Just don't pretend they aren't fully within their rights
Quite frankly, I don't believe they are. But then, I don't hold "private enterprise rights" on the pillar you do, and think they are the be all end all of rights.
Forced speech is as bad as censorship.
No it's not. It's not even close. Furthermore, Google wouldn't have given two shits about the video if it wasn't for UMG in the first place.
Google is actively policing their content. They are clearly doing things at the behest of UMG. That shows they should be doing things at the behest of anyone else that wants something taken down.
The inclusive or statement is too wishy washy a guess. Which is it, "not harmful" or "lesser of two evils"? Make your guess, keeping in mind the theme here!
You know, people keep stating this "Android was originally a Blackberry competitor line", and while I'm not saying I don't believe it or anything, I do find it really weird that they're just now getting around to changes that would make it seem more like an actual iPhone competitor. I realize they wouldn't have known what they were up against until the iPhone came out, but they came out 2 years after the first iPhone, and with Google's backing. They made some strides, but just now getting to things like GPU accelerated GUIs is kinda sad.
Fuck off with your, "Do you think posting things on YouTube is a right?" bullshit. I don't give a fuck if it is a "private service", there are certain obligations that they have put forth when they offered the service, and this was not one of them. By engaging in this bullshit, they have broken their obligations to the public, and should be punished for it.
I use sarcasm quotes for secret because Google has no obligation to disclose its contractual relationships with third parties because you, the user, aren't party to them.
They do when it affects my business relationship with them. The fact that they never disclosed that UMG had the final say in whether my video went up means that they lied to the public. That requires punishment.
Oh please. Do not give this idea any more legitimacy. This should not be allowed, plain and simple. UMG should have no rights to do anything with any video that they don't own, and Google should not be able to give those rights away.
No. There is absolutely no way that this can be supported. Your "provider of a free service" angle can get bent. That is absolutely no excuse for this behavior, and you acting like it does is absolving them of responsibility.
Why wouldn't Google have the right to take down content on it's websites at will?
By doing so, they have demonstrated that they can exact editorial control over the content of videos. Meaning that they are now responsible for the content of every single video posted to YouTube.
Slashdot Mirror
BZZZZZT! Wrong. Sorry, the two are nowhere near the same.
Unless they are offering that same access to everyone else, then yes, it is them actively policing their content.
It's not knowing whether or not something is GPU accelerated. It's the additional smoothness that comes with being GPU accelerated.
Just don't pretend they aren't fully within their rights
Quite frankly, I don't believe they are. But then, I don't hold "private enterprise rights" on the pillar you do, and think they are the be all end all of rights.
Forced speech is as bad as censorship.
No it's not. It's not even close. Furthermore, Google wouldn't have given two shits about the video if it wasn't for UMG in the first place.
No, I don't think Slashdot should have the right to delete my posts, unless it has been found that I am endangering the public with them.
Do you think you shouldn't have the right to delete stuff off your own website?
Huge difference: My website was not set up as a public forum for people to post their content. YouTube was.
Think through your position, man. It's incoherent.
No, it's very coherent. It's the position that "private property trumps all" and "whatever a company wants to do is a-ok" that is incoherent.
Suppose UMG disliked the Arab Spring for whatever reason. Should they still be able to disappear any of their videos off YouTube?
It's very unsupportable to be partaking in censorship.
Google is actively policing their content. They are clearly doing things at the behest of UMG. That shows they should be doing things at the behest of anyone else that wants something taken down.
There is absolutely no instance in which such an agreement should be enforceable, let alone legal to make.
The inclusive or statement is too wishy washy a guess. Which is it, "not harmful" or "lesser of two evils"? Make your guess, keeping in mind the theme here!
Either one makes my point.
Yes, they are my profits, as a partial owner of the company.
And at no point was the company authorized to enter into politics. No part of their charter authorizes them to do so.
And it is questionable at best whether the donations are in the best interests of the company.
What do sales of handsets have to do with whether iOS or Android apps are more polished?
Further, are you including iPod Touches, iPads, and Android Tablets in those numbers? Cause that might change things.
Yeah, because looking for random binaries on the internet is *such* a clever idea!
That's how a lot of software is distributed. And it's about as clever as looking for random source packages on the internet.
Redhad/Fedora has Yum, Gentoo has portage. I have no idea what slackware has.
I'll be thrilled to try it, but the fact that it took this long to get GPU acceleration is kinda sad.
You know, people keep stating this "Android was originally a Blackberry competitor line", and while I'm not saying I don't believe it or anything, I do find it really weird that they're just now getting around to changes that would make it seem more like an actual iPhone competitor. I realize they wouldn't have known what they were up against until the iPhone came out, but they came out 2 years after the first iPhone, and with Google's backing. They made some strides, but just now getting to things like GPU accelerated GUIs is kinda sad.
The funny thing is that even Windows Phone market has comparatively more developers, apps and games.
[Citation Needed]. Everything published so far has WP7's app store at incredibly low levels of apps compared to iOS and Android.
Fuck you. Just because something is free does NOT mean that it should be immune from criticism.
Fuck off with your, "Do you think posting things on YouTube is a right?" bullshit. I don't give a fuck if it is a "private service", there are certain obligations that they have put forth when they offered the service, and this was not one of them. By engaging in this bullshit, they have broken their obligations to the public, and should be punished for it.
I use sarcasm quotes for secret because Google has no obligation to disclose its contractual relationships with third parties because you, the user, aren't party to them.
They do when it affects my business relationship with them. The fact that they never disclosed that UMG had the final say in whether my video went up means that they lied to the public. That requires punishment.
No, this isn't the fault of capitalism.
Yes, it is. It's the fault of capitalism, and the "free markets!" idea that anything a company does is a-ok, as long as it increases profit.
I never agreed to let UMG have any say whatsoever on taking down my video.
And it's that kind of "anything corporations do is ok" bullshit attitude that lets shit like this happen.
Oh please. Do not give this idea any more legitimacy. This should not be allowed, plain and simple. UMG should have no rights to do anything with any video that they don't own, and Google should not be able to give those rights away.
Since google is required to respond to DMCA takedown notices anyways, does this even change anything?
Yes. Under the absolutely shitty terms of this agreement, the user is not allowed to respond like they are under the DMCA.
No. There is absolutely no way that this can be supported. Your "provider of a free service" angle can get bent. That is absolutely no excuse for this behavior, and you acting like it does is absolving them of responsibility.
Why wouldn't Google have the right to take down content on it's websites at will?
By doing so, they have demonstrated that they can exact editorial control over the content of videos. Meaning that they are now responsible for the content of every single video posted to YouTube.