Of course you have to actually show up in court on the relevant days, having filed the appropriate motions and paid the appropriate fees, to make the case that "no, I'm not responsible for any and all copies and descendents of the original". Otherwise the people suing you win by default. And then maybe at the end you can recover your fees again, and if you are very very lucky, the cost of your time.
The history of antipiracy lawsuits, especially in the US, would seem to suggest that they do bugger all to reduce piracy, at an enormous cost to the IP owner and the taxpayer. When the patient's dying on the table and your best witchdoctor isn't helping, maybe it's time to switch to a better kind of medicine.
Interestingly a cursory reading of the relevant law suggests that it's only supplying IP-infringing goods that is a criminal offense in the UK; being a recipient is at most a civil offense.
It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the criminalisation of IP infringement, it just makes the first step towards closer government interventions.
Because they can turn around in a few years when this is normalised behaviour and say "Hey, isn't it ridiculous that we know who all these inveterate pirates are, but we aren't doing anything? Maybe we should pass a simple law that fines them a few hundred quid, that's not much of a problem, is it?"
True, but at least in that case you'd expect them to limit their search to plausible bludgeons. It's a tantalising grey area, I think we both agree.
They'd presumably just seize the server as evidence.
A better analogy would be "we have enough evidence to justify a search, but we don't know whether the murder weapon is a gun, a knife, a potato, or a window, so we're going to be keeping an exact record of every single object in the house".
I'm wary of the slippery slope fallacy, but this seems like a genuine example of an instance where a slightly troubling activity - keeping images of people's entire hard drives - has led to a broader and more troubling one.
And if you tolerate this,
Then your email will be next
Will be next
Will be next
Will be next
Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas. Or... something.
You forgot the horn part, which is absolutely essential.
Thunderbirds are Go.
Yep, one of their cited benefits is continuously variable torque without the weight of a transmission.
They seem to be "further up the tree" than arthropods, i.e. they predate the existence of distinct shrimp altogether.
The whole point of having a corporation (or any other sort of team for that matter) is that you find ways to be less failure-prone than you are as individuals. You have to do this to offset the fact that a failure of the group affects every member - the cost is multiplied.
If Apple and publishers wanted to attack Amazon's monopoly position, there is a legal mechanism to do so. That they chose a mechanism that make them all an enormous amount of money should tell you something about whose side they're on, and it's not yours.