There could also be technical limitations placed, such as making the popular media players only play "licensed" media. I could definitely see a company like Apple or Sony making their players only play files that come from the big corporate copyright holders. Hell, that's been their plan for a long time, but the homebrew and hacker communities kept defeating them. I don't believe they're ready to give up on the "gated community" view of culture, though.
Go one step further, and they will even restrict what you read, its not just about music and video 'media'.
Sure they should. If you agree to something you should be held accountable.
Anything less breaks down the entire concept of contract law. " wahhh.... i don't like your terms, so ill agree but wont follow them". Very dangerous precedent.
So what? Its legal for me to own a semi-auto AK variant. Who cares if it doesn't look like a "hunting rifle"? These nosy people should shut their face, and leave the country.
Don't joke, they have something similar to a 'replica ban' in the UK already.
The rational is not 'because its scary', its to make the bans rather vague in their coverage. You capture more weapons that way, with the general publics approval.
If Google used this 'news' to help their stock prices or increase sales, id call it fraud. And they might too.
1) You're assuming that Google had any idea. They got an agreement from DC that they could use them in advertising (I'm fairly certain, since no one trumpets a customer without such an agreement) that that's it. They don't get to tell DC how to use it.
2) There's nothing false in saying you made a large sale when you did. Your claim of fraud is similar to claiming fraud when Ford touts a giant sale of a fleet of cars to the military when the military is just putting them into bunkers and never driving them.
3) Do you really think an apps sale to DC affected Google's stock price? I dare you to find a blip on their chart.
OF course they knew. They are just trying to save face ( and their butts ) by claiming ' we didn't know'.
It's illegal if you knew the statement was bogus and used it to prop up value. I have seen other things like that happen.
I don't care if it was effective or not, if the intent was there, its illegal.
And how much "corporate control" can you exert over an Android phone? Encryption? They have a central management server you can install?
I really doubt an offering from Google is ready for the government scene. They may be perfect for home consumer markets, which is fine, but not government or 'secure' corporate.
There's no indication that any of this is making anyone substantially stupider.
I would tend to agree with you, until we had our last presidential election at least. Its pretty obvious the general public's intelligence level has taken a dip.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you agreed doesn't negate it being spyware.
And from what i gather the issue is that its doing things that are NOT in the eula.
No stone, just been avoiding the iphone ( even tho i like apple ). Seems i will be for a while longer.
When you get to the mega corps, that are run by lawyers, they are self perpetuating and the general public really no longer plays into it.
There could also be technical limitations placed, such as making the popular media players only play "licensed" media. I could definitely see a company like Apple or Sony making their players only play files that come from the big corporate copyright holders. Hell, that's been their plan for a long time, but the homebrew and hacker communities kept defeating them. I don't believe they're ready to give up on the "gated community" view of culture, though.
Go one step further, and they will even restrict what you read, its not just about music and video 'media'.
Its the lawyers that are swallowing our culture.
Do you *have* to get apples blessing to distribute an app, or is it just to use the appstore?
Sure they should. If you agree to something you should be held accountable.
Anything less breaks down the entire concept of contract law. " wahhh.... i don't like your terms, so ill agree but wont follow them". Very dangerous precedent.
You go on believing that.. Its all about the disarming of America, little by little.
if they can stigmatize ownership enough people will be afraid to own.
So what? Its legal for me to own a semi-auto AK variant. Who cares if it doesn't look like a "hunting rifle"? These nosy people should shut their face, and leave the country.
Don't joke, they have something similar to a 'replica ban' in the UK already.
The rational is not 'because its scary', its to make the bans rather vague in their coverage. You capture more weapons that way, with the general publics approval.
The media has been stigmatizing and programming the public for decades. Sounds like its working rather well.
Are rifles legal in that part of the country? if so, id be suing for harassment.
i doubt it. Im sure there was something deep down in the fine print that will derail a suit.
When you delegate your parental responsibilities.
If Google used this 'news' to help their stock prices or increase sales, id call it fraud. And they might too.
1) You're assuming that Google had any idea. They got an agreement from DC that they could use them in advertising (I'm fairly certain, since no one trumpets a customer without such an agreement) that that's it. They don't get to tell DC how to use it.
2) There's nothing false in saying you made a large sale when you did. Your claim of fraud is similar to claiming fraud when Ford touts a giant sale of a fleet of cars to the military when the military is just putting them into bunkers and never driving them.
3) Do you really think an apps sale to DC affected Google's stock price? I dare you to find a blip on their chart.
OF course they knew. They are just trying to save face ( and their butts ) by claiming ' we didn't know'.
It's illegal if you knew the statement was bogus and used it to prop up value. I have seen other things like that happen.
I don't care if it was effective or not, if the intent was there, its illegal.
Yes, that is what i meant, donno why i typed FTC.. but was closer then FCC :)
It would tip their hand and cause counter attacks.
And how much "corporate control" can you exert over an Android phone? Encryption? They have a central management server you can install?
I really doubt an offering from Google is ready for the government scene. They may be perfect for home consumer markets, which is fine, but not government or 'secure' corporate.
If Google used this 'news' to help their stock prices or increase sales, id call it fraud. And they might too.
No, you should be billed every time you listen to the song, regardless of format.
( ya, that was sarcasm )
To keep OT discussion at a minimum in regular threads, I have added the reasoning to my journal.
If you encrypt it, data mining isnt a concern.
There's no indication that any of this is making anyone substantially stupider.
I would tend to agree with you, until we had our last presidential election at least. Its pretty obvious the general public's intelligence level has taken a dip.
In my day, we did home work WHILE talking on the phone. Sometimes even about the actual homework being done.
No, but it will retard their growth of interpersonal skills with real live people.
No, but they can call the police, get a court order and come search your home and have it removed for poession of what in effect is stolen goods.