Is it legal to intercept and sell emails? if not, then wouldn't it be illegal to purchase said emails? The way the ex-employee got a hold of the emails sounded really fishy to me, as in, it sounded illegal. Isn't it illegal to purchase knowingly stolen items? Due to the very fact that the emails were obviously not addressed to them, wouldn't it be obvious to the MPAA that the emails were stolen and therefore would either A) need to go about verifying they're legit before acquiring them or B) turn them down due to knowing that they were obtained illegally.
i'm not a lawyer, so i'm probably missing something... either that, or i've lost that much more faith in the justice system.
I doubt it could be. The metric itself would be inherently different on various pages. The metric here is longer lasting implies a trustworthy source. On other sites, this metric may be worthless or the exact opposite (sites that constantly update or change, etc.) This metric is tailored to a wiki, so maybe other wiki-sites, but not other sites in general.
so, one comment contains a link that STATES its a hypothetical. the second (corrected) comment says DRM causes all the other problems, so its probably DRM. the third one mentions DRM in the comment, but I'm not actually sure they're saying its DRM (though i think they are).
all these sources are questionable at best. plus they either stated they have no proof or gave none whatsoever (in the second case, assumed evidence wasn't even required).
Nowhere has there been a reliable source saying its caused by DRM. Posters on Slashdot (even though we're so cool) are not always right (except for me......obviously =P).
It's *possible* its being caused by DRM and that this is a smoke screen. But right now, that theory would have to be considered a conspiracy at this moment due to the lack of any real hard proof.
we have no clue of the circumstances involved here. they may have written themselves into a corner and as we all know, vista's launch was getting pushed back all the time. sometimes you're forced to write a bad hack. it doesn't make you a bad programmer. it just means you didn't have the time that was required because you let marketers & business people announce launch dates before they really should be announcing them.
and before you say a bad programmer wouldn't write themselves into a corner, write an entire OS first. with something so complex, its possible that something like that could occur.
Again, I'm not condoning the practice, I'm just saying the outrage from everybody about it is overblown. if this weren't an MS product, I bet it'd be a lot less overblown than this.
Wouldn't it be better to just let the music skip, as that's most likely the more unimportant and can easily be shut off? Heck, if not listening to music makes the difference between going home on 5 and working for two hours longer I'd happily choose silence. That's also an assumption as well. Personally, I rarely have any heavy network usage, though it will spike. If I used Vista, I would rather the network be throttled than the music skip. I'm assuming a majority of computer users are not hardcore users and therefore they were the ones catered too. However, you're second point about not knowing its the media player causing the throttling is a valid point. It would have been better to make this throttling mechanism an option as opposed to forcing it on people. Though, if I were to force the option, I'd choose the same as they did. It's much more likely they'll appease more people than piss off. Hell, most of the people that would be pissed off probably aren't using Vista anyway =P
I didn't see anything there that said the network slowed down due to DRM (unless you accidentally linked to incorrect posts, i just read whatever was at the top). I didn't read that guy's entire article, especially since he said it was hypothetical... so, if that does mention DRM, its not proof.
There's no proof in those comments about DRM & calling home being the cause.
Yes, I agree. They should have fixed the problem instead of masking the symptoms.
It's incorrect. Did no one even bother to calculate the drop-off? Was there not one single engineer amongst them who ever said "Hey, you know, Gigabit is pretty popular these days."?
I don't know what you mean by calling it "incorrect." And honestly, just because you have a Gigabit card doesn't mean thats actually the speed all that information is going at.
It should be unnecessary. Why does standard media playback and networking require so much power that there is not enough time to schedule both of them correctly?
It's only the networking that requires the power. When the network traffic is heavy, it causes the sound to hang due to sound being one of the few things that can't "go slow." A lot of programs will probably just run slower, whereas sound will start skipping and be more annoying than just waiting for a program to finish its various operations.
It is wrong. Why is media playback is more important than network performance? If the network is heavily loaded, well gee, maybe there's a reason for that?
They probably viewed it as this: If you're using that heavy of networking traffic, you probably are doing something very important. Most important stuff on that level would probably be in the workplace, not home use. Therefore they probably viewed media as not being a big factor here, because they figured no one would be playing media. Therefore, they were then thinking about the home networks that maybe had various spikes in network traffic from network drives on gigabit switches or something, in which case they decided in slowing down that transfer was a better solution because in this case A) the network traffic probably isn't *that* important and B) there's a greater chance there's music playing a C) music skipping is *really* annoying.
I haven't been really on the lookout for it, but I haven't seen any posts explaining that as the cause. I'd expect if that really were the cause, there'd be a much bigger outrage from people and it would have blown up and I'd see articles on it whether I wanted to or not. I don't really see any useful DRM techniques for unprotected MP3s anyway. There'd really be nothing that MS could do with that sort of information.
However, this actually does make sense. In all honesty, they probably would have worked on a better answer than cutting back on networking, but with the time crunch on releasing it, they probably cut corners here and there (and by probably, i mean definitely and by here and there, i mean everywhere). They probably viewed this as an acceptable cut for the time being because for a majority of users, they use very little of their networking bandwidth. If its just a PC connected to the internet, they'd most likely never notice. The only time this would be an issue is for heavy network usage, which would normally only occur on work-related machines because let's face it, aside from geeks and techies, not many people have systems set up that max out their network bandwidth, so, if they were work-related machines, well, they probably wouldn't be playing that much music to begin with.
I'm not a MS shill, though I don't assume everything they do has evil intentions. We have to admit that they are great code writers, just not the best. Just because they do shady things here and there (mostly in business practices however) doesn't mean everything they do is evil. This was a problem they ran into and they made a workaround that would only affect a relatively small amount of their users. They were probably hoping no one would notice it at all until they either A) had a fix or B) just let it go because maybe no one would notice it.
Remember, this wouldn't really slow down your internet unless you have an *extremely* high bandwidth and even then, bottlenecks on the information before reaching you would probably still mask the problem. This is only an issue on system that have heavy network usage on some sort of intranet or other type of local area network, because these would account for the majority of networks that could even use a decent amount of your possible networking bandwidth.
sorry. i was going from what was said in the summary. it said something along the lines of "Sony was up to its old tricks again." I assumed that meant Sony had something to do with this. I guess I shouldn't take the summary at face value. Upon reading the article, yes, it appears Sony doesn't have anything to do with it. So, I really don't know why Sony was the first thing mentioned in the summary.
This sucks. Sony BMG was a different branch of Sony so I was able to look upon other branches and hope maybe they knew better, however, that appears to not be the case. Don't they realize Sony BMG got sued because of this? I'm guessing some guys told them they fixed the holes with the other rootkit and that this one was ok and Sony went for it. I'm of the opinion that the people making these decisions don't understand the technology because I can't see someone who understands what's going on allowing this to happen.
It's a matter of severity. Committing an act once is less of an offense than repeatedly committing it. Its a common theory, not just my own. Most of society would agree. Hence committing several murders carries more of a sentence than one murder. In fact, committing any crime more than once carries more than a sentence then if you had just committed it once. A majority of people would agree that one person who cheated on one test in their entire school career isn't on the same level as someone who cheats on every test throughout their school career. Very few people are that intolerant and look at stuff in such a black & white manner. Yea, you can make an argument that you cheat once, you're just as bad as someone who cheats all the time, but very few people adhere to that philosophy. Thats why we release criminals. Its a second chance sort of thing. If we assumed once a criminal, always a criminal, our system would be much different.
so its not a personal assertion. Its a commonly accepted theory. I think it had plenty of substance. It said what it wanted to say. That one isolated individual act is not the same as a highly frequent recurring habit. You smoke once, you're not a smoker. Hell, you take cocaine only once, you're not a crack addict. How much substance do you want me to include from every day life??
Pointing out one event doesn't carry the same weight as an administration that apparently does it at every speech and who wrote a manual on the subject...
Thats maybe one of the saving graces of Blu-Ray. You can invest in a PS3 and even if Blu-Ray loses, its not a total loss (well, i guess that depends on your opinion of the PS3 though). The only reason I am backing blu-ray is because I have a blu-ray player (ps3). I didn't buy it for the Blu-ray, but now that I have one, I might as well.
Speaking of CDs, there are next-gen CDs out there. DVD-A and SACD. Competing formats, though DVD-A seems to have the advantage as you only have to have a DVD player to use them (or a DVD-A player, but they're somewhat rare). SACD players are expensive and there isn't a huge library available.
Am I the only one that thinks they hired the same people that did the packaging for the iPod? And beyond that, should a computer chip ever have to carry some strange slogan such as at "Black Edition"? Hopefully people wouldn't be looking at two different chips and then go, "Well, this is called 'Black Edition' so, its probably better." Maybe the average computer user would fall for that, but when it comes down to it, the average computer user rarely buys their own chip.
I find it very interesting that there are ratings for things such as video games and movies. Video games right now are the most difficult to get anything taboo or controversial at all. Movies have gotten to a point where they can be pretty graphic. These are the two main things that come to mind when you think of ratings, however, there are two other things that are far worse, restricted much less, and apparently don't carry ratings. Beyond that, BOTH are usually encouraged as well. First, the news. The news is terrible with the stuff on there, what makes it worse is that its real. Beyond that, they'll sensationalize stories to get higher ratings. They'll get the most shocking stories and try to make them even more shocking. Second, are books. Books, by far, have the MOST violent content. There are books that depict scenes that very few would even dream of trying to bring to the screen, and even fewer actors/actresses who would be willing to help. I'm not even talking about books that are written to be shocking. I'm reading a particular fantasy series, where apparently the guy has a tendency to go into a bit of detail about all the rape scenes (and in one case, where the woman gets the upper-hand, goes into detail with what she does to the guy who raped her).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying lets rate books too. I'm saying we should do away with the system entirely. Parents find out whats in the books the same way they should be finding out in other media. They either read it themselves, research it, or ask their children. The MPAA and the ESRB are both organizations who have been for whatever reason entrusted with picking up the slack with parents. Parents shouldn't make excuses like they're too busy to do all that research or to read/play/watch the item in question themselves. Their first priority should be parenting and therefore they should prioritize properly. If they wanna help parents out, they should pick up half of what the TV shows are doing. Drop the rating system they have, but keep in place the whole "Contains nudity, violence, etc." type things. Have a system in place that says if you show nudity for x seconds, the "Nudity" label will be applied. They can have 3 levels of violence, "Violent" for no-blood, low-key violence (fights, FPS without blood), "Graphic Violence" for blood and obvious lethal violence, and "Gruesome Violence" for when limbs are being ripped off, etc. Yea, there'll be gray areas, but at this point, you'd have better luck convincing society to adopt this system as opposed to convincing them to dropping it entirely.
These boards shouldn't be allowed to decide who can play or watch what. They should only be able to give a summary of the type of controversial material they may find in the game (language, violence, sexual content, etc.). It should solely be in the parents hand to police what the kids do. If these boards want to give any aid at all, this should be as far as they go.
Personally, I think there should be no ratings or anything. It's easier to see what video games a kid is playing than to see what they're reading and we have no problem with books (though, that may be because fewer people are reading these days).
Well, the Adults Only rating can effectively ban games based off many vendors/console makers not giving their support to games with those ratings. Thats why Rockstar is pretty upset about getting that rating. The ratings may not carry any legal weight, but within the industry, they can kill a game.
I'm pretty sure if the ratings didn't have such an impact, there wouldn't be that much of a plea from the likes of Rockstar. Its more than just stores saying they won't sell it.
Getting an immediate response isn't always the best. When people make a phone call, usually they expect some sort of answer and sometimes a problem requires thought to figure out. In my opinion, I'd rather be informed of a problem and then be given time to think it over. Phone calls are disruptive because it often times takes a lot longer for them to say something then it does for you to read an email that they've typed. Maybe it may take longer for them to type than speak, but in the end, at least i have a copy of the problem and can refer to it in the future as opposed to having to call them back. It allows me to focus on the problem and give it more attention as opposed to someone complaining in my ear and waiting for a quick answer.
Maybe YouTube is trying to prove that its not causing harm to other businesses. Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert can talk about how they've spoken highly of YouTube and yet they haven't seen any drop in ratings that can be attributed to YouTube. I mean, if they can prove they're not causing damages, Viacom may have a difficult time pursuing $1 billion dollars in damages.
Hopefully though, they'll still try to use safe harbor laws in their defense. I think they have a much stronger case there.
I can't wait for the business training game, Salesman: Blood Money, where you play as Mr. 47, a genetically engineered salesman, created from the DNA of the five more dangerous salesmen.
I haven't read the article yet, but maybe they're referring to the dangerous strain, in which case, they'd be correct in stating "nefarious E.Coli." Either way, I applaud any use of the word "nefarious." It sounds really cool.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it legal to intercept and sell emails? if not, then wouldn't it be illegal to purchase said emails? The way the ex-employee got a hold of the emails sounded really fishy to me, as in, it sounded illegal. Isn't it illegal to purchase knowingly stolen items? Due to the very fact that the emails were obviously not addressed to them, wouldn't it be obvious to the MPAA that the emails were stolen and therefore would either A) need to go about verifying they're legit before acquiring them or B) turn them down due to knowing that they were obtained illegally.
i'm not a lawyer, so i'm probably missing something... either that, or i've lost that much more faith in the justice system.
I doubt it could be. The metric itself would be inherently different on various pages. The metric here is longer lasting implies a trustworthy source. On other sites, this metric may be worthless or the exact opposite (sites that constantly update or change, etc.) This metric is tailored to a wiki, so maybe other wiki-sites, but not other sites in general.
They should just call it wiki-karma.
so, one comment contains a link that STATES its a hypothetical. the second (corrected) comment says DRM causes all the other problems, so its probably DRM. the third one mentions DRM in the comment, but I'm not actually sure they're saying its DRM (though i think they are).
...obviously =P).
all these sources are questionable at best. plus they either stated they have no proof or gave none whatsoever (in the second case, assumed evidence wasn't even required).
Nowhere has there been a reliable source saying its caused by DRM. Posters on Slashdot (even though we're so cool) are not always right (except for me...
It's *possible* its being caused by DRM and that this is a smoke screen. But right now, that theory would have to be considered a conspiracy at this moment due to the lack of any real hard proof.
we have no clue of the circumstances involved here. they may have written themselves into a corner and as we all know, vista's launch was getting pushed back all the time. sometimes you're forced to write a bad hack. it doesn't make you a bad programmer. it just means you didn't have the time that was required because you let marketers & business people announce launch dates before they really should be announcing them.
and before you say a bad programmer wouldn't write themselves into a corner, write an entire OS first. with something so complex, its possible that something like that could occur.
Again, I'm not condoning the practice, I'm just saying the outrage from everybody about it is overblown. if this weren't an MS product, I bet it'd be a lot less overblown than this.
That's also an assumption as well. Personally, I rarely have any heavy network usage, though it will spike. If I used Vista, I would rather the network be throttled than the music skip. I'm assuming a majority of computer users are not hardcore users and therefore they were the ones catered too. However, you're second point about not knowing its the media player causing the throttling is a valid point. It would have been better to make this throttling mechanism an option as opposed to forcing it on people. Though, if I were to force the option, I'd choose the same as they did. It's much more likely they'll appease more people than piss off. Hell, most of the people that would be pissed off probably aren't using Vista anyway =P
I didn't see anything there that said the network slowed down due to DRM (unless you accidentally linked to incorrect posts, i just read whatever was at the top). I didn't read that guy's entire article, especially since he said it was hypothetical... so, if that does mention DRM, its not proof.
There's no proof in those comments about DRM & calling home being the cause.
- It's a poor solution to begin with.
Yes, I agree. They should have fixed the problem instead of masking the symptoms.It's incorrect. Did no one even bother to calculate the drop-off? Was there not one single engineer amongst them who ever said "Hey, you know, Gigabit is pretty popular these days."?
I don't know what you mean by calling it "incorrect." And honestly, just because you have a Gigabit card doesn't mean thats actually the speed all that information is going at.It should be unnecessary. Why does standard media playback and networking require so much power that there is not enough time to schedule both of them correctly?
It's only the networking that requires the power. When the network traffic is heavy, it causes the sound to hang due to sound being one of the few things that can't "go slow." A lot of programs will probably just run slower, whereas sound will start skipping and be more annoying than just waiting for a program to finish its various operations.It is wrong. Why is media playback is more important than network performance? If the network is heavily loaded, well gee, maybe there's a reason for that?
They probably viewed it as this: If you're using that heavy of networking traffic, you probably are doing something very important. Most important stuff on that level would probably be in the workplace, not home use. Therefore they probably viewed media as not being a big factor here, because they figured no one would be playing media. Therefore, they were then thinking about the home networks that maybe had various spikes in network traffic from network drives on gigabit switches or something, in which case they decided in slowing down that transfer was a better solution because in this case A) the network traffic probably isn't *that* important and B) there's a greater chance there's music playing a C) music skipping is *really* annoying.I haven't been really on the lookout for it, but I haven't seen any posts explaining that as the cause. I'd expect if that really were the cause, there'd be a much bigger outrage from people and it would have blown up and I'd see articles on it whether I wanted to or not. I don't really see any useful DRM techniques for unprotected MP3s anyway. There'd really be nothing that MS could do with that sort of information.
However, this actually does make sense. In all honesty, they probably would have worked on a better answer than cutting back on networking, but with the time crunch on releasing it, they probably cut corners here and there (and by probably, i mean definitely and by here and there, i mean everywhere). They probably viewed this as an acceptable cut for the time being because for a majority of users, they use very little of their networking bandwidth. If its just a PC connected to the internet, they'd most likely never notice. The only time this would be an issue is for heavy network usage, which would normally only occur on work-related machines because let's face it, aside from geeks and techies, not many people have systems set up that max out their network bandwidth, so, if they were work-related machines, well, they probably wouldn't be playing that much music to begin with.
I'm not a MS shill, though I don't assume everything they do has evil intentions. We have to admit that they are great code writers, just not the best. Just because they do shady things here and there (mostly in business practices however) doesn't mean everything they do is evil. This was a problem they ran into and they made a workaround that would only affect a relatively small amount of their users. They were probably hoping no one would notice it at all until they either A) had a fix or B) just let it go because maybe no one would notice it.
Remember, this wouldn't really slow down your internet unless you have an *extremely* high bandwidth and even then, bottlenecks on the information before reaching you would probably still mask the problem. This is only an issue on system that have heavy network usage on some sort of intranet or other type of local area network, because these would account for the majority of networks that could even use a decent amount of your possible networking bandwidth.
Yea, but if that bus has Luke's Lightsaber on it, think of how many people would wanna ride it. It'd increase revenue...
That's no moon... that's a space station!
sorry. i was going from what was said in the summary. it said something along the lines of "Sony was up to its old tricks again." I assumed that meant Sony had something to do with this. I guess I shouldn't take the summary at face value. Upon reading the article, yes, it appears Sony doesn't have anything to do with it. So, I really don't know why Sony was the first thing mentioned in the summary.
This sucks. Sony BMG was a different branch of Sony so I was able to look upon other branches and hope maybe they knew better, however, that appears to not be the case. Don't they realize Sony BMG got sued because of this? I'm guessing some guys told them they fixed the holes with the other rootkit and that this one was ok and Sony went for it. I'm of the opinion that the people making these decisions don't understand the technology because I can't see someone who understands what's going on allowing this to happen.
It's a matter of severity. Committing an act once is less of an offense than repeatedly committing it. Its a common theory, not just my own. Most of society would agree. Hence committing several murders carries more of a sentence than one murder. In fact, committing any crime more than once carries more than a sentence then if you had just committed it once. A majority of people would agree that one person who cheated on one test in their entire school career isn't on the same level as someone who cheats on every test throughout their school career. Very few people are that intolerant and look at stuff in such a black & white manner. Yea, you can make an argument that you cheat once, you're just as bad as someone who cheats all the time, but very few people adhere to that philosophy. Thats why we release criminals. Its a second chance sort of thing. If we assumed once a criminal, always a criminal, our system would be much different.
so its not a personal assertion. Its a commonly accepted theory. I think it had plenty of substance. It said what it wanted to say. That one isolated individual act is not the same as a highly frequent recurring habit. You smoke once, you're not a smoker. Hell, you take cocaine only once, you're not a crack addict. How much substance do you want me to include from every day life??
Pointing out one event doesn't carry the same weight as an administration that apparently does it at every speech and who wrote a manual on the subject...
yes. yes i am talking about that book.
Thats maybe one of the saving graces of Blu-Ray. You can invest in a PS3 and even if Blu-Ray loses, its not a total loss (well, i guess that depends on your opinion of the PS3 though). The only reason I am backing blu-ray is because I have a blu-ray player (ps3). I didn't buy it for the Blu-ray, but now that I have one, I might as well.
Speaking of CDs, there are next-gen CDs out there. DVD-A and SACD. Competing formats, though DVD-A seems to have the advantage as you only have to have a DVD player to use them (or a DVD-A player, but they're somewhat rare). SACD players are expensive and there isn't a huge library available.
you're an idiot if you think i meant that Apple had something to do with it.
Am I the only one that thinks they hired the same people that did the packaging for the iPod? And beyond that, should a computer chip ever have to carry some strange slogan such as at "Black Edition"? Hopefully people wouldn't be looking at two different chips and then go, "Well, this is called 'Black Edition' so, its probably better." Maybe the average computer user would fall for that, but when it comes down to it, the average computer user rarely buys their own chip.
When's the U2 edition come out?
I find it very interesting that there are ratings for things such as video games and movies. Video games right now are the most difficult to get anything taboo or controversial at all. Movies have gotten to a point where they can be pretty graphic. These are the two main things that come to mind when you think of ratings, however, there are two other things that are far worse, restricted much less, and apparently don't carry ratings. Beyond that, BOTH are usually encouraged as well. First, the news. The news is terrible with the stuff on there, what makes it worse is that its real. Beyond that, they'll sensationalize stories to get higher ratings. They'll get the most shocking stories and try to make them even more shocking. Second, are books. Books, by far, have the MOST violent content. There are books that depict scenes that very few would even dream of trying to bring to the screen, and even fewer actors/actresses who would be willing to help. I'm not even talking about books that are written to be shocking. I'm reading a particular fantasy series, where apparently the guy has a tendency to go into a bit of detail about all the rape scenes (and in one case, where the woman gets the upper-hand, goes into detail with what she does to the guy who raped her).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying lets rate books too. I'm saying we should do away with the system entirely. Parents find out whats in the books the same way they should be finding out in other media. They either read it themselves, research it, or ask their children. The MPAA and the ESRB are both organizations who have been for whatever reason entrusted with picking up the slack with parents. Parents shouldn't make excuses like they're too busy to do all that research or to read/play/watch the item in question themselves. Their first priority should be parenting and therefore they should prioritize properly. If they wanna help parents out, they should pick up half of what the TV shows are doing. Drop the rating system they have, but keep in place the whole "Contains nudity, violence, etc." type things. Have a system in place that says if you show nudity for x seconds, the "Nudity" label will be applied. They can have 3 levels of violence, "Violent" for no-blood, low-key violence (fights, FPS without blood), "Graphic Violence" for blood and obvious lethal violence, and "Gruesome Violence" for when limbs are being ripped off, etc. Yea, there'll be gray areas, but at this point, you'd have better luck convincing society to adopt this system as opposed to convincing them to dropping it entirely.
These boards shouldn't be allowed to decide who can play or watch what. They should only be able to give a summary of the type of controversial material they may find in the game (language, violence, sexual content, etc.). It should solely be in the parents hand to police what the kids do. If these boards want to give any aid at all, this should be as far as they go.
Personally, I think there should be no ratings or anything. It's easier to see what video games a kid is playing than to see what they're reading and we have no problem with books (though, that may be because fewer people are reading these days).
Well, the Adults Only rating can effectively ban games based off many vendors/console makers not giving their support to games with those ratings. Thats why Rockstar is pretty upset about getting that rating. The ratings may not carry any legal weight, but within the industry, they can kill a game.
I'm pretty sure if the ratings didn't have such an impact, there wouldn't be that much of a plea from the likes of Rockstar. Its more than just stores saying they won't sell it.
Getting an immediate response isn't always the best. When people make a phone call, usually they expect some sort of answer and sometimes a problem requires thought to figure out. In my opinion, I'd rather be informed of a problem and then be given time to think it over. Phone calls are disruptive because it often times takes a lot longer for them to say something then it does for you to read an email that they've typed. Maybe it may take longer for them to type than speak, but in the end, at least i have a copy of the problem and can refer to it in the future as opposed to having to call them back. It allows me to focus on the problem and give it more attention as opposed to someone complaining in my ear and waiting for a quick answer.
quicker isn't always better.
Maybe YouTube is trying to prove that its not causing harm to other businesses. Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert can talk about how they've spoken highly of YouTube and yet they haven't seen any drop in ratings that can be attributed to YouTube. I mean, if they can prove they're not causing damages, Viacom may have a difficult time pursuing $1 billion dollars in damages.
Hopefully though, they'll still try to use safe harbor laws in their defense. I think they have a much stronger case there.
I can't wait for the business training game, Salesman: Blood Money, where you play as Mr. 47, a genetically engineered salesman, created from the DNA of the five more dangerous salesmen.
I haven't read the article yet, but maybe they're referring to the dangerous strain, in which case, they'd be correct in stating "nefarious E.Coli." Either way, I applaud any use of the word "nefarious." It sounds really cool.