Why are you being mean? You suggested that content being hosted on a copyright holder's website was enough protection. They cited an example where it wasn't. It just means the specifics of the case law are relevant here and a blanket pronouncement isn't sufficient.
I'm sorry if I was brusque but it's annoying when people don't look at the whole picture when making an argument but rather focus on a narrow interpretation that allows them to make a point.
Do you not see a difference between published newspaper articles and AT&T's customers' private information, however poorly guarded? Do you think a judge would? Maybe freehunter didn't see the difference either and I'm just a cynic.
Yeah there is a difference, but there is also a similarity. Google links to news articles with or without permission. They even got sued for doing so. Just because Google is doing it doesn't mean it's legal, and even if Google has permission it doesn't mean everyone else has permission.
As for what a judge would think, the fact that you had to find a way around their content protection gave a clear sign that they were trying to protect their content. The DMCA doesn't really discriminate when it comes to the difficulty of copyright circumvention.
First of all, let me apologize for not being more charitable with my assumptions.
As to the actual point, WSJ has a paywall in place which they deliberately open to let Google through. Not just Google's crawler, but visitors using Google's search page as a referrer.
It's quite different than AT&T being incompetent or negligent with their customers' private info. WSJ is the owner of the content and they are making a strategic decision to allow this behavior.
Again, I wish I hadn't been rude. It would have been nicer to have this exchange without it.
I love that this link is here, IANAL, but I'm curious: would pasting this link here violate the CFAA or Web Entertainment Theft Bill since it's bypassing a paywall? Would it count as a misdemeanor in that case to actually follow the link?
I don't like how none of the pictures display the FireTV Stick with power cord vs Chromecast which does not require one.
In fact, only 2 subtle note even alludes to a power cord.
They might well release a 64GB version later. They released a 32GB version of the N7 2012 some months after initial release and removed the 8GB version.
Congrats to Songza! I really like Songza and discovered many great music I otherwise would not have found with the service. It has become my go to for music discovery.
I hope Songza continues and become even better. :)
This Loyal3 looks interesting because of the IPOs, credit card purchasing, and the no fees option.
However I am wondering what happens if the company (LOYAL3) folds since it allows fractional shares? Closest reference I found was this,
"LOYAL3 Securities, Inc., as a broker-dealer, has to comply with certain regulations regarding the requirement to have adequate net capital and asset protection. LOYAL3 segregates your securities holdings and cash in your account, meaning it keeps your assets separate from the firm’s own assets. In addition, LOYAL3 Securities, Inc., is a member of SIPC, which protects securities of the customers of its members up to $500,000 (including $250,000 for claims for cash). An explanatory brochure is available at www.sipc.org."
In the case if a full service firm, you can move those shares to another account at a different institution once the year settles. Should be the car at this company too, but I suspect that the process would be much more annoying since you can't just pester a person on the phone for info.
Where did you see about an escrow? Or are you asking hypothetical?
Since the site does not address this issue, there is nothing to stop the site from up and leaving with all the coins. With a mixer, they can easily disappear too.
as I understand it, the bets go to holding pools (presumably controlled by bitbook.ie) until the events outcome is determined, at which point they are dispersed accordingly, maybe I got that wrong
