(A small handful of folks might have bought a disc version and never gone online, but then, how would you be complaining online?) Oh, gee, I don't know. I mean, how do I bitch online about lack of download-only patches on my offline consoles and PC because it sure as hell can't be possible on the broadband-enabled smartphone I'm currently holding in my hand, can it? Epic fail, Kotaku, epic fail. *facepalms*
To me a psycho is someone who has antisocial personality disorder or conduct disorder and hurts other people, whether or not they've been found guilty of any crime.
Run Rightscorp, run Rightscorp, run, run, run Run Rightscorp, run Rightscorp, run, run, run Bang, bang, bang, bang goes Mike Masnick's gun Run Rightscorp, run Rightscorp, run, run, run, run
Run Rightscorp, run Rightscorp, run, run, run Don't give Mike Masnick his fun, fun, fun He'll get by without your IP lies So run Rightscorp, run Rightscorp, run, run, run
Actually psychos and mentally ill people are allowed to own guns and they should be so allowed. I beg to differ. While I have no issue with the idea of mentally ill people owning firearms (thus getting a pass from me), psychos shouldn't be allowed them because of the high likelihood they'll use them on other people.
So the natural question is: when will Gates admit the same is true for software too? Da fuq you talkin' about? Bill Gates sold Micro$##t years back, everyone knows that.
Well, guns don't kill children. It's idiots leaving firearms unsecured and unattended whho kill children, and psychos and mentally ill people holding firearms who kill people including children. Simples!
Antitrust? I mean yes, Google is the largest, most popular search engine in many places, granted, but that's a result of consumer choice, not because there's no such thing as Yahoo! Search, Bing, or any others. Simples!
(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), [1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. (emphasis mine) Any clearer yet?
Edmonds said AT&T may still launch a program to sell data collected by its tracking number, but that if and when it does, "customers will be able to opt out of the ad program and not have the numeric code inserted on their device." Or just make it opt-in. You'd be surprised how many people will say no to being tracked, even if their data is 'anonymised'. Oh, wait...
What I hear out of this is less and less want to sell anything that is from this decade for a game or movie. As far as I am concerned they are cutting their own throats on this feature degradation after selling. If after selling something they can just go in and degrade content, tell me what I am purchasing cause it sure doesn't appear to be owning a copy of a game. Remind me why I should pay at all? FTPFY. Oh, and while I'm at it, have a report vote on me, shill.
Actually, 17 USC § 411(a) specifically states that the original author and no one else can sue without registration. To quote the whole subsection: (a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), [1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute a civil action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights. The Register may, at his or her option, become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim by entering an appearance within sixty days after such service, but the Register’s failure to become a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine that issue.
The harassment here is absolutely deplorable, but there is a serious concern about where it leads when an intermediary suddenly takes it upon itself to determine what is and what is not acceptable speech. Actually, Twitter didn't decide what people are allowed to say, they simply upheld the harassment recipients' right to freedom of speech by blocking stuff aimed directly at them. While people have a right to say what they like, that right ends when it interferes with the rights of others, and tweeting @[name] to put something directly into someone's Twitter stream forces them to see it, thus interfering with their right to freedom of speech. Simples!
Net neutrality isn't 'Obamacare for the Internet', it's more like the Equality Act 2010 for the Internet before the ConDems got their hands on that piece of legislation.
That would be seen as infringement as there's four factors to consider before you can say "Yep, this is fair use." Better to buy the same books from somewhere where the cost of living is low and get them shipped to you. ;)
I think Karl was referring to the names I recognised, not the list I quoted. Of course, since I'm not a programmer, I can't really be expected to recognise the names of people who are underpublicised. Simples!
On the post: Canadian Newspaper Under Investigation For Violating Ban On Publishing Names Of Child Pornography Victims
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Far Cry 4 Publishers Messing With Pirates By Getting Them To Admit They Are Pirates
ORLY?
Oh, gee, I don't know. I mean, how do I bitch online about lack of download-only patches on my offline consoles and PC because it sure as hell can't be possible on the broadband-enabled smartphone I'm currently holding in my hand, can it? Epic fail, Kotaku, epic fail. *facepalms*
On the post: So, If Someone Could Just Kill A Child And Let The FBI And DOJ Get Their Anti-Phone Encryption Legislation Going, That Would Be Great
Re: Okay, please specify.
On the post: Class Action Filed Against Rightscorp For Shaking Down People With Robocalls
Re:
Run Rightscorp, run Rightscorp, run, run, run
Bang, bang, bang, bang goes Mike Masnick's gun
Run Rightscorp, run Rightscorp, run, run, run, run
Run Rightscorp, run Rightscorp, run, run, run
Don't give Mike Masnick his fun, fun, fun
He'll get by without your IP lies
So run Rightscorp, run Rightscorp, run, run, run
On the post: So, If Someone Could Just Kill A Child And Let The FBI And DOJ Get Their Anti-Phone Encryption Legislation Going, That Would Be Great
Re: Psychos and mentally ill
I beg to differ. While I have no issue with the idea of mentally ill people owning firearms (thus getting a pass from me), psychos shouldn't be allowed them because of the high likelihood they'll use them on other people.
On the post: Bill Gates Evidently Gets Open Access And Open Data: So What About Open Source?
Huh?
Da fuq you talkin' about? Bill Gates sold Micro$##t years back, everyone knows that.
On the post: Bill Aimed At Shutting Off NSA's Water Starts Moving Forward Again
Re: Re: Re: Hope it's better definied in the bill
On the post: Baltimore Prosecutors Withdraw Evidence Rather Than Talk About Police Department's Stingray Usage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
On the post: So, If Someone Could Just Kill A Child And Let The FBI And DOJ Get Their Anti-Phone Encryption Legislation Going, That Would Be Great
Re:
On the post: EU Parliament Wants To Break Up Google... Because It's Big & American Or Something
Wait, what?
On the post: Twitter Testing Secret Filter To Stop Abuse: Is That A Good Thing Or An Attack On Free Speech?
Re: Re: Freedom of speech upheld
And isn't that what I said?
On the post: Redskins Decide That Suing Offended Native Americans Should Really Help Their Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any clearer yet?
On the post: AT&T Quietly Backs Away From Its Use of Sneaky Super Cookies
Or just make it opt-in. You'd be surprised how many people will say no to being tracked, even if their data is 'anonymised'. Oh, wait...
On the post: Hooray For Licenses! Update Strips 17 Songs From Steam Users' Purchased Copies Of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Re: Re:
FTPFY. Oh, and while I'm at it, have a report vote on me, shill.
On the post: Redskins Decide That Suing Offended Native Americans Should Really Help Their Case
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), [1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute a civil action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights. The Register may, at his or her option, become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim by entering an appearance within sixty days after such service, but the Register’s failure to become a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine that issue.
On the post: Twitter Testing Secret Filter To Stop Abuse: Is That A Good Thing Or An Attack On Free Speech?
Freedom of speech upheld
Actually, Twitter didn't decide what people are allowed to say, they simply upheld the harassment recipients' right to freedom of speech by blocking stuff aimed directly at them. While people have a right to say what they like, that right ends when it interferes with the rights of others, and tweeting @[name] to put something directly into someone's Twitter stream forces them to see it, thus interfering with their right to freedom of speech. Simples!
On the post: DailyDirt: How Many Passwords Do You Know?
Better security
MTMSFY!
On the post: Anti Net Neutrality Crowd Reaches Deep For The Craziest Possible Response To President Obama's Call For Real Net Neutrality Rules
On the post: District Superintendent Claims 14-Year-Old Student Bullied Her By Using Her Photo In A Criminal Justice Class Project
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Computer Scientists, Legal Experts Explain To Supreme Court Why APIs Are Not Copyrightable
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>