If the producer of content has decided not to offer their content in your region, then you have no way to pay them for the content. Whether you access it or not at that point is moot, because the producer of the content has already said that they don't want your money. As owners of the content it's completely up to them who they are interested in accepting payment from.
Incorrect. There is a grand jury who made a decision on terms and evidence dictated by the prosecutor. I think that's the real problem here. A trial, while imperfect, is adversarial and offers the chance to present more evidence and make counter arguments on any terms. The grand jury was limited to what the prosecutor decided to allow.
I'm confused. Are you saying that the grand jury would have been more likely to indict Wilson, if Wilson had been allowed to have a defense attorney?
Dinosaurs take a long time to die.
Legal compliance is your responsibility, not your car's.
Going after the tool maker gives them the possibility of a bigger pot of gold at the end. People like this don't care who is actually doing the crime, they care about who has the most money that they can go after.
Don't give them any ideas. Next will be a lawsuit claiming that the primary purpose of the vehicle is to rip copyrighted material and transport it across state lines.
You can't think of another purpose for a car audio system, other than ripping digital content? Really?
Seems broad, all right... and obvious, and like there would be prior art.
Actually, it's a patent for "Square wave with rounded corners machine control", so it's OK.
On what grounds can a poster sue YouTube for not allowing them to post?
Does YouTube honor counter-claims?
According to whose definition of "what is broken" and "is fixed"?
Unfortunately, most voters are idiots.
please jump in and sort out whether this is primarily a problem of older hardware not being able to handle newer publications, or of newer hardware becoming unable/unwilling to render older content?
Yes, but now that the information is out there, how many current players have retired early because of it? Only one that I've heard of. Whether or not the NFL deliberately hid information from past players probably wouldn't have made any difference either.
It is attitudes like this that encourages treating users like crap.
Yes, Facebook does treat it's users like crap.
Without the users they have zero value of what they have to offer the advertisers
True, but for now they have plenty of users (most of whom probably don't care that their information is being mined/sold). Until that changes, they will continue to treat them like crap.