This is part of the new belief in the corporate world that society owes them profits, no matter how weak their business model or how poorly they are managed.
They are so used to our laws being tilted in their favor that they have come to believe that society must indemnify them against any risk (though of course, they believe that any success came purely by their own cleverness and "hard work").
We need to get used to this new corporate entitlement mentality, because we're going to see it taken to even more ridiculous levels.
The rich are supposedly very tasty with a little barbeque sauce and cilantro.
I am told.
There are only a few things left that are not wholly-owned by the 0.1%. One of them is your ability to read and write and communicate, and they're attempting a hostile takeover of that, too.
I don't think it's a good plan to wait until everything is locked down before we make a very strenuous case. Polite expressions of outrage and putting your objections on the record will not get the job done. Seriously.
There has to be an organized socio-economic response to demonstrate the willingness and the ability to hit them in their pocketbooks.
I'm simply not comfortable with going against the wishes of copyright holders
I don't really care about the "copyright holders". I don't want to go against the wishes of the artists.
I'm not sure I'm prepared to recognize "copyright holders" as a valid category. I don't believe that "all rights" to a work should be transferable.
Just because I like an artist does not mean I want to give my money to a music conglomerate. When I can buy music directly from the artist, I do. When I cannot buy music directly from the artist, I do not.
You don't need 300 million back seat drivers swatting the negotiators on the head every time they suggest something.
Back seat drivers? Those pesky "back seat drivers" are called "citizens" and they happen to be paying the salaries of those public servants involved in the governmental side of these negotiations?
Are you kidding? Who the fuck are you that you believe laws of this magnitude should be done in Mitt Romney's "quiet rooms" well out of the public view? You've got to be kidding. Maybe I'm missing the joke, but that is very disturbing.
As one of the candidates for president of the US recently said, these things are best discussed, "in quiet rooms".
Apparently things like the future are on a need-to-know basis, and we just don't need to know. The future isn't for us, it's for those that deserve it. You know, the "job creators".
Our economic elite are a bunch of sociopaths who mean us no good. I think it's long past the time for us to make them fear us instead of the other way around. I guess this is something that needs to happen a few times a century, and this is certainly one of those times.
AT&T's explanation might be more compelling if it was anything like true. They're not running out of bandwidth for their customers, they want to lock in higher profits long term.
It's very hard to believe anything that AT&T claims, since they have been caught so many times lying to customers and engaging in unfair, anti-competitive business practices.
It appears that every so often a company of AT&T's size needs to be broken up just because. There is no way that any company should have the kind of vertical integration they have. If we had anything like a Justice Department anti-trust division that cared about the law, we'd never see stories like this unless they were accompanied by a paragraph explaining the penalties they are facing.