I'm afraid I.m not completely sure what is "illegal" or "encouraging" and therefore is in violation of Paypal's ToS, giving them the contractual right to do this. (Private enterprise not only has rights, it also signs away the right to do capricious acts in things called contracts).
First, to the best of my knowledge Wikileaks nor its principals have been indicted. (That alone would not make it illegal, but presumably would give Paypal enough contractual justification to terminate their contract since there would be a reasonable case that the action appears to be illegal).
Second, to the best of my knowledge, "leaking" classified material is not in fact illegal, unless you have agreed to make it so. When you go to work for the U.S. government you sign a contract / oath which states that you will in fact be bound by the classification system of the Executive branch, under penalty of law. Same thing when you are granted access to classified materials as a private contractor. Similarly, I believe that members of Congress on select committees (e.g. Intelligence) sign a similar oath to have access to materials that the Executive branch deem sensitive. If you are a plain old citizen, you can probably be tried for Treason, sedition, etc. by making certain materials public, depending on the content, the state of the country, etc. but coming across something that the government wants to keep confidential and making it public is not an illegal act in and of itself. Daniel Ellsberg was tried; the New York Times and its reporters, not.
Of course, I agree it is highly likely that the original leakers were bound. However, if you view Wikileaks as the Press, is it encouraging illegal activity? How about your local newspaper reporting a robbery?
Anyway, the material is not illegal. How it got to Wikileaks may be. The publishing, arguably not at all.
It doesn't sound like you were coming down against Wikileaks so much, but before anyone completely follows that thought and all its permutations, some food for thought.
For those who don't know, it's a small game, well executed on a small budget. Thirty years ago, it is the kind of thing that made me want to enter the business of writing programs. Now most games (phone Apps aside) are multi-multi-million dollar productions, and just like Hollywood, once they start they can't seem to pull the plug once they realize they're off the mark, "I mean somebody will buy this steaming pile and pay top dollar, we're (fill in the blank studio)".
I have found their business model to be fair: free trials, previews at reduced price at late beta (like a week or two before shipping), all the kinds of things you'd want from a small developer trying to make it in a tough business environment against all odds at the same time treating the customer right; I don't resent them finding incremental revenue in an almost predictably fair way.
We all know it's about market segmentation: buy coffee at McD's, buy it at Starbucks, make it at home, run a sale, use a coupon. These guys are just pretty transparent about it.
The game even supports modding, so if you don't want to pay them ever again, you can go in and edit everything yourself.
Actually, DAoC allows Account Transfers (from the ToS):
E. TRANSFER OF RIGHTS TO YOUR ACCOUNT
You shall be permitted to transfer once to another person eligible to obtain an Account your right to access and use your Account (but not items, characters and attributes of characters separate from the Account), on the following terms and conditions:
etc. with a bunch of requirements (physical transfer of CDs, notify Mythic).
There was a clause that said you couldn't broker the account of another, but eBay wouldn't be a party to that. Since they just enable a legitimate transaction and never take possession of the "object" in question, not sure that it would be an issue.
Come again? A very large portion of what the so-called press reports is "opinion"; there is very little hard journalism left. I've never known the press to be shy about reporting unsubstantiated allegations, as long as it is put in the mouth of someone else. Hell, the usual answer to inaccuracies is to find someone with a contrary, and often as meaningless, opinion.
If all the opinion and commentary was edited out, about 96% of what the right opines, and 92% of what the left opines would be stricken, and where would the broadcasters find filler for their commercials?
At the risk of coming to the defense of M$, the situation seems different than what is being protested here, assuming that you believe that shrinkwrap licenses have any validity.
The issue is that some bank got a special deal for their M$ licenses. They paid a whole lot less than retail, and in consideration they agreed to restrictions in what they could do with the software. They then went and broke their part of the deal.
This wasn't some innocent end-user who didn't read the EULA. I am sure the bank has a large and expensive team of lawyers who can read. Similarly, I am sure the bank has a professional IT staff who as professionals should understand software licensing, and who can also read.
The only thing in all this chatter that resonates with me is how to avoid doing business with M$ when buying the computer, or barring that, how to buy one copy of the software instead of 1.1 copies (the (discounted) volume license and the OEM license).
I thought the judge's ruling was spot on. If you think about it, the bank (or the reseller) can only sell two things: the software license or the tangible media. If it is a license, then the terms of the license agreement apply (i.e. you should know what you are selling). If just the media, then the unfortunate end-user has a hunk of plastic which they can't use. If the end-user *thought* they were buying a license, then the reseller misrepresented what they were selling. I don't see how the bank/reseller can have it both ways by pretending that they are selling a tangible in one case (and can ignore the EULA), but the end-user is getting a license.
If you don't agree with a business practice of someone else, don't try to hide behind lawyers to get around their intent, just don't do business with them.
And to prevent stupid criminals, terrorist wanna bes, the unbright mentally disturbed, (and possibly stupid terrorists) from committing stupid crimes such as hijacking, bombing, and random political acts. Pre 9/11, airport security still (mostly) fulfilled those goals.
I don't think anyone wants to go back to the before the early 70s; although it was a way to get a free trip to Cuba, you didn't get to see very much while you were there.
Now, a lot of it does have to do with making ma-and-pa flyer feel better. Still I'd rather it was there, and done well, than have it half-heartedly performed by minimum wage employees. I just wish they'd get their rules straight and be consistent, or at least be inconsistent deliberately rather than incompetently.
I've seen the links to Google Images showing the difference, and it does seem like they are censoring. However, the results on images.google.com look the same when limiting the search to the.cn TLD.
Instead, try the search "tiananmen square protest 1989" on www.google.cn and see the #1 hit. Certainly that isn't being caught or censored. Don't know if the results differ inside China, although I suspect they might since I have heard the rumor they have firewalls and routers that sniff out terms they don't like. However that wouldn't necessarily be Google's fault.
Since images are hard to filter for content, it makes sense that the Chinese government is trying to limit results to sites they control. What will be more interesting is what happens when they start using Google themselves and can theoretically a.) remove or impose penalties on those sites like the link I posted b.) ask Google to be more restrictive.
I would have preferred Google not give in, but the results could nonetheless be interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
First, to the best of my knowledge Wikileaks nor its principals have been indicted. (That alone would not make it illegal, but presumably would give Paypal enough contractual justification to terminate their contract since there would be a reasonable case that the action appears to be illegal).
Second, to the best of my knowledge, "leaking" classified material is not in fact illegal, unless you have agreed to make it so. When you go to work for the U.S. government you sign a contract / oath which states that you will in fact be bound by the classification system of the Executive branch, under penalty of law. Same thing when you are granted access to classified materials as a private contractor. Similarly, I believe that members of Congress on select committees (e.g. Intelligence) sign a similar oath to have access to materials that the Executive branch deem sensitive. If you are a plain old citizen, you can probably be tried for Treason, sedition, etc. by making certain materials public, depending on the content, the state of the country, etc. but coming across something that the government wants to keep confidential and making it public is not an illegal act in and of itself. Daniel Ellsberg was tried; the New York Times and its reporters, not.
Of course, I agree it is highly likely that the original leakers were bound. However, if you view Wikileaks as the Press, is it encouraging illegal activity? How about your local newspaper reporting a robbery?
Anyway, the material is not illegal. How it got to Wikileaks may be. The publishing, arguably not at all.
It doesn't sound like you were coming down against Wikileaks so much, but before anyone completely follows that thought and all its permutations, some food for thought.
For those who don't know, it's a small game, well executed on a small budget. Thirty years ago, it is the kind of thing that made me want to enter the business of writing programs. Now most games (phone Apps aside) are multi-multi-million dollar productions, and just like Hollywood, once they start they can't seem to pull the plug once they realize they're off the mark, "I mean somebody will buy this steaming pile and pay top dollar, we're (fill in the blank studio)".
I have found their business model to be fair: free trials, previews at reduced price at late beta (like a week or two before shipping), all the kinds of things you'd want from a small developer trying to make it in a tough business environment against all odds at the same time treating the customer right; I don't resent them finding incremental revenue in an almost predictably fair way.
We all know it's about market segmentation: buy coffee at McD's, buy it at Starbucks, make it at home, run a sale, use a coupon. These guys are just pretty transparent about it.
The game even supports modding, so if you don't want to pay them ever again, you can go in and edit everything yourself.
Will you make mine +10 Debauchery? Thanks.
E. TRANSFER OF RIGHTS TO YOUR ACCOUNT
You shall be permitted to transfer once to another person eligible to obtain an Account your right to access and use your Account (but not items, characters and attributes of characters separate from the Account), on the following terms and conditions:
etc. with a bunch of requirements (physical transfer of CDs, notify Mythic).
There was a clause that said you couldn't broker the account of another, but eBay wouldn't be a party to that. Since they just enable a legitimate transaction and never take possession of the "object" in question, not sure that it would be an issue.
Come again? A very large portion of what the so-called press reports is "opinion"; there is very little hard journalism left. I've never known the press to be shy about reporting unsubstantiated allegations, as long as it is put in the mouth of someone else. Hell, the usual answer to inaccuracies is to find someone with a contrary, and often as meaningless, opinion.
If all the opinion and commentary was edited out, about 96% of what the right opines, and 92% of what the left opines would be stricken, and where would the broadcasters find filler for their commercials?
Think of the media conglomerates!
The issue is that some bank got a special deal for their M$ licenses. They paid a whole lot less than retail, and in consideration they agreed to restrictions in what they could do with the software. They then went and broke their part of the deal.
This wasn't some innocent end-user who didn't read the EULA. I am sure the bank has a large and expensive team of lawyers who can read. Similarly, I am sure the bank has a professional IT staff who as professionals should understand software licensing, and who can also read.
The only thing in all this chatter that resonates with me is how to avoid doing business with M$ when buying the computer, or barring that, how to buy one copy of the software instead of 1.1 copies (the (discounted) volume license and the OEM license).
I thought the judge's ruling was spot on. If you think about it, the bank (or the reseller) can only sell two things: the software license or the tangible media. If it is a license, then the terms of the license agreement apply (i.e. you should know what you are selling). If just the media, then the unfortunate end-user has a hunk of plastic which they can't use. If the end-user *thought* they were buying a license, then the reseller misrepresented what they were selling. I don't see how the bank/reseller can have it both ways by pretending that they are selling a tangible in one case (and can ignore the EULA), but the end-user is getting a license.
If you don't agree with a business practice of someone else, don't try to hide behind lawyers to get around their intent, just don't do business with them.
And to prevent stupid criminals, terrorist wanna bes, the unbright mentally disturbed, (and possibly stupid terrorists) from committing stupid crimes such as hijacking, bombing, and random political acts. Pre 9/11, airport security still (mostly) fulfilled those goals.
I don't think anyone wants to go back to the before the early 70s; although it was a way to get a free trip to Cuba, you didn't get to see very much while you were there.
Now, a lot of it does have to do with making ma-and-pa flyer feel better. Still I'd rather it was there, and done well, than have it half-heartedly performed by minimum wage employees. I just wish they'd get their rules straight and be consistent, or at least be inconsistent deliberately rather than incompetently.
Instead, try the search "tiananmen square protest 1989" on www.google.cn and see the #1 hit. Certainly that isn't being caught or censored. Don't know if the results differ inside China, although I suspect they might since I have heard the rumor they have firewalls and routers that sniff out terms they don't like. However that wouldn't necessarily be Google's fault.
Since images are hard to filter for content, it makes sense that the Chinese government is trying to limit results to sites they control. What will be more interesting is what happens when they start using Google themselves and can theoretically a.) remove or impose penalties on those sites like the link I posted b.) ask Google to be more restrictive.
I would have preferred Google not give in, but the results could nonetheless be interesting.