It's funny that I still find myself unable to sue the RIAA for supporting artists many consider to be the sole cause of the rise in cancer incidence. I'd be inclined to sue the twits blaring there opinion as to what jumble of sounds constitute "music," but, as a nod to the more obnoxious popularity lists like Bing, I'd rather not shoot the messenger just because I don't agree with them... unless I can buy a few senators, that is.
Distributed systems do not conveniently contract into a centralized structure without collapsing or fragmenting. Thankfully, if the ITU is foolish enough to "fix" the internet, the internet community will do what it does best and route around the damage. Unfortunately, I also see countries which begin losing their transient grip on the internet lashing out in desperation (see internet outages during the Arab Spring).
Copyright supports and provides income from creators everywhere
Gee, I sure am glad of that too! With automatic copyright protection for every scribble I place on a napkin, I've been able to slack off in the classroom, secure in the knowledge that even when I sneeze I'm raking in valuable IP.
Are you freaking kidding me!!! If copyrights make all this money, where the hell is all of this fictional money going? You seem to be more specifically stating that copyrights deemed more important by stubborn legacy players are the ones making money. This is a useless straw man and completely ignores that it is the business model used that persuades the public to make a purchase, not the imminent threat of a law suit.
It's called competition, and now we'll have less of it...
But what about all the new lawyers clamoring to represent these tech behemoths when they clash? I've heard they're competing in as members, or "associates," of teams called "firms," and that they even hold contests of skill in "courts." With all the new "associates" and "firms", football and NASCAR could be in trouble. Hell, youthful sponsors like Samsung and Apple from the tech industry should be praised for their entrepreneurial innovation in actively promoting the first sport in decades that involves referees, or "judges," and crowds, or "juries," that actively participate. I'm also impressed that these "judges" are allowed to wield powerful hammers of justice (called "gavels") and that the "juries" get to ultimately determine who wins by who they cheer for.
Oh, right, the article (without grandma)... I think the second selection in the second image has a bit of clever irony. Shouldn't those "edgy" (ouch, reaching for that tore a ligament) artists be compensating those who provide side benefits out of pure (apparent) adulation? This is a moral question.
Right around the last time someone passed a GED and cited MTV as the sole source of their knowledge... so, the mid 90's, when MTV still deemed rebellious sarcasm was the "in" thing for pissing off parents, and pretty much everyone else. Then it shifted to mindless obedience (you know, to be "different," like everyone else) and the intelligence level dropped below keeping even Beavis and Butthead on the air.
This action sounds like that of a manager wanting to "streamline" a database: ie. rearrange the rows to make it look pretty. Decisions in kind typically don't take into account the end user experience as they don't result in a directly related change in cash flows and have the nice side benefit of making it look like you did work to the higher-ups. Most of these kind of annual review fillers are innocuous.