It was a "Stronger Government" that established these programs.
Uhhh... No. 1929 was all about the rich and powerful passing austerity on the masses and being stymied by a progressive president that decided to listen to the public and forced him to do what they say or there would be revolution. That was 75 years ago. I think the lesson is that when the public wants change, you stop trying to blame the government and force it to do what you say.
When you are being bullied, you don't hope for a stronger bully to take his place.
So why cuddle up with the billionaires that screw us over?
Lets weaken the government and learn to live our lives with some sense or self reliance and freedom and the responsibilities that go with it. Don't push your problems off on some "government" to fix for you.
Sorry, I don't envision utopias. You work to make the government work for the public or it works for the rich. Destroying the government while plenty of people are billionaires makes you ensnared to the demands of the rich and entitled.
Make no mistake, she's PAID to say what she says and tell people that a few liberal (this is what she means by socialist) issues of internet fairness need to be all about private markets for her donors.
This is why money in politics and no public say on the matter are par for the course. Let the big guys duke it out and the fall out hits the regular plebs they care nothing about.
"Reason 2: some people just won't pay no matter what. While sad, those people don't represent lost revenue"
Let's hold on in regards to the "won't" here.
Remember, Netflix, as you've stated, has to abide by restrictions in availability against what customers may want.
Consider the fact that they compete with areas which have less income to spend on a monthly fee for "all you can eat" streams.
So people "can't" pay for the stream at all times, hence other places become popular.
This doesn't contradict your other reasons and R3 actually picks up on this. Still, in R2, there could be a fact that the pirates tend to spread the news on a show for other people which makes up for their lack of payment through free advertising.
Final thoughts... The intelligence industry is angry because it has to answer tothe public which it hasn't done since the 70s. And now, we see an angry animal that doesn't know what to do next.
It's time to push these individuals to be held account for their crimes against the public and force a stronger government, in some manner like maybe a democracy, to come in with more varied views which help people live better lives without do much heart ache.
Seriously, no one cared about terrorism before 9/11 and it's always been a quick way to spy on people.
Al'qaeda has never been Public Enemy #1. If we "connect the dots" as Alexander says, we come to a conclusion about who the divergent is protecting.
Who allows the FBI some great toys for surveillance?
Who allows domestic spying through the Hoover clause of Section 215 of the Patriot Act?
Who scares the government more, an informed public or a terrorist?
After ten years, massive surveillance, a war on journalism, the drone strike program covered in secrecy, and the suppression of civil rights in this country,it should be obvious who the government's Public Enemy #1 IS.
It's us. We, the people that has the government doing all this. The USG is paranoid and scared of a massive revolt from the public which can change all of their preconceived notions. They're scared of a democracy where they haveto listen to U the public's demands over their own. Keeping people in the dark isn't anything new, but given all out the stories that have run on this site based on destroying the lives of people for special interests, it's too much of a coincidence that most of the decisions of the government affect people's rights to be informed more so than a terrorist who induces fear to a select few people.
I can't stand the amount of hyperbole that Walker uses. I also don't like him for a number of reasons. That said, I do recognize his points as agreeable to my own and where I stand with wanting to abolish copyright for a number of reasons.
In the gaming world, it's harder than ever to allow people to utilize older technology that others may find no use for thanks to corporate takeover of the public domain.
Square is notorious for this. Want to make a movie based on FF7? You have to pay a license which they've NEVER shown to the public.
How about reverse engineering the first few games of Rad Racer or SMB? Again, copyright intervenes.
I've recently had a battle with people over Floppy Birds being technically legal because copyright has no moral aspects to it in US law (and given that the guy who made the game is Vietnamese, that begs the question of how copyright should be utilized to compensate more authors).
But the question remains in how to "re-enrich" the public domain. I believe a few things can be extrapolated from this discussion.
1) Those at the top of the table will always work to protect their own interests. Yes, Cliff Bleszinski is a douchebag and never should have opened his mouth when his work was created on the Unreal Engine and he didn't pay much money to license that engine for his work on Gears of War. He also didn't have to pay all of the authors of all the fiction novels that have told a story about a war torn planet that his ideas are based off of. And he's a really easy target because I like him about as much as I like Walker.
2) The public domain should encompass far more than what it does now. What I mean here is that a game along with the sum of its parts, should be opened up to serious tinkering and innovation. There should be an option that if an American game company goes bankrupt, that company's assets should be viable for the public domain instead of merely sold to other entities. Just think about if someone wanted to make games available from the 80s such as Tengen's Tetris, or Journey to Silius and put it on a Steam-like platform for all.
3) The past needs to be preserved, not locked away.
The archival powers of copyright are nonexistent without some ability to preserve the past. The past fades away and dies if there is no one to remember a work. Only the Gods know how many viewpoints and interesting works have died a nonexistant death thanks to these laws that destroy culture.
These are but a few ways that copyright has interfered with the rights of the public. Perhaps it's time for a conversation that goes beyond what corporate powers want for it.
Keep in mind "the legitimate uses are far outweighed by the illegitimate uses, therefore the whole thing should be scrapped" is basically the same logic the copyright industry has argued from time to time about new technology.
At this point, the logic and legality of copyright is suspect, with very little validity and trust when it comes to the public anyway.
Just because copyright has gone off the rails in the last 40 or so years as the corporate media industry grew does not mean copyright is obsolete or can be scrapped.
No... The fact that we've had the VERY same fights as those in the 1800s means that copyright is obsolete. The fact that copyright can be used to censor people means it's obolete. The fact that the express purpose of copyright is to enrich the public domain has been usurped by corporations to not compete with the past means that copyright is obsolete. There is no contradiction. Copyright has no uses to be balanced if the public does not benefit.
Indeed, removing copyright entirely would basically be an open invitation to the media industry to openly plagiarize other's works for their own benefit.
And? People have social mores to deal with that instead of statutory legal threats.
Again, the people won't get a direct vote on it. They need to be fed up enough to elect people specifically to abolish copyright, make sure those people know that, and then punish them when they don't until enough of them do that it's gone. And getting rid of it and keeping it gone for any length of time would likely require a constitutional amendment, which is even harder.
Uh... No it's not. Get copyright down to 30 minutes, ask the GAO to look at the effect on the market, then move forward accordingly.
" That this is coming so late in the game, with the previous DRM version having been cracked long ago, and the eBook marketplace booming, makes this author wonder what the hell anyone at Adobe is thinking. "
How can I drive more traffic to the Pirate Bay while losing revenue?
Without Fair Use, Nintendo never would have had Donkey Kong.
Without Fair Use, Hollywood would have had to pay for Edison's patents on the cameras and stayed in the areas of that monopoly.
Without Fair Use, Hollywood would not have the diversity to spread information on DVDs for the big CEOs to see about great ideas that would make them money.
Without Fair Use, Hollywood wouldn't be able to pay Chris Dodd to try to control it.
Without Fair Use, Youtube, Spotify, Grokster, and other technologies wouldn't exist which allow people to share information about books, movies, music, and other ways to educate themselves for much cheaper than the copyright monopolies would want for artificial scarcities.
Fair Use is not the exception. It's the rule. Hollywood abuses it to destroy their competition and that's the worst part about this.
They worked with the AlQaeda "terrorists" in the 70s, them they've said they're terrorists now. All this to root out those evil Russians from the area. We take over and now we fight a war for their resources.
The CIA is known for doing what it can for business interests. Why should spying on activists for oil interests, which it does overseas, not be imported along with the training, here?