Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Italy, youtube, they do be crazy!

13

Posts

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    you guys really need to stop strawmanning yar. he's stated already that he doesn't think the google peeps should be found guilty.

    maybe you guys should try to address his actual point, which is, it's not that ridiculous to hold a service provider liable for content posted on it's site and it would be even less ridiculous if the service was used primarily for illegal goods. consider for example a shipping company that transports sex slaves in 90% of their cargo holds. it could be argued that as a service provider, they shouldnt be held liable because they arent liable for the content of their cargo holds. i think that would be a difficult argument to make though.

    whatever the case, i think we all agree that the prosecution was being stupid in this case.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    While I think this decision is stupid, I am also of the opinion that sooner or later much of Google's services are going to be regulated by government, on the basis that they function as essential infrastructure. And that's probably a good thing.

    How exactly are gmail, google search, youtube etc. essential infrastructure? I don't gmail an ambulance in a medical emergency.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    While I think this decision is stupid, I am also of the opinion that sooner or later much of Google's services are going to be regulated by government, on the basis that they function as essential infrastructure. And that's probably a good thing.

    How exactly are gmail, google search, youtube etc. essential infrastructure? I don't gmail an ambulance in a medical emergency.

    You are right. You twitter an ambulance.

    The internet is fairly vital infrastructure at this point but all of the providers of services like search engines are numerous enough that there isn't much reason to regulate them as other essential infrastructure.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    While I think this decision is stupid, I am also of the opinion that sooner or later much of Google's services are going to be regulated by government, on the basis that they function as essential infrastructure. And that's probably a good thing.

    How exactly are gmail, google search, youtube etc. essential infrastructure? I don't gmail an ambulance in a medical emergency.
    E-mail serves the same role as the post office ... which is controlled by gov.

    Youtube functions as a medium for broadcasting and receiving videos, like "airwaves" and "telecom lines" ... which are regulated.

    I don't think we're there yet, but we're certainly getting there.

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I think one of the reasons supported by the legislative history of the CDA was the problematic result in Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy where Prodigy's attempts to police their service were held against them.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    While I think this decision is stupid, I am also of the opinion that sooner or later much of Google's services are going to be regulated by government, on the basis that they function as essential infrastructure. And that's probably a good thing.

    How exactly are gmail, google search, youtube etc. essential infrastructure? I don't gmail an ambulance in a medical emergency.
    E-mail serves the same role as the post office ... which is controlled by gov.

    Youtube functions as a medium for broadcasting and receiving videos, like "airwaves" and "telecom lines" ... which are regulated.

    I don't think we're there yet, but we're certainly getting there.

    You're right, gmail and youtube are the only ways you can send emails or post videos on the internet :rotate:

  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Ketherial wrote: »
    you guys really need to stop strawmanning yar. he's stated already that he doesn't think the google peeps should be found guilty.

    maybe you guys should try to address his actual point, which is, it's not that ridiculous to hold a service provider liable for content posted on it's site and it would be even less ridiculous if the service was used primarily for illegal goods. consider for example a shipping company that transports sex slaves in 90% of their cargo holds. it could be argued that as a service provider, they shouldnt be held liable because they arent liable for the content of their cargo holds. i think that would be a difficult argument to make though.

    whatever the case, i think we all agree that the prosecution was being stupid in this case.

    Except in this case the minute the shipping company (ie - Google) found the pack of Malaysian preteens in it's cargo crates, it turned them over to the proper authorities.

    And then the government arrested them for sex trafficing anyway.


    Yar wants to make it illegal to even have a service where the possibility of shipping Malaysian hookers exists.

    So, essentially, he wants to illegalise the ability of people to share information and things.

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    While I think this decision is stupid, I am also of the opinion that sooner or later much of Google's services are going to be regulated by government, on the basis that they function as essential infrastructure. And that's probably a good thing.

    How exactly are gmail, google search, youtube etc. essential infrastructure? I don't gmail an ambulance in a medical emergency.
    E-mail serves the same role as the post office ... which is controlled by gov.

    Youtube functions as a medium for broadcasting and receiving videos, like "airwaves" and "telecom lines" ... which are regulated.

    I don't think we're there yet, but we're certainly getting there.

    not sure what you mean when you say "regulated". are private shipping companies at the moment "regulated" in the same way that you think google should be "regulated?"

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I think Yar is more arguing that youtube is against porn, and has ~0 porn on it. Youtube is also against copyrighted material, but I can find terabytes of copyrighted material that is years old on YT. Youtube seems to be "against" all the bad stuff, but only actively polices stuff that would harm their market share.

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Yar wants to make it illegal to even have a service where the possibility of shipping Malaysian hookers exists.

    So, essentially, he wants to illegalise the ability of people to share information and things.

    i know you're jailed so it may be hard to cite, but can you please point out where yar states anything like what you've said above?

    maybe i just missed it, but i don't see it at all.

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Defamation on a site like Youtube is a really challenging situation not really covered under existing US law. I don't think Youtube is obligated to remove defamatory or pornographic content. They just do because they know that if they don't police themselves, the courts will get activist on their asses or the legislature will close the loophole and make operating their business much harder.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I'm not sure there would ever be something that would actually be defamation posted on Youtube outside of some retarded countries (sorry, UK). It is the same gossiping about someone.

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    I'm not sure there would ever be something that would actually be defamation posted on Youtube outside of some retarded countries (sorry, UK). It is the same gossiping about someone.

    There is plenty of defamation on Youtube in the USA and there is nothing preventing a person believing themself defamed from filing a lawsuit against a Doe and then subpoenaing Youtube and down the line for information leading to the defamer. What you can't do under present law is hold Youtube responsible.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    I'm not sure there would ever be something that would actually be defamation posted on Youtube outside of some retarded countries (sorry, UK). It is the same gossiping about someone.

    i dont agree. putting something on youtube is like publishing, so i could see libel issues arising. gossip (in its traditional form - i.e., talk) would be slander at worst and no one gives a shit about that. libel is more serious though.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    I'm not sure there would ever be something that would actually be defamation posted on Youtube outside of some retarded countries (sorry, UK). It is the same gossiping about someone.

    i dont agree. putting something on youtube is like publishing, so i could see libel issues arising. gossip (in its traditional form - i.e., talk) would be slander at worst and no one gives a shit about that. libel is more serious though.
    After Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), applied the standard publisher/distributor test to find an online bulletin board liable for post by a third party, Congress specifically enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996) to reverse the Prodigy findings and to provide for private blocking and screening of offensive material. §230(c) states “that no provider or user of an interactive computer shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” thereby providing forums immunity for statements provided by third parties. Thereafter, cases such as Zeran v. America Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), and Blumenthal v Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998), have demonstrated that although courts are expressly uneasy with applying §230, they are bound to find providers like AOL immune from defamatory postings. This immunity applies even if the providers are notified of defamatory material and neglect to remove it, because provider liability upon notice would likely cause a flood of complaints to providers, would be a large burden on providers, and would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech on the Internet.

    In November 2006 the California Supreme Court ruled that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) does not permit web sites to be sued for libel that was written by other parties.[3]

    Awesome. George W. Bush drinks the blood of Jews.

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    I'm not sure there would ever be something that would actually be defamation posted on Youtube outside of some retarded countries (sorry, UK). It is the same gossiping about someone.

    i dont agree. putting something on youtube is like publishing, so i could see libel issues arising. gossip (in its traditional form - i.e., talk) would be slander at worst and no one gives a shit about that. libel is more serious though.

    Yes. The person uploading the defamatory content to Youtube will meet the element of publishing. On the other hand, Youtube is off the hook.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    I'm not sure there would ever be something that would actually be defamation posted on Youtube outside of some retarded countries (sorry, UK). It is the same gossiping about someone.

    i dont agree. putting something on youtube is like publishing, so i could see libel issues arising. gossip (in its traditional form - i.e., talk) would be slander at worst and no one gives a shit about that. libel is more serious though.
    After Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), applied the standard publisher/distributor test to find an online bulletin board liable for post by a third party, Congress specifically enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996) to reverse the Prodigy findings and to provide for private blocking and screening of offensive material. §230(c) states “that no provider or user of an interactive computer shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” thereby providing forums immunity for statements provided by third parties. Thereafter, cases such as Zeran v. America Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), and Blumenthal v Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998), have demonstrated that although courts are expressly uneasy with applying §230, they are bound to find providers like AOL immune from defamatory postings. This immunity applies even if the providers are notified of defamatory material and neglect to remove it, because provider liability upon notice would likely cause a flood of complaints to providers, would be a large burden on providers, and would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech on the Internet.

    In November 2006 the California Supreme Court ruled that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) does not permit web sites to be sued for libel that was written by other parties.[3]

    Awesome. George W. Bush drinks the blood of Jews.

    I know you are joking and I'm repeating myself, but it is a pet peeve of mine how many people don't realize that host immunity is not the same as content creator immunity. I suspect you are safe from a libel suit for other reasons though.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I just don't see how anything on Youtube could possibly be considered credible information that might have an affect on reputation, business, or anything else.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    I just don't see how anything on Youtube could possibly be considered credible information that might have an affect on reputation, business, or anything else.

    The law is aimed, generally, at the average consumer. The average consumer still mostly believes that there was either a tie between Iraq/911 or that they had WMD.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I know somoene who thinks Clinton was behind 9/11 and the tsunami a few years ago/Haiti quake were the result of a secret US weapon

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Some general goings-on in the world of politics that I hate:

    2) Greedy depsicable leeches in European and S. American governments who look for any way they can to attack or rob American global corporations.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU HAVE TO BE FUCKING KIDDING


    five pages on but seriously haha what

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I think what Yar is getting indignant about is this perceived view that Google "Profited" from the video of the abuse of the autistic individual.

    Despite the fact that I doubt any of us here, Yar included, saw the video let alone the page it was on and thus have no means to verify if there was anything on the page to make a profit from (i.e., an ad).

    To somehow argue some form of nefariousness on Google's part in this incident comes across to me as not just foolish but waddling down the path of foolishness like a merry little goose, honking all the way.

    Google was alerted to the video. They, if I understand correctly, pulled it down when it was done so.

    I think What Yar wants is, as pointed out earlier, for Google to essentially pre-screen all the videos. Except for the problem of them not having the manpower to do so, not to mention all the little problems that could go along with that (Youtube would slow to a crawl, many would abandon it for someplace else less restrictive and starting the whole issue all over again, people possibly viewing the move as a path to undue corporate censorship, etc.). It essentially causes more problems for innocent users than it solves. You'd be, essentially, using a club to solve this problem when what you need is a scalpel; that scalpel being the system already in place.

    As for how copyrighted works slip through the cracks while porn does so very rarely, I would imagine that, because of the porn being often flagged by users the problem arises: People want to view the copyrighted works on Youtube. It's quick and convenient, perhaps the ultimate in on-demand media service (aside from often poor quality). And this doesn't even touch on the culture of taking copyrighted things (sometimes multiple ones!) and crafting them into new things, be it AMVs, short little videos of oneself set to one's favorite song, etc. I would concede that there are arguments to be made that Google does allow on the illegitimately published copyrighted works to some degree, only stepping in when a holder complains (which, honestly, I'm fine with though wish more providers would just provide their stuff on there)



    TL;DR: These abusive assholes are bastards and I hope they get the book thrown at them, Google isn't liable for their jackassery and complied with the law as far as I can tell, and Yar is advising goosery that won't make things any better in the long run.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Awesome. George W. Bush drinks the blood of Jews.

    I know you are joking and I'm repeating myself, but it is a pet peeve of mine how many people don't realize that host immunity is not the same as content creator immunity. I suspect you are safe from a libel suit for other reasons though.

    if i recall correctly, truth is an absolute defense against libel. so yeah, couscous will be fine.

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Nice Gretzky move.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Some general goings-on in the world of politics that I hate:

    2) Greedy depsicable leeches in European and S. American governments who look for any way they can to attack or rob American global corporations.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU HAVE TO BE FUCKING KIDDING


    five pages on but seriously haha what

    In his mind, Contra is just a video game and United Fruit is a gay boy band.

  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Some general goings-on in the world of politics that I hate:

    2) Greedy depsicable leeches in European and S. American governments who look for any way they can to attack or rob American global corporations.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU HAVE TO BE FUCKING KIDDING


    five pages on but seriously haha what

    It's not that crazy, they love to sue for money. intel, MS, now google. They target big corporations and sue the crap out of them, that the EU has money problems makes it worse.

    It's stupid when people here sue for a buck, and it's stupid when the EU does it.

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Just wow.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    Just wow.

    They sued the shit out of MS and went on a rant about linux, euro designed, thus we should use it. They sued the fuck out intel, and now google.

    They have a fucking history of targeting the top American companies and then taking them to court only to end up extracting money from them.

    The EU is pathetic in this aspect.

    It's serial behavior, Yar called a duck a duck here.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    psychotix wrote: »
    Just wow.

    They sued the shit out of MS and went on a rant about linux, euro designed, thus we should use it. They sued the fuck out intel, and now google.

    They have a fucking history of targeting the top American companies and then taking them to court only to end up extracting money from them.

    The EU is pathetic in this aspect.

    It's serial behavior, Yar called a duck a duck here.

    Or it's a government taking action against very large corporations that use monopolistic tactics against smaller competitors.

    I mean, can you break down in detail your actual issues with the charges levied against Intel, Google, Microsoft, etc? Like, why the charges were wrongly filed, whether the evidence and testimony was fabricated, etc.

    Because I bet you can't.

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    psychotix wrote: »
    Just wow.

    They sued the shit out of MS and went on a rant about linux, euro designed, thus we should use it. They sued the fuck out intel, and now google.

    They have a fucking history of targeting the top American companies and then taking them to court only to end up extracting money from them.

    The EU is pathetic in this aspect.

    It's serial behavior, Yar called a duck a duck here.

    Yeah. I accidently posted the Just Wow in this thread after Canada scored in the hockey game. My bad.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    psychotix wrote: »
    Just wow.

    They sued the shit out of MS and went on a rant about linux, euro designed, thus we should use it. They sued the fuck out intel, and now google.

    They have a fucking history of targeting the top American companies and then taking them to court only to end up extracting money from them.

    The EU is pathetic in this aspect.

    It's serial behavior, Yar called a duck a duck here.

    Or it's a government taking action against very large corporations that use monopolistic tactics against smaller competitors.

    I mean, can you break down in detail your actual issues with the charges levied against Intel, Google, Microsoft, etc? Like, why the charges were wrongly filed, whether the evidence and testimony was fabricated, etc.

    Because I bet you can't.

    Can you break down the amount of money the EU actually got from those cases?

    Because I bet it wasn't much.

  • Jademonkey79Jademonkey79 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The Italian court system has long been a bizarre circus that seems out of place in the 21st century. I remember with the Amanda Knox case one of the prosecutors accused a journalist of being a satanist and they'd routinely allow the jury to be exposed to the local tabloids. This whole bit where they tried the Google employees in absentia is just more of their theatrics.

    Personally I think this is nothing more than a shakedown. They need the money, the see a source, they find a totally ridiculous excuse to go after it. Given that the Italian Prime Minister basically controls a good portion of the information flow with his networks, I doubt it was hard to paint the situation like it was Google who coerced the kids into the taunting.

    I'm curious to see what becomes of all this.

    "We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    The EU has long been a bizarre circus that seems out of place in the 21st century.

    Personally I think this is nothing more than a shakedown. They need the money, the see a source, they find a totally ridiculous excuse to go after it.

    I'm curious to see what becomes of all this.

    Simple, the EU will continue to shake down American companies after making idle threats (sure, go ahead and make an EU wide linux and run it off VIA/AMD hardware, you assholes can build your own search engine while they are at it) and then backing the fuck down. And US companies will continue to tolerate this outrages behavior because of the size of the EU market.

    At least China isn't as insane as the EU.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I'm not in any way fresh on why the EU was going after MS, but they sued Intel for completely legitimate reasons (and it's nice someone was willing to.)

    And AMD is an American company.

    Erik
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MS for for anti-trust stuff i think. Mostly packaging IE and other windows programs by default, then making them very hard to get rid of or replaced by what the end user wanted. The EU believed this was an abuse of their virtual monopoly and smacked them around a bit

    Intel was for price-fixing, right?

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2010
    Honestly, I can totally see charging a company for providing a service that's illegal in the country, although in youtube's case that would probably be limited to making all members agree to not post videos in violation of their areas' laws.

    Intel is a terrible company, and their exclusivity deal with apple makes the assumption that Microsoft is more evil than apple EXTREMELY debatable.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Ketherial wrote: »
    you guys really need to stop strawmanning yar. he's stated already that he doesn't think the google peeps should be found guilty.

    maybe you guys should try to address his actual point, which is, it's not that ridiculous to hold a service provider liable for content posted on it's site and it would be even less ridiculous if the service was used primarily for illegal goods. consider for example a shipping company that transports sex slaves in 90% of their cargo holds. it could be argued that as a service provider, they shouldnt be held liable because they arent liable for the content of their cargo holds. i think that would be a difficult argument to make though.

    whatever the case, i think we all agree that the prosecution was being stupid in this case.
    We should make out.

    But, yeah. My point was exactly what you said, and that instead of trying to make this into an issue of "God look how stupid they are, they think internet is tubez olololol" they would probably do better to acknowledge the emotional nature of the situation, take at least some sort of unofficial responsibility for their part (and profit) in sensationalizing an autistic kid getting picked on, and respectfully submit their appeals, which I hope would be heard.

    Also, the above point was point #3, after point #1 about the careless judicial use of the concept of "privacy" and point #2 about pathetic foreign governments who try to fleece large US corporations in shenanigans just like this.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Honestly, I can totally see charging a company for providing a service that's illegal in the country, although in youtube's case that would probably be limited to making all members agree to not post videos in violation of their areas' laws.

    Intel is a terrible company, and their exclusivity deal with apple makes the assumption that Microsoft is more evil than apple EXTREMELY debatable.

    Their what now?

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    you guys really need to stop strawmanning yar. he's stated already that he doesn't think the google peeps should be found guilty.

    maybe you guys should try to address his actual point, which is, it's not that ridiculous to hold a service provider liable for content posted on it's site and it would be even less ridiculous if the service was used primarily for illegal goods. consider for example a shipping company that transports sex slaves in 90% of their cargo holds. it could be argued that as a service provider, they shouldnt be held liable because they arent liable for the content of their cargo holds. i think that would be a difficult argument to make though.

    whatever the case, i think we all agree that the prosecution was being stupid in this case.
    We should make out.

    But, yeah. My point was exactly what you said, and that instead of trying to make this into an issue of "God look how stupid they are, they think internet is tubez olololol" they would probably do better to acknowledge the emotional nature of the situation, take at least some sort of unofficial responsibility for their part (and profit) in sensationalizing an autistic kid getting picked on, and respectfully submit their appeals, which I hope would be heard.

    Also, the above point was point #3, after point #1 about the careless judicial use of the concept of "privacy" and point #2 about pathetic foreign governments who try to fleece large US corporations in shenanigans just like this.

    You keep saying they've profited from this video, but you never say how.

    And now you're saying they (Google)'ve sensationalized it.

    Am I missing things here or are you making things up?

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Honestly, I can totally see charging a company for providing a service that's illegal in the country, although in youtube's case that would probably be limited to making all members agree to not post videos in violation of their areas' laws.

    Intel is a terrible company, and their exclusivity deal with apple makes the assumption that Microsoft is more evil than apple EXTREMELY debatable.

    Their what now?

    Hmmm, it seems it isn't an actual deal, but rather apple simply making all their computers on a common architecture. Either way, though, all apple computers have an intel soul now.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.