A lie, used to establish the basis of precedent, and to continue to act as if you are "winning".

No, not chump change at all. The kind of "not chump change" that should get you RICO charges. Because this is about as "corrupt organization" as you can get.

Nothing the *AAs have ever told us about copyright is based in fact, and they've used those lies to bully laws into existence which favor them. It's really time to start applying actual criminal charges to these organizations. Because they really are corrupt oligarchies who demand influence over the law.

Some of these clowns need serious jail time. And every politician who is paid for by them has sold us up the river to enrich themselves.

So, just fucking great, we have huge multinationals lying in public, and paying the politicians to get what they want.

Of course not. Did you even read the message you are replying to?

Me to. Now the way that politics and law generally work is that less intrusive solutions are tried first. That is what DNT was. Now the road is clear for some real regulations.

You don't understand politics I see. I was like you 10 years ago. I learnt the hard way that nifty tech solutions are cute, but to get them actually working in the real world, some politics can be extraordinarily useful.

A lot of ideas died in the halls of parliament not because they were stupid, on the contrary, a lot of them were brilliant. They died because those who proposed and supported them didn't understand how to convince people. If your target audience doesn't understand the technical details, the brilliance of your solution will be lost to them. Your persuasion skills - or lack thereof - however, will not.

Eh? If we do it, people say that no one loses anything if you make a copy, and that sharing has been part of human culture for ages. These people should have nothing to whine about if Sony then goes to do the same thing.

If Sony were an individual and wanted to play it at home in private, sure. But incorporating into a major commercial motion picture (i.e., for profit... at least in theory) is a little bit different!

Of course Do Not Track is meaningless.

It has always been meaningless. It's a voluntary thing which says nothing at all, and isn't legally binding. It's complete drivel. It's something the industry put out to give the illusion of giving a shit about what we want.

Want to prevent tracking? Don't let the packets happen in the first place. Use things like NoScript, Request Policy and HTTP Switchboard to deny the access entirely.

Treat this stuff like the shit that it is ... intrusive advertising and tracking about everything you do.

The only way to win is block as much of this crap from your browser as you can. You don't owe these companies this data, and the less you provide to them the better.

And when they whine and bitch about their revenue stream and their terms of service ... well, too damned bad. You aren't required to pull in any packets you don't wish to.

Once you start using these blocking plugins, you'll be amazed at just how much crap is actually embedded in most every page. One some sites, literally dozens of 3rd parties ... none of whom give a shit about your Do Not Track setting. So just block them entirely.

If we do it, Sony is one of the companies who helped pay for the law which says you and I would have to pay massive amounts of statutory damages, with additional punitive damages for having done it on purpose.

I want Sony to receive the same magnitude of punishment as they would insist we receive.

Because I really despise multinationals when they argue both sides of the same legal argument as it benefits them.

So, once again, if we do this we get crushed under the heel of a team of lawyers.

But a multinational like Sony does it and I bet they'll just dicker and claim some bullshit like fair use they routinely deny exists.

I sincerely hope Sony has to pay a massive fine for this ... something on par with what we'd get beat down with.

Sony Paid Millions

Is not the same as:

Sony paid for almost two million ad impressions

Cost roughly under $10k.

Cost source: https://www.hochmanconsultants...

Anybody sense a BIG dangerous bubble here?

No. Ad spend simply followed society as they moved from TV to internet, there's nothing bubble about that, the internet is not a fad.

Right now all this advertize-to-eachother garbage

That doesn't accurately reflect the majority of the web.

DNT was a brilliant display of the advertisement industries unwillingness to regulate itself and respect such wishes. Now they cannot make those claims anymore, and there is evidence on record that actual regulation is required.

Without DNT, they would always have claimed they're good guys. Now the mask is off.

Wrong.

It is because you don't prevent it. At least legally, that is a very big difference. If I allow you to hit me in the face, e.g. by participating in a boxing match, then I can't later sue you for bodily harm. If you do it without my permission and I just fail to prevent it, then all the guilt falls on you anyway and I can sue you, plus you have committed a crime. That's quite a big difference there between those two words.

Yes, but not in the way you think.

DNT is useless technologically. But it is a gem when it comes to providing evidence that actual regulations and penalties are required, because the industry is unwilling to regulate itself and respect customer requests.

There's a tradition in law and law-making that you need to at least try the less intrusive choices first. Now we satisfy that, and we can move on to really stop the parasites.

How about ads without tracking.

The list of sites alone is clear enough on that, even if you know nothing about them. Someone just had a little lolz with the botnet he owns anyways. TFA advise is totally bogus: They don't post the list of sites to advise people to check their accounts, they do it because it's their excuse for posting a list of x-rated stuff on a non-x-rated site. Pure sensationalism.

Or which desktop dancing nude woman they installed, or old version of flash player they use, or any other of a thousand possible problems.

Most people don't realize just how many (usually windows) PCs out there are owned by hackers. When some botnet runs an attack, we don't realize because the numbers are so big its just a statistic.

This law seems to be in contravention of several sections of the European Convention on Human Rights which Romania is party to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

NSA is pissed because their tor nodes only make up half of the remaining nodes and this makes it difficult for them to eaves drop. ;-)