Try not breaking the law. You have already posted in a public forum that you plan on doing copyright violation. How smart was that? You also said what you were doing and where you were going. Why do I get the feeling that you really aren't that concerned about privacy, or you're doing something illegal that is going to draw attention anyway?
Try not being a douchenozzle. He never said anything about doing anything illegal, the summary said he intended to "rip a few movies and albums to the drive". This is not an illegal activity. Format shifting clearly falls into the fair use category. Yet you attack the OP and question his intelligence, in your words "how smart was that?".
Speaking of which, why can' they use diamond coatings for razor blades to keep them forever sharp?
If you sell a razor blade that never gets dull, your market is gone quickly. OTOH, if you sell blade cartridges for $10 that have 4 blades that get dull almost immediately you will make billions. Which choice do you think the razor companies prefer?
And when you buy a PC it comes with Windows so you don't need to by install Linux, Firefox.... I do tend to agree with you but I would love to build my own car nav system and see if I could do better than what the car companies are doing.
Currently, I use GPSDrive in conjunction with Mapnik and OpenStreetMap.org on my carputer. It's more of a "you are here" system than a navigation system, but with the OSM data navigation abilities are supposedly in the works. With OSM maps it really looks nice, although I haven't used the new version with upgraded OSM and LandSat capabilities so it may be even better now.
You skipped the part about her Executive level experience as a Mayor and a Governor, which is a lot more than Obama has. Keep trying, though it won't help in Nov. There are just enough questions about Obama to cost him the election and he didn't help himself with that farce last night. He could have used that speech to lay out specific plans for what he wants to do and all we got was more vague philosophical platitudes. Not good at all.
Are you really touting her experience as mayor in a town of 8000 people as "Executive level experience" (with a capital E!)? I am from a town of similar size and I knew the mayors - these are not people qualified to be the Vice President and there is no aspect of their job that is making them more qualified. Mayor of a small town is not a full time position and would barely even qualify as part time - that experience compares to the Illinois and United States Senates?
As for being Governor of Alaska, she has spent less than 2 years as Governor of a state that has a smaller population than many US cities. It is executive level but it is a far cry from running most states.
yea, that's why my kitchen and bathroom faucets stop working if i use more than 250 gallons of water a month...
I don't know how it works where you live, but in my city I pay more if I use more water. In fact, I pay much more per gallon the more I use. If you want Comcast to adopt water billing, it will be $50 for the first 250 GB, then $75 for the next 150, then $125 for the next 100.
See the graph titled Us Energy Consumption 1949-2003. The graph shows that our consumption is relatively flat from 1973 on, especially when compared to the projections or price of oil.
We were not talking about total energy, we were talking about oil.
THIS table shows that our use of fossil fuels has actually decreased from 2004 to 2006.
Again, we were not talking about total energy consumption or fossil fuel consumption, your original statement ("US demand has been flat") was in reference to oil, not generic energy. I posted a graph of US oil consumption to refute that statement. Stats showing total energy use do not contradict my assertion that the US petroleum demand has not been flat.
Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.
[citation needed]
Google "Peak Oil" for all the citations you need. Compare those stories to THIS one:
I am advised by real experts that BP, BG, BHP and others, are making massive investment decisions in the oil and gas sector of this country that have as much as a 25-year horizon. They are the real experts who put their money where their mouths are, and they know that we will not be running out of gas (or oil) in the near future.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., November 14, 2006 â" In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theoryâ(TM)s proponents -- and that the âoepeak oilâ argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.
I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman. Where are these predictions?
We too had an awesome winter...bet you didn't see that coming... Our local resort had the 6th best season in 70 years
Wow, 6th best in the last 70 years? Incredible!!!!!!!!!!! After all, a year that is in the top ten of the last 70 only happens 1 in every 7 years! Global warming is a hoax!
It is still probably a good idea to cut carbon output
As a matter of fact, it isn't. Ask anyone who runs a greenhouse.
Be sure to ask those greenhouse operators if it is warmer in the greenhouse than outside.
You whippersnappers are probably too young to remember, but back in the 70s one of the Environmentalist Crises Du Jour(tm) was desertification. And, indeed, it actually was a pretty serious problem. But since then, desertification has reversed itself
Did it "reverse itself" or did we recognize the dangers and curtail the human activity that was leading to desertification? My car's brakes were constantly putting off smoke, when I quit driving with my foot always on the brake they stopped smoking. Obviously, the brake smoking problem reversed itself.
(US demand has been flat, btw. It's the increased demand for growing economies around the world when not met with an increase in supply that is causing the increase in prices).
Flat in comparison to what? Here is a graph of US oil consumption for the last 25 years, sure doesn't look flat to me. It looks like we have increased our consumption nearly every year.
Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.
I agree completely - the mirror test is practically useless.
Here's the test I did which I think is much more conclusive. Feel free to poke holes it it (It is slashdot afterall)
1) First introduce your dog to the mirror and get him to look at himself
2) Stand directly behind the dog, ensuring he cannot see you (dogs typically have +/-120 view so you have to be directly behind them)
3) Now silently wave at the dog so he directs his attention at your 'reflection' and not you directly
4) Silently give him the 'come here' hand signal (he must know this). My dogs *without any hesitation* turn around and come directly to me. If the dog thought that what he saw in the mirror was in any way real, then presumably he would have started towards the mirror instead of directly towards me. This shows he gets the concept of a mirror.
The dog sees an image of you give the "come here" hand signal and so he finds you using his best sense - his nose. He knows your location because he can smell you, and he is conditioned to go to your location when he sees the hand signal. I don't think the dog understands the concept of the mirror, he just knows the mirror doesn't smell like you.
Much in the same way anyone wishing to protest in the "designated protest areas" must file a petition to protest from the very state they'd protest against.
Yeah, something like a "designated protest area" could never happen in the US --since we have the right to freedom of speech we call it a Free Speech Zone. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different.
Over time the lessened demand for oil used by cars will cause the cost of the trucker's oil to go up
So, as the supply of petroleum available for diesel increases because cars are no longer using gasoline, the price also increases? That's not the way it works, it goes against the MOST basic economic principle, the law of supply and demand. As the demand decreases and the supply increases the price for diesel will go down, not up.
This will have the side effect of controlling inflation on food and manufactured goods -- as we are seeing right now, if the price of diesel increases we feel it quickly in the prices of things that are primarily carried by truck. If we convert just our private and fleet autos to electric we can easily supply the remaining demand (trucks, trains, jet fuel, heating oil, oil power plants, etc.) with our domestic production and not incur the huge trade imbalance that we are currently experiencing.
Every example you gave (fireworks, cigarettes and alcohol) are not relevant to the issue (manufacturers having control of sales of their items after the first sale). Those items have prohibitions on their resale by the STATE, not their manufacturers. The credit card argument is also a red herring as you have entered a contract - you signed a cardholder agreement with the CC company. Whether or not they require a signature for a purchase is a contractual issue between the CC company and the merchant. The US has a long history of the doctrine of first sale codified in both legislative and case law. A nice quote from a Supreme Court decision is on the referenced page:
In that case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy's department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill's consent. We held that the exclusive statutory right to "vend" applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work...
So even though they inserted a notice into a book (or on the wrapper of their peanut butter cups) the court found that the notice was not a binding contract and Macy's was free to sell the books however they liked. Once an item has been sold to you, it belongs to you and you may do with it as you wish.
Now, on the surface, your argument seems to have merit. However, let me drop one example on you. Take (or rather, purchase) an 8 pack of Reeses Peanut Butter Cups. You know, the pack of individually wrapped candies? Each one states quite clearly on the packaging that they are not for individual sale. You will find that this practice of designating the individual portions of a multi-pack as "Not For Individual Sale" is quite common.
So we find that if you want to resell your candy legally, you can't. Sure, you will argue that there is a huge difference between a car and a peanut butter cup. But if you did, you would be missing the point. If you purchase something that comes with an attached contractual agreement NOT to resell it, or purchase something with an attached contractual agreement not to resell it outside of the producing company's authorized distributors, then indeed the producer has full legal control over resale rights.
You may have a point but you picked a terrible example. If you go into a retail establishment and buy your peanut butter cups, you are free to do whatever you want with them, no matter what it says on the package. If you run a lemonade stand and want to offer those cups as well, you are free to do so, you entered into no contract with either Reeses or the retailer. Reeses would have absolutely no recourse under US law to stop the sale.
I don't really have experience with high-end perfumes or handbags, but I would assume that you are not required to sign a contract, therefore you did not give up your right to sell the item under US law. I don't know about French law but it seems anti-competitive and the EU may have something to say about it.
I'm glad that your kids are doing well, but wouldn't it have been better to have 2 kids that are just as smart and just as loving -- but didn't need to have disfiguring, dangerous and expensive cranial surgery? This article was not about testing and aborting, it is about selecting embryos that didn't happen to get the bad genes when the egg was fertilized. They are randomly selecting the embryos now, what is the difference if they happen to look at markers for common genetic diseases before they choose? If my wife and I had 2 embryos to choose from and in one of them the 21st chromosome didn't split right and gave the embryo three chromosomes, you bet your ass I would be choosing the other one. This isn't about manipulating genes, it is about choosing which embryo to implant. A choice is already being made, I would rather make an informed choice than have no information and be forced to choose at random.
And, still, no-one has managed to come up with why using a shared component as a shared component is a bad thing in the first place. I got bitten recently by this "shared component". A client of mine was attempting to convert a disk in his server to a RAID 1 configuration. Windows informed him he needed to upgrade the disk to a "dynamic disk" in order to make the change. He clicked OK and rebooted, once Windows came back to the login screen he was unable to log in. He called me in, I fixed that issue and was able to log in. I attempted to open the logical disk manager to see what state the disks were in and discovered I was not able to use it because of a problem with Internet Explorer. It seems that the MS MMC is dependent on IE, so I was unable to perform OS level tasks (like managing disks, starting and stopping services, etc.) without having an internet browser - something that shouldn't be on a server anyway.
It's totally stupid to have tools that are designed to manipulate the OS depend on a browser. These tools are not displaying any web content, they don't need a web browser. This is just one of the ways MS used their OS monopoly to create their browser monopoly (not just my opinion, the courts found they violated the Sherman Act by doing things like this). Web browsers are for displaying web pages, not for managing your OS.
Yeah but that doesn't mean they won't have to spend piles of money to defend that position in court. Merely putting something in your TOS does not prevent your customers from dragging you into court when they get a $200 bandwidth bill after their machine is pwned.
Yeah, I'm sure the large corporation is shaking in their boots. Large companies have teams of lawyers just waiting for something like some schmoe to sue the company. Do you really think Time-Warner is going to run out of lawyer money faster that some average customer? They will simply cut you off and sell the debt to a collection company. When the collection company sues you I doubt the judge will even take the time to hear your explanation, must less understand it. But what he will understand is the law - and if you entered into a contract with a company where you agreed on a bandwidth limit and your computer transfers more data than the limit then you are liable for the overages. Your "but it was teh haxxors!" defense probably will hold little merit in an actual court.
It is a totally moot point since you ARE responsible for traffic coming out of your machine whether or not it is compromised, no matter the source of the infection. If you fail to maintain your automobile you don't belong on the road and if you fail to maintain your computer you don't belong on the internet.
In the US, you can even copyright choreographed works, without any recording or written record of the choreographic performance. A musical performance, affixed to a media or not is still under US copyright. If you aren't convinced even bitlaw[http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html] agrees with me on this particular issue.
If someone records my performance, without my permission, they have violated my copyright. It does not matter if I was performing another person's song. If I performed another person's song without their permission then they could come after me, of course. IANAL but the page to which you linked fails to mention anything about the issue at hand. It does mention that the copyright holder (in this case Radiohead or their assignee) has rights concering public performances:
Under the public performance right, a copyright holder is allowed to control when the work is performed "publicly."
I saw nothing on the linked page concerning performing works for which you do not own the copyright. Do you have a better reference?
Would you put it past some of the security contractors to stage a "terrorist" (who conveniently escapes, so there's no messy trial for facts to come out at) to demonstrate the "need" for even more security theatre??
If I can think of it, surely they can as well... Why would they need to escape? Anyone suspected of terrorism is already denied a trial, why would they start having trials now?
No one, not Jobs, not Gates and not Shuttleworth is going to do a perp walk so you can record shows. That's the crux of the issue. The broadcast flag IS NOT THE LAW. The FCC did make a rule requiring it but the US Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to make such a rule and struck it down. Nobody is going to have to do a perp walk for not implementing the flag even if they are asked. Most likely what happened is that MS made a deal with the networks to recognize the flag. They don't have to, but they WANT to.
Makes perfect sense to me... If the creators don't want it recorded, it should not be recorded. Blame/petition/sue NBC, not Microsoft. Why? They are using a public resource for their own enrichment. The Supreme Court ruled in Universal vs. Sony that time shifting is legal. If the creators don't want it recorded they are free not to broadcast it over THE PEOPLE'S airwaves. If they want to use a public resource, they can expect to be bound by different rules than a company that doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Try not breaking the law. You have already posted in a public forum that you plan on doing copyright violation. How smart was that? You also said what you were doing and where you were going. Why do I get the feeling that you really aren't that concerned about privacy, or you're doing something illegal that is going to draw attention anyway?
Try not being a douchenozzle. He never said anything about doing anything illegal, the summary said he intended to "rip a few movies and albums to the drive". This is not an illegal activity. Format shifting clearly falls into the fair use category. Yet you attack the OP and question his intelligence, in your words "how smart was that?".
$36/mo. 15 Mb symmetric fiber, USA
Speaking of which, why can' they use diamond coatings for razor blades to keep them forever sharp?
If you sell a razor blade that never gets dull, your market is gone quickly. OTOH, if you sell blade cartridges for $10 that have 4 blades that get dull almost immediately you will make billions. Which choice do you think the razor companies prefer?
Right now, it seems to be getting warmer, even though there are reports about the ice in the Arctic covering more area than it has in decades.
[citation needed]
And when you buy a PC it comes with Windows so you don't need to by install Linux, Firefox....
I do tend to agree with you but I would love to build my own car nav system and see if I could do better than what the car companies are doing.
Currently, I use GPSDrive in conjunction with Mapnik and OpenStreetMap.org on my carputer. It's more of a "you are here" system than a navigation system, but with the OSM data navigation abilities are supposedly in the works. With OSM maps it really looks nice, although I haven't used the new version with upgraded OSM and LandSat capabilities so it may be even better now.
You skipped the part about her Executive level experience as a Mayor and a Governor, which is a lot more than Obama has.
Keep trying, though it won't help in Nov. There are just enough questions about Obama to cost him the election and he didn't help himself with that farce last night. He could have used that speech to lay out specific plans for what he wants to do and all we got was more vague philosophical platitudes. Not good at all.
Are you really touting her experience as mayor in a town of 8000 people as "Executive level experience" (with a capital E!)? I am from a town of similar size and I knew the mayors - these are not people qualified to be the Vice President and there is no aspect of their job that is making them more qualified. Mayor of a small town is not a full time position and would barely even qualify as part time - that experience compares to the Illinois and United States Senates?
As for being Governor of Alaska, she has spent less than 2 years as Governor of a state that has a smaller population than many US cities. It is executive level but it is a far cry from running most states.
yea, that's why my kitchen and bathroom faucets stop working if i use more than 250 gallons of water a month...
I don't know how it works where you live, but in my city I pay more if I use more water. In fact, I pay much more per gallon the more I use. If you want Comcast to adopt water billing, it will be $50 for the first 250 GB, then $75 for the next 150, then $125 for the next 100.
See the graph titled Us Energy Consumption 1949-2003. The graph shows that our consumption is relatively flat from 1973 on, especially when compared to the projections or price of oil.
We were not talking about total energy, we were talking about oil.
THIS table shows that our use of fossil fuels has actually decreased from 2004 to 2006.
And finally, from HERE:
Again, we were not talking about total energy consumption or fossil fuel consumption, your original statement ("US demand has been flat") was in reference to oil, not generic energy. I posted a graph of US oil consumption to refute that statement. Stats showing total energy use do not contradict my assertion that the US petroleum demand has not been flat.
Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.
[citation needed]
Google "Peak Oil" for all the citations you need.
Compare those stories to THIS one:
I am advised by real experts that BP, BG, BHP and others, are making massive investment decisions in the oil and gas sector of this country that have as much as a 25-year horizon. They are the real experts who put their money where their mouths are, and they know that we will not be running out of gas (or oil) in the near future.
And THIS one:
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., November 14, 2006 â" In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theoryâ(TM)s proponents -- and that the âoepeak oilâ argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.
I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman. Where are these predictions?
We too had an awesome winter...bet you didn't see that coming... Our local resort had the 6th best season in 70 years
Wow, 6th best in the last 70 years? Incredible!!!!!!!!!!! After all, a year that is in the top ten of the last 70 only happens 1 in every 7 years! Global warming is a hoax!
It is still probably a good idea to cut carbon output
As a matter of fact, it isn't. Ask anyone who runs a greenhouse.
Be sure to ask those greenhouse operators if it is warmer in the greenhouse than outside.
You whippersnappers are probably too young to remember, but back in the 70s one of the Environmentalist Crises Du Jour(tm) was desertification. And, indeed, it actually was a pretty serious problem. But since then, desertification has reversed itself
Did it "reverse itself" or did we recognize the dangers and curtail the human activity that was leading to desertification? My car's brakes were constantly putting off smoke, when I quit driving with my foot always on the brake they stopped smoking. Obviously, the brake smoking problem reversed itself.
Well, as another poster said, show me the model that said there was going to be a decade long (starting now) "pause" in global warming
Here it is. It is one of the most understood of global weather phenomena.
(US demand has been flat, btw. It's the increased demand for growing economies around the world when not met with an increase in supply that is causing the increase in prices).
Flat in comparison to what? Here is a graph of US oil consumption for the last 25 years, sure doesn't look flat to me. It looks like we have increased our consumption nearly every year.
Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.
[citation needed]
I agree completely - the mirror test is practically useless.
Here's the test I did which I think is much more conclusive. Feel free to poke holes it it (It is slashdot afterall)
1) First introduce your dog to the mirror and get him to look at himself
2) Stand directly behind the dog, ensuring he cannot see you (dogs typically have +/-120 view so you have to be directly behind them)
3) Now silently wave at the dog so he directs his attention at your 'reflection' and not you directly
4) Silently give him the 'come here' hand signal (he must know this). My dogs *without any hesitation* turn around and come directly to me. If the dog thought that what he saw in the mirror was in any way real, then presumably he would have started towards the mirror instead of directly towards me. This shows he gets the concept of a mirror.
The dog sees an image of you give the "come here" hand signal and so he finds you using his best sense - his nose. He knows your location because he can smell you, and he is conditioned to go to your location when he sees the hand signal. I don't think the dog understands the concept of the mirror, he just knows the mirror doesn't smell like you.
Much in the same way anyone wishing to protest in the "designated protest areas" must file a petition to protest from the very state they'd protest against.
Yeah, something like a "designated protest area" could never happen in the US --since we have the right to freedom of speech we call it a Free Speech Zone. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different.
The fact is, it's only been in the last few generations that science and religion were considered incompatible
Galileo would beg to differ.
Over time the lessened demand for oil used by cars will cause the cost of the trucker's oil to go up
So, as the supply of petroleum available for diesel increases because cars are no longer using gasoline, the price also increases? That's not the way it works, it goes against the MOST basic economic principle, the law of supply and demand. As the demand decreases and the supply increases the price for diesel will go down, not up.
This will have the side effect of controlling inflation on food and manufactured goods -- as we are seeing right now, if the price of diesel increases we feel it quickly in the prices of things that are primarily carried by truck. If we convert just our private and fleet autos to electric we can easily supply the remaining demand (trucks, trains, jet fuel, heating oil, oil power plants, etc.) with our domestic production and not incur the huge trade imbalance that we are currently experiencing.
Every example you gave (fireworks, cigarettes and alcohol) are not relevant to the issue (manufacturers having control of sales of their items after the first sale). Those items have prohibitions on their resale by the STATE, not their manufacturers. The credit card argument is also a red herring as you have entered a contract - you signed a cardholder agreement with the CC company. Whether or not they require a signature for a purchase is a contractual issue between the CC company and the merchant. The US has a long history of the doctrine of first sale codified in both legislative and case law. A nice quote from a Supreme Court decision is on the referenced page:
In that case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy's department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill's consent. We held that the exclusive statutory right to "vend" applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work...
So even though they inserted a notice into a book (or on the wrapper of their peanut butter cups) the court found that the notice was not a binding contract and Macy's was free to sell the books however they liked. Once an item has been sold to you, it belongs to you and you may do with it as you wish.
Now, on the surface, your argument seems to have merit. However, let me drop one example on you. Take (or rather, purchase) an 8 pack of Reeses Peanut Butter Cups. You know, the pack of individually wrapped candies? Each one states quite clearly on the packaging that they are not for individual sale. You will find that this practice of designating the individual portions of a multi-pack as "Not For Individual Sale" is quite common.
So we find that if you want to resell your candy legally, you can't. Sure, you will argue that there is a huge difference between a car and a peanut butter cup. But if you did, you would be missing the point. If you purchase something that comes with an attached contractual agreement NOT to resell it, or purchase something with an attached contractual agreement not to resell it outside of the producing company's authorized distributors, then indeed the producer has full legal control over resale rights.
You may have a point but you picked a terrible example. If you go into a retail establishment and buy your peanut butter cups, you are free to do whatever you want with them, no matter what it says on the package. If you run a lemonade stand and want to offer those cups as well, you are free to do so, you entered into no contract with either Reeses or the retailer. Reeses would have absolutely no recourse under US law to stop the sale.
I don't really have experience with high-end perfumes or handbags, but I would assume that you are not required to sign a contract, therefore you did not give up your right to sell the item under US law. I don't know about French law but it seems anti-competitive and the EU may have something to say about it.
I'm glad that your kids are doing well, but wouldn't it have been better to have 2 kids that are just as smart and just as loving -- but didn't need to have disfiguring, dangerous and expensive cranial surgery? This article was not about testing and aborting, it is about selecting embryos that didn't happen to get the bad genes when the egg was fertilized. They are randomly selecting the embryos now, what is the difference if they happen to look at markers for common genetic diseases before they choose? If my wife and I had 2 embryos to choose from and in one of them the 21st chromosome didn't split right and gave the embryo three chromosomes, you bet your ass I would be choosing the other one. This isn't about manipulating genes, it is about choosing which embryo to implant. A choice is already being made, I would rather make an informed choice than have no information and be forced to choose at random.
It's totally stupid to have tools that are designed to manipulate the OS depend on a browser. These tools are not displaying any web content, they don't need a web browser. This is just one of the ways MS used their OS monopoly to create their browser monopoly (not just my opinion, the courts found they violated the Sherman Act by doing things like this). Web browsers are for displaying web pages, not for managing your OS.
Yeah but that doesn't mean they won't have to spend piles of money to defend that position in court. Merely putting something in your TOS does not prevent your customers from dragging you into court when they get a $200 bandwidth bill after their machine is pwned.
Yeah, I'm sure the large corporation is shaking in their boots. Large companies have teams of lawyers just waiting for something like some schmoe to sue the company. Do you really think Time-Warner is going to run out of lawyer money faster that some average customer? They will simply cut you off and sell the debt to a collection company. When the collection company sues you I doubt the judge will even take the time to hear your explanation, must less understand it. But what he will understand is the law - and if you entered into a contract with a company where you agreed on a bandwidth limit and your computer transfers more data than the limit then you are liable for the overages. Your "but it was teh haxxors!" defense probably will hold little merit in an actual court.It is a totally moot point since you ARE responsible for traffic coming out of your machine whether or not it is compromised, no matter the source of the infection. If you fail to maintain your automobile you don't belong on the road and if you fail to maintain your computer you don't belong on the internet.
If someone records my performance, without my permission, they have violated my copyright. It does not matter if I was performing another person's song. If I performed another person's song without their permission then they could come after me, of course. IANAL but the page to which you linked fails to mention anything about the issue at hand. It does mention that the copyright holder (in this case Radiohead or their assignee) has rights concering public performances:
Under the public performance right, a copyright holder is allowed to control when the work is performed "publicly."
I saw nothing on the linked page concerning performing works for which you do not own the copyright. Do you have a better reference?
If I can think of it, surely they can as well... Why would they need to escape? Anyone suspected of terrorism is already denied a trial, why would they start having trials now?