It seems like bad planning to complete the film before acquiring the rights to the material. If they had discovered this problem before the editing, they'd be in a much better position to decide whether to include the 2% at all.
The same line caught my eye. If tracking and reporting the infringement costs an amount comparable to (alleged) cost of the infringement itself, and isn't reducing the rate of such (alleged) infringement, then why track it and report it at all?
To put it another way:
"Why are you tracking and reporting this?" "Because it's costing us money!"
"How is it costing you money?" "Look at how much we have to spend, tracking and reporting it!"
When am I going to learn not to discuss health care on the internet?
No, I wasn't suggesting we do away with regulations like the one that requires medical licenses. And yes, as I said, the high cost of education is part of the problem. (And note that when you start a question with "don't you think...", it suggests to me that you're not really interested in the answer.)
2) No, I wasn't suggesting that we do away with liability litigation. Any maybe market forces can do a better job, we should certainly consider it.
Also, it would be great if juries were more aware of the consequences of huge awards. And before you ask, no, I'm not suggesting that we do away with juries.
I disagree with your first point. After all, it could apply just as well -- or better -- to food. And if the doctor wants everything I own to set my broken leg, I'll ask a friend to splint it. If I had heart disease and would surely die without a procedure that would cost me my entire fortune, I'd seriously consider just leaving it all to my heirs instead.
I agree with your second point, and I'll add a third: regulation. There is a law against practicing medicine without a license, you can't get a license without a degree, and a degree costs six figures (and your youth, and the risk of failure).
Oh, and a fourth: litigation. Medical malpractice has more to do with lawyers' oratory and juries' emotion than any logic, so it's hugely expensive. Therefore so is malpractice insurance, therefore so is any inherently risky practice such as thoracic surgery or obstetrics.
"Surely if we can send a man to the moon, we must be able to tackle porn on the internet."
Spoken like a man who has never built anything in his life. If one group of people performed an amazing technical feat, surely we can prevent all of our citizens from performing a very simple one.
And I have to wonder what Jonasson is actually imagining when he talks about "tackling" porn. A small (albeit attractive) opponent who can be easily wrestled to the ground and made to submit to him? Or a large and powerful foe with big muscles and oiled skin... On second thought, I really don't want to know.
A mere statement to the effect that breaking terms of service doesn't justify felony prosecution would be worthless. It would not have force of law; it would not form a legal defense for the next person so prosecuted.
If the DOJ meant it, they'd fire Ortiz, and maybe move to have her disbarred. She and every other prosecutor are keenly aware that this has not happened, and that pursuing such prosecutions is still -- on average -- a good career move.
I prefer technical solutions to legal ones, but I don't know internet protocols well enough to know if any of the following would be feasible:
Google signs the pages it constructs (and maybe the advertisers do too), a browser plug-in checks the signatures, and if a signature doesn't match the browser pops up a warning: "Cette page a été modifiée en transit". French users can decide whether they want to use an ISP that meddles.
Google encrypts its pages (what's French for "TLS"?).
Google maintains a list of non-neutral ISPs, and throttles them, with notice to the users. (I have mixed feelings about this one, but it has a pleasing symmetry).
I see a new business opportunity. The Cafe doesn't dare offer open WiFi for fear of losing internet access. But the Cafe can make a deal with a third party to offer it. The third party is a company that exists only to do so, and if it gets banished from the internet, its CEO (and only employee) dissolves the company with a few keystrokes, transfers ownership of the hardware to one of the other companies waiting on the shelf, opens a new ISP account and is right back in business. (With redundant hardware, the operator might be able to avoid downtime entirely.) Such companies might be burdensome for the ISPs; the dumb ISPs will refuse to deal with them, the smart ISPs will accept them as customers (and maybe try to charge them extra).
Next step: the gatekeepers go after the smart ISPs and/or the third parties. Then begins an utterly pointless dance, when the ISPs must make gestures of looking for things they don't want to find (Nelson's telescope, anyone?) and a new ecology of not-illegal-but-not-safe business springs up.
Net effect: extra work is done at a net loss to society, the law is degraded, freedom is associated with criminality, open WiFi is harder to find and the coffee costs more.