No one said they aren't getting something of value. Rigid perspectives like yours are part of the problem. You see significant change almost never happens overnight. If you spent even an ounce of time studying business you'd realize that what I said is the primary reason why any organization (AOL is a great example) continues to do what they always have as the environment changes around them.
In hindsight, their folly is easy to see, but when it is happening, it is almost impossible to recognize the slight decrease in the value equation year after year.
But hey, hold tight to those hardened perspectives, I'm sure they'll serve you well. It couldn't possibly be that there are others out there that might have something to teach you.
I can't decide if you are willfully ignorant or you really don't understand that phrase. "Promotion" means that in exchange for the government supporting your exclusive rights, you will do things that ultimately benefit the citizenship as a whole. You gain in the short term, everyone gains in the long term.
But folks like you seem to want it both ways. If you want to have an exclusive right to your content, you need to finance it privately, through your own income or through investors that agree to relinquish any rights to that content. You can't expect to receive public funding from colleges/universities or the government and also retain exclusive use of your content for a century.
I think it is the superset of crimes (encoded in lawbooks or not) that CBS and other content industry folks believe we all commit, of which infringement is a part. Affringement includes not watching commercials, not buying advertiser's products, submitting negative reviews of anything in their line-up, coughing on Les Moonves, and so on.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
You are needlessly obtuse if you think ad hominem applies to the final quote in your post. It might be non sequitur (A doesn't follow from B), but it is certainly not ad hominem (attack on the person).
You might want to study either logic or latin or both--your call.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
No, it's not a fair assertion, but you know that. It's ad-hominem at best. Personally, I don't own any firearms and am for more gun control, but throwing intellectual honesty out the window to try to accomplish your agenda helps no one.
My father owned guns, served on the front lines in Vietnam, and earned a bronze star. He also saved my son from drowning at clear risk to himself and worked tirelessly to feed the homeless every year.
You can shove your bigoted "coward" argument up your dumb, ignorant ass.
Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure that 95% of the populace wouldn't know that distinction. This is part of why the laws are so broken--if an average person finds themselves within the scope of the law on a daily basis, but does not intuitively understand how to comply with the law or even worse compliance is counter to their own common sense, something is very very wrong.
To be clear, this has been on many, many CDs for years. I just pulled two random CDs from my collection and "lending" was on one of them. My "O Brother, Where Art Thou" CD from 2000 says, "Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and..."
So I'm not sure we should blame Mumford and Sons for ignorance that has been prevalent across the industry.
Exactly. People so often blindly believe that if a politician says a regulation will do X or it is widely understood that a regulation is intended for X, that the regulation will directly affect X.
Sadly, our world is far too complex for this almost ever to be true. Anyone that is a student of economics and has spent some time understanding incentives or penalties, understands that it is difficult to move behavior in the exactly the direction that you want.
I'm certainly don't have any first-hand information, I've just experienced similar environments in my work with the federal government for the last thirty years.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said before, that "the job is hard" isn't an excuse--it's just in this case, everything I've read seems to support the idea that the industry gets its way almost always as long as it is simply persistent. That indicates a systemic failure, not just one of individual competence.