this needs to stop. If this is allowed to happen then RIAA and MPAA and every other AA will just sue every hotspot operator in the country with little to no proof and force them to settle. goodbye to open wifi and lets stay in the dark ages forever

I think that is valid information to be brought up though. You are accused of selling drugs. We can show you have a history of using drugs. I think that's completely relevent to the case as are any prior arrests. we need the facts of the case as well as the big picture. I think it goes to character

I served on a jury for a drug case. It ended up in plea bargain by the 2nd day but we found out afterwards that the guy had 9 priors for drug possession and dealing. That would have been nice to know but of course it was never brought up. You can't dispute facts. I don't think it would sway me as long as the facts back up the accusation the whole process really opened my eyes that the jury system needs some revamping. Everyone claimed financial hardships or that they have babies/elderly to take care of so all that was left on the jury was people in good jobs or retired. they wouldn't let us take notes either and many don't. that's a problem to me. I may have a question or something strikes me as a half-truth but i can forget it by the end. juries should be able to ask questions of the witnesses and some states allow it, others don't. I also feel the accused should HAVE to take the stand. if they want to plead the fifth then let them do that on the stand but let the jury hear the questions from the defense and prosecution along with the answers/half answers/pleading the 5th.

I won't argue that LV told the ISP but was a court injunction ordered by the court? was the guy found guilty yet? I would be very hesitant to take the word of a 3rd party without any legal documentation to back it up. You cannot really say that the ISP had clear knowledge. They just had clear knowledge of what they were told. Let the court decide and then let the ISP comply with a takedown. This is the type of thing the RIAA wants to do with a 3 strikes law in which under no proof, just the word of the RIAA, they want the ISP to cut internet access to the user.

It makes sense. The iphone has grown on me but not enough to switch to AT&T. if Verizon gets it then it will be something I consider

Someone needs to tell TWC how capitalism is supposed to work. The city came to them and told them they want and need a better ISP. TWC, rather than listen to customers and improve their systems, they left their network the way it was. so now that the city has other options, capitalism means that twc should improve their network, provide more service at a competive price. if you want to leave things the way they are then of course people are going to look elsewhere

what does this solve other than give Time Warner more money? If the high users sign up for the high end and the low end people sign up for the cheap deal, people are still suffering from slow connections. this doesnt' address it. likewise, what if EVERYONE signs up for the $150 plan. people are using what they pay for, network is still slow, Timewarner does nothing to improve it, and just bask in the increased profits. what incentive does any ISP have to improve their network if they are making money off the tiers of service.

I don't think balanced reporting is a myth, it just doesn't seem to exist anymore. It's supposed to be a news column, not an editorial. To use your example about reporting on the Democratic convention, why would it be so hard to report who was there, sequence of events, and what the person said. whether you agree with it or not shouldn't play any part in doing your job as a news reporter. What one side considers a joke the other side considers an insult..example being the 'lipstick on a pig' comment during the election. The quote should be in the NEWS article and the editorial should give the viewpoint that it was insulting or whatever they want to say. and yes it can be a natural bias that creeps through but then shouldn't the editor be demanding the reporters stick to the facts. if not then what good are they.

People are used to having information at their fingertips and this is no different. They want ALL the information before they decide to send a guy to jail for 20 years. Facts are facts and let the jury decide what counts and what doesn't. I sat on a jury where a guy was accused of dealing drugs. we sat through 2 days of testimony and witnesses before the 2 sides agreed to a plea deal. it wasn't until AFTER that he told us this defendant was arrested and convited 8 times for the same offense. seriously, how is that not relevent in the case? character counts and like i said, facts are facts and him being arrested 8 times is a FACT i need to make my decision but the court decides to hide. anyway, i'm starting to think the whole jury system needs an overhaul. When i served on the afore mentioned drug case, they dismissed jurors who I thought would make great jurors. people who admitted to using drugs in the past, people who's sons were used drugs, an ex-cop type person (wasn't a cop but worked for the police dept before retiring) who would have been great to have because part of the crossexamination was picking apart the cop's procedure. They also dismissed everyone who claimed financial hardship so all that was left on the jury were people with good jobs, retired or owned their own businesses. Right...like that was a jury of the guy's peers. then speaking of dismissing jurors who actually know stuff, if a case involves a computer crime then what is the point of having someone on the jury who doesn't even know how to turn one on but that's who gets on. They can't see through the BS spewed by BOTH sides. so they fill juries with blind, inept people who can't pick out this from that in the testimony and now courts are complaining that people have the AUDACITY to actually educate themselves in order to make an informed decision. please. time to bring the court system back from the dark ages.

I had blockbuster a year or 2 ago. It was great. then they knocked down my weekly free coupons to 2 per month. then they took them away completely. then they raise the price. i think i left at that point but since then I believe they started limiting how many in store exchanges you can do to 3 per month, raised prices yet again, and now returning to the store doesn't even send out the next movie. really...what good is blockbuster? why would anyone want it over netflix? if blockbuster's plan is to drive away all customers so they can declare bankruptcy then it's working. I'm no CEO but i would think you would try to build brand loyalty and bring in more customer rather than lose the ones you already have.

what we want RIAA to do is change their business model. it's not working. it's evident to everyone except the RIAA. We also kinda ask for real proof of the charges rather than just an IP. Also stop suing for exorbitant fees. share 10 songs and have to pay $220,000? it doesn't add up. I read an article that showed fines for file sharing dished out so far are over 10x as large as fines for REAL crimes.

How does this affect their campaign against colleges? i know there was an article in which RIAA wanted to extort money from colleges and agree not to sue them but what if colleges say no. is the ISP going to shut down internet access to the entire university if the RIAA asks for it?

From what i've seen demo'd in the stores, I really really want a bluray player but there's a couple reasons i have not yet. first, of course, is price. i do my research on products before i buy so it seems like the quality bluray players all cost $400+. Bluray is still pretty new so when I found out there's different profiles, of course i want the newest one but it's not readily available yet. so i have to wait for that. reviews also show that many of the bluray players have long load times so now i have to wait for that to improve. i don't want to buy a bluray player just to have a bluray player. i want to make sure it's something that's current and won't annoy the heck out of me.