They report these things to the police and their insurance companies in the hope of recovering from their losses.

I thought most insurance companies require companies to disclose this information to the public if its related to financials such as banking. They alert the customers so they can be proactive at checking their statements and making sure fraudulent charges are stopped. This will also save the insurance company money because less claims will be filed by the banks.

Why are you even bringing in the government into this or the constitution? The owner of the printers didn't want the guy manufacturing weapons using his leased printers. The government didn't step in and take away the printers, a private citizen who had a private company did. Sure his explanation has holes in but he could simply say that he doesn't want his printers used to manufacturer guns and revoke the lease. The individual who wants to continue manufacturing weapons using printers can go find another private company or private citizen to lease from.

Now had the feds come in and snatched up the printers because he was manufacturing weapons that is an issue with the constitution. UNLESS, he was selling the weapons he manufactured or was transferring them because this requires an FFL license.

All we have are two private parties who are at disagreement on a business operation and thats it.

Metro apps need to come from a store. Desktop apps do not. Win 8 on x86 has a desktop anyone can use. WinRT does not (it has a desktop, but it's only available to Office). So WinRT is restricted to store delivered applications.

A bunch of hardware (think Cisco routers, load balancers, etc.) only generate CSRs with 1024bit keys.

It's not censored in the pictures of the slogan that neowin has or SCM Magazine.

It wasn't that hard to search for either. However it was probably harder than the knee jerk reaction shown above.

This was like the guy who uploaded a program onto download.com and received several awards for being a great program. All the program did was display a windows form with an Ok button that closed it out.

They also have links under the video to where you can buy the music through a legitimate distributor. Google most likely takes in a certain % of each sale through that link referral.

My girlfriends hometown has a public pool that unfortunately needs extensive repairs because its leaking water. The town said it could fix it by raising taxes and of course there was a huge uproar. Then the town said they could fix it by charging people to use the pool, once again more uproar. Then someone discussed buying the pool but said he would have to charge three times as much on admission fees compared to the public fee to make it profitable. And you guessed it the people were still angry.

Its like people expect all these municipals and public services to paid off by money that comes out of thin air.

Do you really think they don't know this? Do you really think they don't know of the alternatives?

They have to do their due diligence. These sites make the process of ripping music from videos TOO easy. Pretty much any other method requires at minimum installation of third-party software.

So these sites do three things that require Google to take action. They cut into the bottom line, they violate the Terms of Service, and they potentially put Google at legal risk.

For example search Billy Joels - We Didnt Start The Fire and you will see that you can listen to the song for the price of a simple 15-30 second commercial. What you can also see is under the video are several links to Apple, Amazon, and Google music store that allow you to purchase the song. I would say its a safe bet that Google makes a % on the sale of the song based on the link referral. So these sites pretty much nullify this feature.

As for the terms of service. From my understanding these sites are putting a wrapper around the video which goes against the terms of service.

As for the legal ramifications. The studios definitely have contracts with Google to put their music videos online. These contracts probably have clauses that state Google needs to fight off potential piracy with due diligence. So by taking these sites down Google is complying with those clauses.

So can they totally stop it? No. Can they make it so you have to go though several hoops to rip the sound out of their video? Yes.

Or they could use it as grounds to pull their music videos and Google loses out on the 15-30 seconds of a commercial they show before them.

Actually almost everyone produces an antibody for HIV the problem is that only a handful of people can keep up with producing the antibody to fight off the virus or that's the going theory right now. As for the man that was cured, that is more of a long shot treatment, we can keep people alive for a long time now just with anti-virals that the risk of a bone marrow transplant is not worth it.

Of course Apple and Google do the same things for their phone OSes. And then there's those god damn open source commies who want an authoritarian government - they must do, there are rather a lot of Linux based forensics tools. Microsoft is giving away technology at no cost to help law enforcement gather data from computers? So is open source. Get over your bad self.

More then likely the food that is given to them goes directly to the military. If you cut off the food then the military starves as well as the people. Depending on how loyal the military is, once people with weapons start to starve crazy things can happen. Its one thing to be dealing with an angry person, its a whole another level when they're angry and hungry.

Or its going to take some time to be able to make some cool games if that his end goal.

He didn't serve a sentence for murder because he was found not guilty. There were so many mistakes made by the police and the forensics team that the defense used the credibility of the investigation against the prosecution. There were also major issues with the DNA which was relatively new and unheard of, the prosecution did a piss poor job of having DNA explained, some of jurors were so confused that they mixed up DNA with blood type. What was thought to be a open and shut case turned into a nightmare for the prosecution.

This is why the OJ Simpson case is such an important case. So many mistakes were made that they use it in classroom exercises.