People seem to be willing to call this "commercial" use too readily in this article's comment section here. I find the trend towards calling browse-only internet service disconcerting. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to run a noncommercial box or series of boxes at home that provide myself, family, and friends, with access. Either you have internet connectivity or you don't. Arbitrarily determining that use is "commercial" simply because the average user does not use their connection the same way is asinine.

the imaginary line between business and personal usage is not drawn in any way that reflects the actual meaning of the words.

AC doesn't bother to comprehend a post before responding. Go figure.

What I want to know is why in the world the publisher deserves a cent for a game already paid for. Not why they legally can put it into their license, but why they deserve it.

Nukes?! I prefer to use Chinese Needle Snakes.

I actually left the fire service four years ago with a hereditary medical issue after a bit over two years professional and several years volunteer service. Landed back in IT.

My time serving definitely changed my view of what constitutes heroism though. The threshold seems to have become much lower than it once was, reserved for the Davy Crocketts and William Wallaces of the world. Now it seems to be applied to practically everyone in one way or another.

The article lacks numbers, but I have a feeling their asking price was far above and beyond the threshold of reasonable amounts. I just don't care enough to delve into it at 4:59 in the afternoon.

That's my impression as well. The domain owners seem to have played the WIPO, along with any (likely) dislike the WIPO has for men like Paul who would dismantle countless copyright extensions and protections that he feels overreach the reasonable limits of copyright's intent.

...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place. I already didn't trust the WIPO before, and this certainly didn't help improve their image in my eyes.

Perhaps I missed it, but how was this murder terrorism?

I thought everyone was familiar with the process thanks to the Saturday morning cartoons, but perhaps some of you Delinquent Terrorees need it spelled out.

After a crime or crime-like event, what'll happen is that someone on the Terroree Committee announces their IBA (Intent to Become Afraid). Another committee member seconds this, possibly after some out-of-band side-dealing. This brings the terror (small "t") to the floor, where a wider discussion ensues. If seven ninths of the committee supports Afraidity, then goes to the larger Terroree Assembly for more debate and ultimately a straight majority vote. (I'm oversimplifying here, but I'm not sure how much detail you were requesting.)

If it wins the vote, it is promoted to a Terror (large "T"). A Terror's actors become "terrorists" and the action "terrorism" and so on. If no motive for the terrorism is found (no one comes forth and explains their demands and that they performed the act in order to persuade the public to see things their way, the classic boilerplate being "I committed that violent action in order to prove that my views are the wisest views") then something can be made up -- technically after being sent back to the Terroree Committee. To save time, the original committee's meeting may come with a non-binding suggested motive, and after the assembly's Terror vote, a popular Terror will often immediately proceed to a vote on the suggested Terror Motive.

All members of the Terroree Assembly agree, as a condition for joining the assembly, that they will comport Afraidity with any and all Terrors, without exception, and regardless of however they voted upon the original terror (the "Mandated Afraidity"). This helps to address charges of illegitimacy, so that we don't have a repeat of the Cole incident (where it languished in Terror Court after passing the assembly (with high absenteeism) and a poll of the assembly members found that 87% of its members hadn't been Afraid).

The Mandated Afraidity, while once thought of as draconian and overburdensome, is now widely accepted thanks to a notification network which helps to keep assembly members up-to-date and informed about exactly what to fear, how to persuade the public to comport Afraidity, etc.

Google Streetview begs to differ.

On this, we agree. However, his impression does fit into a valid sampling of public opinion. Often, public opinion trumps reality when it comes to how well-received public servants and their cut of local, state, and federal budgets are, as well as in policymaking and in cases that reach trial involving, in this case, police officers.

Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of cops, I'm friends with a lot of cops. I was on a sports team made up of over 50% cops. Great bunch of guys. But as long as people's experiences are limited to the ones who pull them over and ruin their day and the ones who make the news with negative events, there will be people who firmly believe all law enforcement officers are the lowest form of human (if they admit to that much) life found on this planet.

So he is incorrect about his view's global scope. However, he is correct that his view is not an uncommon one. It's definitely not a black and white issue, but the grey is getting ever darker it seems.