Re: Freetards united against tyranny! (Trademark pending) ;)
The real question is "why are SOPA supporters liars"?
But seriously, I wasn't meaning that Wikipedia is a "freetard site", I was actually pointing out the irony in SOPA opposition (a FREE site choosing to go offline) being viewed as "taking the internet hostage".... Ok, maybe I wasn't pointing out irony, maybe it more pointing and laughing at an inane post. ;)
Honestly, it's not the tech industry's place to tell you how to solve your problem. We CAN tell you that a given "solution" is problematic and can even give advice on what we think might be part of the problem, but it's up to YOU to figure out how to fix it (you are the entertainment "experts" after all). But don't discount our reply when we say something is going to have detrimental impact on technology (we ARE the technology "experts").
Think of it like this, if you came out and said "all copyright suspects will be shot" and the justice department said "ummm, no they won't", would you then expect the justice department to solve your issue?
I understand, but in this case there are two different groups of impacted citizens (the RIAA mafia) and the tech industry. My idea was a virtual tech industry union that has the capability of cutting off access to peoples services as a method of "striking".
Back in the day, unions would have sit in's and other types of civil disobedience, maybe an electronic version of something like that could happen today.
If all of the opposing tech companies shut down access to their sites for one day with a simple page explaining to ALL of their users what this will do, I bet the legislature would be HAMMERED by irate constituents complaining about unfair representation.
And yes, I know this won't happen, but it could certainly open some eyes!
You say "these guys feel blocked, and avoid the legal issues by... hark! INNOVATION!" but if you actually READ the letter they published, you will see that they have been working on the "new" design for 6 months. That's hardly a reaction to a patent being issued THIS month.
We’ve been working on an interesting new camera strap concept for the last six months. It’s nearing completion and we were planning on introducing it soon as a companion to our existing product line. Now, it will be our primary product.
I'm sure FFB38E is a derivative work of FFB38D ("it's exactly the same as it's predecessor except for one tiny tiny bit")! At the very least it's a mashup. So, according to copyright maximists, the answer would be NO!
Assuming the letter came with an indemnification clause that states that the payment waives any further action by the copyright holder, this might be a good thing. I would consider sending $10 to avoid the possibility of receiving one of the $1500/$2500 letters (like the ones going to some people that downloaded the Hurt Locker).
The net profits (those generated via the interNet using "approved" means) are smaller than the gross profits (those earned by the studio). Since the actors are paid on net profits, they will never make residuals. ;)
But seriously, it's easy for a studio to increase it's cost by greasing the hands of MPAA (and it's past employees that later go on to become judges dealing with copyright cases), lobbyists and politicians. I mean really, which is "better" for the industry, paying the actors or making sure the status quo is maintained?