I am confident that you can sniff wireless traffic if you're just using WPA(2) with a PSK because I've done it on my own network. If you give the neighbors your passphrase, they can sniff you.

There are options such as using multiple APs in DD-WRT, or using an enterprise WPA method where you have a login for your stuff (nerd/securepassword) and give one to the public (public/publicpass).

Unless the sync is optional, or it allows the user to use a key separate from the credentials that requires a re-sync if you lose it (like Firefox Sync) where the provider can't tell what you store on their servers (encrypted/decrypted locally), it'll bar me from buying Apple products ever again.

RTFA and you see that, as many of us already know, you can get a court order to get the exact identity of the account holder, so the problem as described by the summary quote is not the real issue. Rather, just because you know the account holder does not mean that you can prove that the account holder, or whoever you have on the stand, is the one that infringed.

Despite rear-end covering clauses in the terms of most home ISPs that state that the account holder is liable for everything that goes across their connection, most courts won't accept that. I wouldn't be willing to test it, but it's a very valid point of defense. The number of people with open Wi-Fi is staggering, and even then there are attacks which work on WEP (a ton) and WPA (GPU accelerated attacks can get passphrases in under a minute on many routers), which is the maximum security many home routers in use are capable of. That makes this point even more valid.

Giving funds to telecom companies always turns out productively, right?

Sony uses ADEPT DRM on its books (if I recall correctly. Barnes & Noble uses their own format (the decryption tool is called ignoble), I can't find any solid confirmation but the rumor is that Apple is using FairPlay on their ePUBs.

Decryption tools exist (at least for ADEPT and B&N) but I don't know if that's the case with Apple (I would guess that the answer is yes) but it is a major problem with portability.

Amazon uses their own DRM which is pretty easy to circumvent (With tools); once you do, conversion via a tool like Calibre to another format (e.x. ePUB) is trivial. Couple mouse clicks.

Their twitter feed is saying to expect a restock this weekend.

The voicemail was left on the mailbox of a recipient. A voicemail is a knowingly made recording, and one that has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

I'm no lawyer, but if a voicemail sender retains copyright on their message, I have no idea how a site like Audioo (which shares embarrassing voicemails with the world) hasn't been sued into oblivion yet.

As far as the images of Jake (Buckyballs CEO) used in the presentation go (which are images from Google Images, all freely available, used as a representation of a subject matter at a low resolution), I am extremely doubtful. I'm not a lawyer, and it's why Zen is consulting one.

There was no other property belonging to Buckyballs. The trademark was identified as that of a competitor, so there's no basis for a trademark infringement claim. The rest of the video was recorded entirely by Zen Magnets.

A DMCA notice has to include a statement that, under penalty of law, the person filing it knows they have a copyright being infringed and their statements are accurate.

As you might imagine, the difficulty is proving that in court.

The origin of the name Buckyballs is not the toy.

Google was honoring Fullerene, not the toy, although Buckyballs put out a press release saying it massively boosted their sales as a side effect.

The summary here links to reddit. And not every Slashdot user visits reddit regularly.

It's been mirrored by other people on Youtube.

The reddit link seems to indicate that they're in the process of making sure they're completely clear:

Decision is we're going to do a counter-notification, but we're gonna have a lawyer back us up. (Especially since there have been good points about potential $$$ damages for perjuring a false copyright take-down.)

The video has been reuploaded to Youtube by a few others though.