A statement made with no understanding of section 230 of the DMCA at all. The section that clearly states that platform providers are NOT liable for copyright infringement on their site so long as they were not found to be willingly complicit in its uploading. The case against Mega Upload hinges on secondary liability, a concept that doesn't exist in the current copyright statutes, and the fact that Mega employees were uploading copyrighted content to the site.

So long as no one can prove that actual Google employees were explicitly aiding the infringement of copyright on their service then YouTube is protected by section 230.

I see this argument a lot around Slashdot, and while I would agree that this is typically correct for the top end of the labor pool it fails to take into account that an influx of cheap labor impacts people who are still gaining experience. Even if you are completely amazing at your chosen profession I would wager that your abilities, like everyone else's, where built up through time and experience. Time granted by a manager who had faith in your ability to grow.

If an influx of cheap labor prevents the more inexperienced people from gaining their expertise then the country will eventually be left barren of skills as the imported labor takes their skills and experience home with them at the end of their tenure.

This doesn't just apply to people coming straight out of college either. Even people who have some experience will be affected if they are replaced with a foreign visa holder before they can make the move from technical expert to leadership role.

Hate to break it to you but this is false. Since the 90s shareholders can sue the senior executives for failing to maximize the profit of the company. There are certain types of incorporation that will allow you to bypass this, such as incorporating as a B corp as opposed to an S corp, but this is not common.

Contracts have limitations on what they can allow a party to do. Contracts are found to have unenforceable conditions all the time, and there are also limitations on what rights can be signed away. Just look at Illinois, which is allowing a lawsuit to proceed against Facebook for its attempt to tag people in photos without their permission.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

A clause in a contract stating that Apple has the power to take your music permanently in exchange for using their service temporarily is almost certainly unenforceable.

You would know if you had read the articles that Apple's terms of use explicitly state that they are going to delete your local files. It was quoted in the article. This was an intended feature along with the inability to recover you music after cancelling the service. This is no bug. It is blatant theft of digital property.

"canning" existed for years before the can opener by using jars and pickling the food that you wanted to preserve.