[Mongoose]

Interesting how advances in storage technology wound up effectively neutering the intent of that law.  Also:

For example, in order to obtain a search warrant for a particular e-mail account, law enforcement has to establish probable cause to believe that evidence will be found in that particular account. In some cases, this link can be hard to establish.

Holy ****, that's just ridiculous.  The whole goddamn POINT of probable cause is to be hard to establish, so that innocent civilians aren't subjected to unreasonable searches.  Did this guy sleep through his high school government class?

[Mikes]

Interesting how advances in storage technology wound up effectively neutering the intent of that law.  Also:

For example, in order to obtain a search warrant for a particular e-mail account, law enforcement has to establish probable cause to believe that evidence will be found in that particular account. In some cases, this link can be hard to establish.

Holy ****, that's just ridiculous.  The whole goddamn POINT of probable cause is to be hard to establish, so that innocent civilians aren't subjected to unreasonable searches.  Did this guy sleep through his high school government class?

The really funny part is that the only propable cause Google needs is "advertising revenues" and everyone goes along with it.

[Dragon]

Suddenly, I'm starting to like this.

Well I wouldn't get too excited, because while it may sure be looking good, it really is rather simple - and not so good.

Let me explain: As far as your ownership rights are concerned it is not your property, but as far as the content industry's copyright is concerned it sure is your property, because they are filthy rich and have a lobby.

Wanna bet?

lol.

Note that in court, they'd probably have to settle for one of the two, and if government states one of those to be the correct one, they might find themselves screwed. I wouldn't be surprised if the law was modified shortly after such case though.

[Klaustrophobia]

yall don't REALLY believe this will be applied in its logical reverse to hurt copyright claims do you? 

[Dragon]

Law is law. You either own something or you don't. It'll have to be applied if somebody points that out, and I think lawyers will catch on that. Rich corporations or not, copyright or not, there's only one law. If it says you don't own stuff you put in the Cloud, then you don't own it. Unless it doesn't actually say that, but something that results in similar effects, but it doesn't seem to be the case. If you don't own pirated stuff, even if you can access it from the Cloud at any time, then you're not a pirate, because the stuff in the Cloud isn't really yours. It's lawyers' job to convince the court that it should be applied like that.

[Mikes]

Law is law. You either own something or you don't.

Untested issues like these in the heavily case law influenced US legal system? Really?

I mean just take a look at the Apple vs. Samsung travesty and tell me what the law is in that regard... I doubt anyone involved really knows anymore at this point LOL.