gone on forever.
"Had they shut down the site the day they took control of the servers they would have been in the same position as they were after two weeks of running it and facilitating the spread and viewing of child porn."
Short term thinking. Have you considered that, rather than prosecuting those people, they are instead working with law enforcement around the world to look into these people to see what they may be up to? Charging people is the END RESULT of investigation, not the starting point. What they collected in a couple of weeks might take a year or more to work through, and might take even longer than that for different agencies to investigate the people involved.
I wasn't born with the internet already in place, so I guess I have every so slightly more patience than you do.
Next >>