Soo... don't file patent claims against AV1 and you get to use it for free? The whole point was to create a critical mass of patents to prevent others from filing claims against AV1. I think the problem is the AOM licenses are not compliant with FRAND rules.
1.3 billion accounts, ~400 million monthly active users, ~200 million monetizeable daily active users.
1 million deleted per day is not a great rate considering the problem scope.
Bandwidth and storage prices decrease every year. Power breaks even (approximately, hdd density goes up, but power prices go up). Equipment needs upgrading and staff needs paying. But as long as you're making new sales on any content at reasonable volumes, legacy content should be maintainable effectively indefinitely.
Even if all that weren't true, Playstation Store runs off the same infrastructure as Playstation Plus which *is* a subscription service. It didn't prevent this from happening.
This is a license-holder wanting to get off this service and a poorly written contract that doesn't allow Sony to keep distributing content to paid licensees.
I suggest we raise the fine by 1% international gross revenue each time they get caught. Their stockholders will start to pay attention.
Author knows he has to clickbait because his data told him so.
It's allowed because the publishers let it happen. They have every right to stop gameplay videos and streamers, but they don't do it.
For example, Nintendo has issued a ton of DMCA takedowns for "Kaizo Mario" videos on YT. It's within their right to do so. But publishers generally don't issue takedowns because they realize how much Let's Play-style videos and Twitch streaming affects their sales, especially among younger audiences. If a popular streamer starts playing one of their titles, they will see a revenue jump that week... Like during the World of Warcraft fiasco last year, some major WoW streamers switched to various other MMOs and shortly thereafter there was a major surge in Final Fantasy XIV subscriptions to the point where the game sold out of digital copies (because connect queue waits were saturated).
Game streaming (often) encourages consumers to try the game themselves. Movies are a one-and-done kind of experience. Publishers know this and set their enforcement policies accordingly.
The manufacturer, Intuition Robotics, advertises it as a health care device. If that's actually true, they're bound by HIPAA in the US (and similar laws elsewhere).
Crucially, it makes a distinction between genetic modification, which involves introducing genes from other species, and so-called "precision breeding" to create desirable traits. The latter uses gene editing to make changes that mimic the process of selective breeding, only more precisely and far more rapidly than traditional breeding would allow.
They're making a distinction between "things rich people want done to their babies" and "how to make catgirls."
The penalty here should be Twitter is barred from storing user phone numbers *and* has to notify every user whose number they sold with a message saying "We illegally sold your phone number to [list of third party data vendors]. Here's how you contact them to get your information removed from their lists." Hit them where it actually hurts: user goodwill.
If you gave this set of requirements to the Rutan brothers, I bet they could get it done. And probably receive a half a dozen prototypes on how to avoid the problem to begin with.
Seems like the solution you're suggesting here is regulation and liability (and probably insurance to deal with the liability). Sure, it'll discourage a certain amount of innovation, but maybe we don't need those kinds of half-baked financial products carrying around millions of dollars of assets.
High production costs make blockbusters risk averse. They have to pander to audience expectations, but that also means they rarely produce something new and interesting. It's the same reason why indie games tend to be more creative about mechanics--things that actually make games fun.
We know what the national average housing inflation is per year. No need to fudge it when we can reference it directly. For example, from 2002 to 2021, housing prices inflated on average 59%. Plus, if you factor in primary residence tax credit, the kept amount after a 900k gain like gp's story would be 680K at 80% cgt. If it's an investment house or second house, sounds like they're rich enough to pay the full 80% cgt.
The taxable amount is price sold - price paid - fees paid. CGT is not a sales tax or vat. Nobody is going into huge debt.
Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.
