If you want the exhaustive restrospective on this particular case, along with some very critical discussion on the topic of whether APIs are copyrightable (they aren't), and particularly on whether the APIs in question as implemented are infringing, you couldn't do much better than the following link: http://www.groklaw.net/staticp...

The people who are using these streaming services and not paying are (largely) relatives or close friends of people who are paying for the service.

Sure, you could crack down on password sharing and some small percentage of people would buy their own subscription, and then your streaming counts would go down, but the net gain, in terms of subscriber payments is going to be pretty close to nil

And, now, with the balkanization of digital content streaming over multiple services so that rightsholding conglomerates can try to more directly siphon money from people that want to watch shows online, the costs to people go up, and sharing becomes more likely to happen in order to offset that incremental cost.

This is stupid, pointless, and counterproductive, if the focus is on getting as many people as possible to see the value in paying for a streaming service. Either one service with almost everything on it (as Netflix had almost been) for a certain price, or a fraction of that price split up amongst different services makes sense as something lots of people would pay for. The same amount multiplied across multiple streaming services will just get you people sharing access to get a cost they can deal with.

When will they build an AI tool to predict whether hosts are scamming people? Or just racist.

Weight is not an indicator of health. There are numerous people who are fat and healthy, and numerous people who are not fat and are unhealthy. I mean, I get it, we've been yammering for decades about an obesity epidemic that is largely not a problem, so it's hard to not just keep doing that, but *sheesh*.

Actually, it was a pretty much perfect apology. They didn't do much wrong, aside from not having an official process in place to remove a mod. What, are they supposed to say "We are *sooo* sorry for removing this person who flat out told us they would not ever use a person's pronouns if they felt the person's choice was wrong"? What about a mod who refused to refer to someone's same-sex spouse as their spouse?

I think that's part of what the OP was saying. Prior to this ruling, they couldn't (because the FCC had correctly classified internet service and could exert regulatory authority), but with this ruling, they'd be able to.

Aside from the court being wrong about whether broadband is a telecommunications service or an information service, I agree. Google (the search page) is classified as an information service. Broadband is provisioning of a network connection for an internet peer, so...not the same thing, which shouldn't be hard for the courts to understand, but whatevah!

So, this will be where all of those revenge porn sites, white-supremacist-fluffers, and generally reprehensible unscrupulous dickbags will move to in order to keep making money.

It's times like this that I desperately miss Groklaw and Pamela Jones.

I don't understand why they weren't required to put $125 X number of claimants into an escrow account to cover claimants. Money left over after 4 years? Fine. Equifax can keep that, I guess. Either they are admitting that the monitoring service they are offering isn't worth anywhere remotely close to $125 over 4 years, or they are saying that they thought that nobody wold bother to file a claim for $125 from one of the three companies that completely control whether you can get credit, rent an apartment, or in some cases, even get a job, after said company failed to protect information that in the wrong hands could lead to problems with all of the above. The implementation of this settlement was complete horseshit.

but that was a tv show, not a movie.

Yeah. You missed it.

Sure, it's maybe going to be "obscene" content, whatever that means, but who cares. The *problem* is that it's potentially going to be content, whether sexually graphic or not, that puts the faces of people not involved in filming pornographic videos in a position where people will believe that they *were* in pornographic videos.

Be all puritanical or whatever, but obscenity isn't the problem that this or any other "deepfake" tool is actually causing. I'd be satisfied if any such tool was required to watermark the entire video in an easily identifiable way, kind of like we do with printers that print images recognized as currency.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Seriously, I hope you were aiming for either +5 Funny or +5 Troll

Great! How about letting me sort my news feed in chronological order (by date posted, and not date of last frigging comment)?

Well, yes, but since you're most likely going to be doing a copy/paste out of the field with the password in it, that vulnerability is going to be eclipsed by the vulnerability of being able to grab what's in the clipboard. KeePass already doesn't show you the password by default when you open an entry. You have to click the little "show password" button. They could have easily made the password display as a bitmap image instead of text, but I'm assuming they didn't for the same reason I just mentioned. I mean, you can make it not ever display text, but instead read the password aloud, but each of the mitigations mentioned are just going to make people not use that password manager because it becomes inconvenient. Ultimately, if you don't just have all of your passwords memorized, you are vulnerable to some sort of attack that doesn't involve the wrench technique.