I'd tend to agree, but that, at least was their stated purpose. Let's not invent whole new purposes like protecting the biggest, most monolithic corporations as if taking their interests into account was written into the law or something.
What he means is that the private sector is not actually legally a stakeholder in copyright. The only purpose of granting a private entity a temporary monopoly on distribution in the first place, was to increase the value to society of whatever would eventualy be granted to the commons.
By the way, circumventing DRM carries criminal penalties now. Whereas infringing copyright by itself only carried civil liability. So while the law now says you can remix, if you circumvented DRM in any way, you can be put in prison -- even if it is for educational purposes or to quote one screenshot. It's a sleazy way to do a draconian copyright overhaul while appearing to give out more rights. You just invent a second layer of crime with heavier penalties.
I feel like saying, we should give them credit for at least moving an iota, but seeing how the copyright consultations play out in Canada, I am extremely skeptical. In fact, I expect them to proceed exactly according to the Canadian model (i.e. a complete farce in which nominally certain rights were given mentioned by various swaths of the public, while overwhelming the most common complaint, DRM, was completely ignored; in fact, if a file has DRM on it, all other fair use rights in Canadian law are now cancelled and fair use is not a defence against a charge of circumventing DRM, not even the fair uses we had *before* the Conservatives passed their actually quite regressive law in 'consultation's clothing).
Quinn's next move will be to create slightly differently worded variations of each internal memo for different departments, hoping to narrow down where to search for the leaker. Much manpower and resources will be pointlessly expended on this.
That's an arrogant assumption that one candidate deserves to have your vote already, and if you do not give it to him, you are 'taking something away'. A vote must be earned! Not assumed. Stop counting 3rd party voters as if they are failed two-party voters. If someone is voting third party, that means they don't like either of the major candidates, therefore their vote CANNOT be assumed to have gone to either one of them. No one has a prior claim on anyone's vote: period. End of story.
If Stallman gets his wish, patents will only be leveraged on dedicated devices intended to set up walled content gardens; this will, of course, drive big corporations more forcefully toward the walled garden approach, so they can 'protect their IP' -- this is no great loss, since big corporations are already running in this direction as fast as they can, in order to achieve anticompetitive things like user lock-in. On the other hand, if general purpose computing is excepted, then there will be a much stronger business case for eschewing the walled garden approach, should any upstart competitors choose to go there.
Not a bad compromise; however, precisely because it seeks to turn general purpose computing into a place where competitors can flourish, there is no way the oligarchy will let this happen.
Here's the way it works as far as I can tell: any proposed solution will either fundamentally fail to address the problem, in which case it has a chance of being accepted, or else it will actually address, in which case, short of a far-reaching democratic revolution in the West, it is sure to fail.
While there are ways of estimating, typically the hard facts about how much traffic a band's website receives are known only to the band (or their webmaster if they have one). So, what sort of verification do you imagine could be done, beyond asking those people and taking their word for what its worth?
You made an oblique reference to the actual point of the study, but you still trumpeted its conclusions, when the whole point of the study was for you NOT to trumpet its conclusions. The point of the study was to produce such an ABSURD result that it would be impossible for the media to trumpet that conclusion. The scientist who did the study expected it to be so ridiculous that chocolate produces Nobel winners, that it would clearly spark a discussion about correlation and causation. But you (and the source article) instead portrayed the conclusion as non-absurd, and relegated the correlation lesson to a footnote.
I hope that you can see how completely backwards and wrong it is, what you have done here.
Cripes Techdirt do you even read this stuff before you link it? The first link specifically says that this was a study designed to demonstrate the *fallibility* of common statistical methods in science. The conclusion that more chocoloate equals more Nobel prizes was intended to so absurd as to demonstrate to the flaws in the methodology. And here you are publishing it as fact and unwittingly proving the scientist's point. LOL!
You've never heard of the verb, to him off? Meaning to hone, or to sharpen? Thus, "let's him off the hook on bogus answer" -- as in, upon hearing a bogus answer, let us sharpen the hook with which we will hold the President to account. See? You've just misinterpreted it.