I think what they mean is that it doesn't really change anything. You still can't give your book to a friend, or even lend it out without risking that somewhere along the line it could be pirated and leave you at the sharp end of the law. We *hope* our friends are trustworthy enough, but shit happens. Someone steals your laptop, or a college buddy uses your computer and uploads the book to TPB with your name on it, whatever. Watermarking is dangerous because it makes *you* liable for protecting the copyright of a purchase. If someone steals a physical book from me, then I'm just out a book. If someone steals a watermarked ebook and then distributes it, I could be liable. The problem is that I *shouldn't* be. Theoretically, you can't *prove* that it was me who infringed, even though my name is on the book.

This is a serious shift in copyright. It takes the onus of protection off of copyright holders, and puts it on the reader/user. That seems like a really bad idea from the consumer's point of view.

"learn to logic"? Learn to speak.

Let me "logic" it out for you...

"And what Apple is accused of doing is "allowing games geared at kids to push them to make purchases.""
- false. There's no "pushing" here. If anything it's enticement. But just for the sake of argument, let's say Apple is being accused of this and continue.

  "Apple is no common carrier, Apple exercises control over every app sold through its store."
- true. Focus on the word "control" here.

"And is therefore responsible for the app, including any immoral, unethical or downright illegal inducement of children to enter into financial transactions."
- Oops. This is where the poster steps off the logic train. This is complete assumption. I'm sure you could read through the TOS on the App Store and find numerous paragraphs specifically releasing Apple from all responsibility for the use and content of the Apps they sell. The "control" mentioned earlier applies *only* to the choice to sell or not sell a given app, NOT it's use. That stays completely within the realm of the account holder (notice I did not say 'app user').

I'm sorry you can't keep *your* kids under control, but mine do just fine, thank you very much.

"Exercising control" of all apps, and being "responsible" for the ethical and moral content of those apps is *totally* different. They can allow whatever the hell they want, even selectively. If you sign up, then the onus is on you to decide if the content is morally and ethically "responsible". If said games were targeted *only* at children, you might have a case, but as far as I am aware, Apple makes no distinction other than to possibly rate content upwardly, ie: may contain adult language, etc, which a parent can restrict, even back when the case was filed.

The plaintiff's failure as a parent, does not make Apple guilty. The very act of having an iOS device requires that an adult is involved with a credit-card, and as such, is responsible to monitor said device should they put it in the hands of a "child" who wouldn't know better. You wouldn't hand a loaded gun to a child and then sue the gun manufacturer when the kid blows away your neighbor, or maybe you would.

Having never been in one of these things, and assuming I understand the exploit correctly, couldn't you just have people randomly stand either directly forward, or at a 45 degree angle? If you don't know which position you are going to get, you can't place an object so that it's hidden, yes? A simple change to procedure and problem solved.

Just because the guy choses a USB stick with an Apple logo on it (that's not even made by Apple) doesn't mean it has *anything* to do with Apple or Apple TV. Was he somehow spoofing iTunes accounts?

"The Crossbow Project. There's No Defense Like a Good Offense."

Or, it could just be that WAY fewer people are buying "albums" anymore. Why should we when most of the crap they pass for music these days has one, maybe two songs of any worth per album? The industry used to make huge profits off of the one-hit-wonder, basically selling a single good song for the cost of an entire album. But now that we can get just the single on the cheap, they have lost their scam.

Unless you happen to be using a public keyboard, these are going to be germs from YOUR body. If they were going to be a problem, then they already would be. Washing your OWN hands would be a lot more effective.

Do you seriously believe that if it wasn't Apple, it wouldn't be someone else? That's the epitome of naive.

The fact that they happen to currently be the biggest and baddest on the block means this shouldn't surprise you. Microsoft had its own form of evil, usually just stealing an idea from someone else and getting it to market first. That Apple uses a legal (if marginally unethical) method to do the same thing shouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

Apple is a company. They're in it for the money. Stop treating them like a person and this is all perfectly logical. HTC is a direct competitor. Why would Apple not do everything in its power to hinder or stop them from being a competitor?

Does that include the Declaration of Independence? I suppose it would be much easier to change in digital form...

In Facebook's case those audits should probably be about once every two months... There was a new violation (location tracking) on the iOS mobile app just this week.

It should be noted that none of the licenses you cited (with the possible exception of the private pilot license, and maaaybe the temp driver's license) endanger other people beyond yourself. A driver's license isn't just to protect you, it's to protect *everyone else*, and in a way that crosses state boundaries. There are just too many "John Smith's" in your state (let alone in the whole U.S.) to not have some secondary means of identifying you are you, especially given that driver's licenses are used as a primary for of identification (whether they should be or not).

Hmm... then how about an increasing set of fees for submitting patents that are found to be too broad. In other words, they *charge* you an extra grand for the first time you do it, doubling it for each successive violation. An incentive for the USPTO to rule in the other direction, and an incentive to companies to stop trying to patent obvious things. They might be able to get away with it for a half dozen times, but then it will start to hurt.

On the other hand, all that will accomplish is corporations spinning off distinct corporate fronts to allow them to keep up the patent wars... crap! How do you stop this??

And the only reason that this hasn't been patented in the past is that nobody honestly believed that the USPTO could be so freaking stupid. Boy did we underestimate THAT...

Not that I necessarily believe these quakes are the result of fracking (WAY too small a data set), but did it ever occur to you that the seismic changes caused by fracking could indeed take decades before they become present?