You seem to be mistaken here. The DMCA perfectly serves the constituents of Congress, the media companies. You think individual citizens matter to Congress? They'd just as soon turn us all into dog food or fertilizer except that could possibly affect their re-election prospects.
Face it, individuals are non-existent in the eyes of those 535 whores who buy and sell us on a daily basis.
However, you are overestimating the government's ability to enforce laws that couldn't possibly be enforced. Of course, it's still dangerous. We're not far from a point where anyone deemed an enemy of any politician can easily be found to have committed some violation of our byzantine and draconian Federal laws.
How different is a maze of unknowable, unenforceable laws from complete tyranny and utter anarchy at the same time?
And how long are those do-nothings in Congress going to sit around letting these scum sabotage the American business world before they bother to take a break from voting for each others' earmarks and actually do something useful to reform the system?
Why is the TV even there... it's just a distraction to the illusion.
OTOH, I think a lot of people, especially ones with no experience with babies (and you'd be surprised how many there are) will believe this. I recall an adult, around age 30 (successful professional, smart guy) being introduced to my oldest child who was around 2 months old, and commenting, "So he's what, about 2 years old?" I can't imagine being so ignorant of the basics of human development, but face it, if you're a single child raised in a neighborhood with very few children, this is quite possible.
That's the society we are creating where so many people are so out of touch with reality, that they could, even would be likely to, see this as real. The level of gullibility of average people (even smart ones) constantly amazes me.
The problem here, all issues of free speech or the fact that this is clearly fake aside, is that there are a lot of people (one would be too many) who will think this is real, try it, and dislocate a child's arms or worse as a result.
It's a result of living in a society where we are being dumbed down to level of slow children, and everything is being done to protect people from the consequences of their actions. Regardless of anything, it's possible, even likely, that this video will result in someone being harmed, possibly seriously, even life-threateningly.
The real question is: How do you maintain a society of literal idiots?
I'm not proposing some kind of objectivist Darwinism of letting the stupid suffer from their consequences no matter what, but how far do you go to protect people who are, by all objective standards, simply retarded?
That would be fine if the DRM not only didn't prevent legitimate fair use, but in many cases prevents _any_ use.
DRM is a concerted effort to get things to _not_ work. This doesn't serve anyone and is a completely broken concept. The software industry has a hard enough time making things work correctly at all, but when you are trying to create something that only works in a very specific, contrived situation you are bound to utterly fail, and in doing so, cause harm to your legitimate customers while doing little or nothing to prevent piracy.
It's ironic that we went through this whole DRM fiasco in the 1980's with "copy-protected" floppy disks. It was an utter disaster then, because all forms of copy-protection were broken, piracy wasn't stopped and legitimate customers suffered. Eventually it was rejected by the marketplace. But it seems in the computer world, every stupid failed idea needs to be tried and tried again in some vain hope that somehow, the thing that crashed and burned spectacularly every time it was used in the past will suddenly, and miraculously, work this time around.
Works for me. Communism and socialism will always sap human motivation, destroy productivity and stifle progress. They are a road to societal ruin that ultimately reduce humans to level of dumb animals.
This is typical of a market where one or a few companies has too much power. EA treats their customers with contempt because they can. Good customer service is for companies that have real competition. Look at Microsoft. Microsoft would have to go _up_ to be hated, and they treat their customers with nothing but seething hatred. They couldn't get away with what they do if most of their market had a real choice. While I don't use Microsoft products, the alternatives are not viable for a lot of people, if only because of Microsoft's FUD campaigns.
You couldn't possibly have self-esteem issues, could you?
I cancelled satellite about 4 years ago. I actually think it's a good value, but we simply weren't using it enough to justify the expense. Now that there's Netflix and Hulu in addition to the DVDs we buy, I wouldn't bother with satellite or cable even if they cut the price by 75%.
Re: Re: Re: Can I sell my unwanted tracks from a CD?
That would probably be the FDA or whatever agency governs how food products must be labeled. The only thing stopping them from selling the little candy bars individually is that they are not labeled according to food packaging rules. If they were (and it's unlikely you could get everything you needed printed on such a small wrapper) then they could be sold. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer, AFAIK.
I would hardly be willing to bet the freshman class at the Ivy League schools are paragons of intelligence and hard work.
Graduates are a little more likely, but a college education ain't what it used to be a couple generations ago. I'm sure there are plenty of people being churned out by even Yale and Harvard who aren't particularly competent at anything.
The media are only providing the audience what it can sell most easily. The only way to fight back is not play the game. Cancel your cable/satellite, cancel the newspaper and magazine subscriptions. There are plenty of ways to stay informed and find good entertainment without them, and they often cost less. The mass media can do anything it wants and still be relevant if it has an audience.
...seeing as how Dr. Seuss' works have been whored out in so many ways that are utter travesties to everything it represented... books, movies, all kinds of media that bear almost no resemblance to the author's original works.
It's possible, even likely, the lawyers are in the right, yet this would probably represent something much truer to the works of the good Dr. than the horrible atrocities his name has been attached to since he passed on.
Charles Schulz got it right. Peanuts would end with him. It's sad, but we have 50 years worth of comics, books, TV shows and movies that are wonder examples of the artist's work and won't be ruined by idiotic marketing droids and other greedy hacks.