But did they consider youtube? If we take big content's right to charge for youtube content that they don't hold copyright on, how much would that change their economic outlook? It would be pretty bleak if they could not steal revenue from people singing songs that are in the public domain and similar things.
I backed Obama in the primaries in large part because he was a constitutional lawyer and I saw our civil liberties being eroded. I was impressed that he was one of the few Senators willing to stand up to government surveillance. What happened to that guy?
For local governments the main incentives have been revenue that initially looked less painful than increasing other forms of taxation. Governments are finally realizing that they effectively ship 50% of the communities wealth out of town, and that the cameras were far from painless revenue.
Not all shareholders are created equal. The way executive compensation works means that company executives are big shareholders in one form or another. This gives them a huge incentive to look out for themselves when making corporate decisions. They can look out for themselves and still hide behind a claim that they are looking out for the interests of stockholders.
Unfortunately, this means that "long term" often means the time frame where they can cash out their stock options.
I suspect that AT&T is getting a huge payback for its cooperation with the NSA and other government agencies. There are probably lucrative monetary payments as well as a great deal of influence on policy issues.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
Even if he loses trademark protection he can still profit. He just loses the ability to keep other people from also profiting. Actually that could be an interesting thing to watch. It is possible that having more widespread use of the mark might actually make the brand more valuable.
I have been wondering how the statutory return of copyright to the artists is going to play out with online services. Even if an artist decides to stay with a label it will provide an opportunity to renegotiate rates for digital distribution.
I regret the decline in the quality of the TD trolls. We used to have some people who actually made a good point that would stimulate discussion and make the community stronger. Now we have the obvious trolls who aren't even good at covering their obviousness.
What is the world coming to? I blame the patent system, but I pretty much blame the patent system for everything.
The problem with taxing drugs is that most politicians want to treat it as a gravy train and tax at high amounts. $100 for an oz of cannabis, for example.
High taxes just create a black market, so you still have all the problems with dealers, violence and the costs of jailing people.
People would be willing to pay a modest, reasonable tax for the convenience and safety of the regular marketplace. But there isn't a legislature anywhere that will be able to limit themselves to reasonable taxes on pot or any other drug. So the problem will continue, but maybe at a lesser scale.
And, of course, we already have alternatives to the Silk Road popping up. The Sheep Marketplace got Bloomberg's attention (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/goodbye-silk-road-hello-sheep-marketplace.html) but there are a bunch of others.
My guess is that the new markets will be a lot harder to crack than the Silk Road. I am guessing that they will also be more fragmented with lots of smaller, specialized, and regional markets. The .onion domain makes it fairly easy to have a distributed marketplace. There are already several sites serving as directories to other sites.
You raise another point that none of the studies cover. The totals do not consider how much music is given away for free. That has value to society (although some of it has very, very little value).
It also does not seem to count things like the sale of musical instruments, lessons, and other indirect economic contributions. Even musicians who give away their music for free are contributing to the economy in those indirect ways.
I'm not advocating that these studies should include the indirect costs because that is the sort of mentality that leads to grocery store clerks being counted as part of the IP industry. But it is important to realize that even "free" music makes money for someone.
Of course one of the three did not show up. So far the tactic seems to be to have two of the three show up and say the missing one is the only person who has the piece of information that is needed at that hearing. If Mark Lutz, John Steele and Paul Hansmeier ever showed up in the same room at the same time one of them would have to answer awkward questions like whether Cooper authorized signatures and which of them knows Salt Marsh.
Judges are getting smarter about handling these guys. They used to try to assign blame, but it was easy for Steele et.al. to blame everything on Brett Gibbs. Now they are asking questions that someone at the Prenda law firm was legally obligated to know the answers to.
Dealers cannot lose in this complaint. One possible outcome is that they win and Telsa gets hit with fines and has to change its website. If they do not win they get an endorsement of their own deceptive practices.
Next time I go overseas I plan on going to a pawn shop and getting the cheapest laptop I can find. I am also saving my old cell phone to carry on the trip. I am just assuming that those things will be gone when I get to customs. I will probably wipe both on my flight back.