That's one of the reasons I stopped watching ABC's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. In addition to being just terrible, the early episodes hammered the point that the government has to covertly spy on citizens, but it's OK, because "we're the good guys."
He keeps hyping the "fact" that the Rock will use patented technology. As a consumer, why would I ever care about that? Whether I'm buying sprockets or cogs, all I care is whether the product meets my needs.
While I agree with you 100%, I'm going to guess that the argument by the Beastie Boy's attorneys (assuming they don't come to their senses) will be the "slippery slope."
In other words, if we allow advertisers to simply mock popular songs in their ads, without paying for the rights to the songs, the lucrative licensing of songs for advertisements will eventually dry up. Why pay for the song you want when you can simply mock the song you want for free?
I think the argument is complete BS, but it will be argued. Attorneys love to argue the slippery slope.
I was in law school back in the late 90s and the proposed DMCA and the bill that eventually passed was a huge topic of discussion. No one discussed the idea that Pre-1972 music was not covered by the DMCA. In fact, it would have been ludicrous not to include such music because the entire purpose of the DMCA was to give immunity to various internet companies.
Now about 15 years later, without any legislative support and in complete contradiction of the purpose of the DMCA, the RIAA is arguing that the DMCA does not apply to pre-1972 music. And a court bought it!?
I realize judges don't like making law and if there's an ambiguity in a statute, the legislative body can correct it. However, in the real world we've relied on the fact that the pre-1972 recordings were included in the DMCA. To pull those out now, is simply asinine.
I don't know if you can tell, but I'm kinda pissed about this.
I just left court this morning where the judge was criticizing an attorney because his client wanted a trial. In open court, on the record, and in front of his client, she criticized the defense attorney for not having "sufficient client control" in his failing to talk his client into a plea deal. The defense attorney responded that his client believes himself to be innocent and wants his trial.
And that's the real problem with the plea process. It turns the criminal justice system into an assembly line process. But when someone wants to get off the line and actually protect his rights, e.g., demand full discovery, interview witnesses, have a trial, the whole process goes of whack and it really pisses off judges and prosecutors who are used to doing it the easy way.
To such judges and prosecutors, exercising your rights is a waste of everyone's time.
"Breaking Bad would have had a much smaller audience, and likely a much shorter run."
That's sort of speculative. However, we can say with certainty that piracy expands the potential audience.
With a bad show, such expansion will not help. However, for a quality show, it will increase the number of viewers/fans. It's up to the producers to monetize that growth. It appears that in the case of Breaking Bad, they did a pretty good job in that respect.