Because it believes it has paid enough money to enough politicians and screamed loud enough for enough time that it has earned that right! Either that or...we're the entertainment industry, we don't need a reason, just let us have our way.
Not that the entertainment industry is filled with egotistical, over-entitled, spoilt brats, or anything!
Taking a look at his own website provides much interesting information about his rather broken thought processes: http://www.terry-deary.com
For example, on the "contact Terry Deary" page there is an FAQ which shows his incredible arrogance:
"Where do you get your ideas?
I'm a writer. It's my job. I don't have to go anywhere or do anything to "get" ideas. They are already in my head."
Note that he aslo has a low opinion of schools:
"I detest schools with a passion. I'd rather cut off my left arm and eat it with Marmite than go into a school. And I don't even like Marmite. Schools are an utter waste of young life. Learning things that will never be any use to you. The only reason they are there is to keep kids off the street."
While I may have reservations about the public school system per se, I find this somewhat extreme to say the least.
It is worth noting that the 50,000 required to get this to happen is actually roughly 1% of the entire population of Finland. If the US adopted the same proportion for addressing petitions, it would raise the number of signatures required to 3 million! So this is quite a high bar in those terms.
For all those claiming an interest in moving to Finland, bear in mind that incomes here may be lower than those in the US and taxes are MUCH higher. Tax on purchases is now raised to 24% from the start of this year and income taxes are on a sliding scale and with other deductions from salary, can reduce one's income by a third.
Pretty much the same kind of thinking (only on a scarier scale) as the movie and music industries who want to behave as though pretty much all their customers are only interested in stealing from them.
In another account of this incident the following additional information was included:
"Down House's owner Chris Cusack defended the manager's actions and told KPRC Houston it was not out of line to kick Ms Matsu out.
"Any business is allowed to set the tone of their establishment. If you go to someone's house and start calling them names, I wouldn't really expect to stay too much longer after that," Mr Cusack said."
So setting the tone of the establishment includes kicking out paying customers but apparently not ensuring the establishment's own staff adhere to these standards against name-calling, if the customer's original reason her tweet is to be believed. Nice double standard!
That other account I saw also included this gem from the person who was allegedly the subject of the bartender's original comments:
"Mr Heugel, the person at the centre of the Twitter-storm, even weighed in on the incident. "Social media can be a fickle bitch or your best friend," he tweeted. "Some of ya'll need to chill.""
Your comment: "It's a shame the US government doesn't understand the importance of anonymous public whistle blowing. Of course, maybe they do, but I'd rather not go there" got me thinking (briefly).
Here's how that ambivalence might play out:
"Thank you for calling the Anonymous Whistleblower Hotline. We value your help in highlighting issues which we need to cover up. Please remain at your current location. A federal agent has already been dispatched and will be pleased to arrest you. Your concern for the public good is appreciated. Have a nice day."
Would be quite the hoot if they tried to claim trademark over all the ticker symbols of the stocks traded on their exchange! The sooner IP maximalists reach the extreme where they put themselves out of business, the better, perhaps.
Well, this IS a soccer player we're dealing with, so not too surprising if he is not particularly smart in pursuing this.
An interesting development is that a second soccer player has also been granted one of these ridiculous super injunctions following hot on the heels of this case.
Apparently the judge granted that injunction because the player concerned claimed publication of his name would have a significant impact on his wife and family. Hmmm, or perhaps it was his alleged adultery that had the impact rather than the reporting of that affair.
I would like to make it illegal for politicians to speak before engaging their brains.
Seriously, I suppose the tendency to resort to legislation as a cure for all ills is the result of a culture in which politicians (and many times, the public) see their job as "lawmakers". If your job is to make laws, that is what you will do even though legislation is many times not the appropriate solution.
These cases are already covered by plenty of laws so one more on the books will not help. But education campaigns to help stigmatize these practices (as has been successfully done with drunk driving in many places) would be a better use of resources.
As an ICT manager, I find myself cursing Adobe more regularly than I would care to think. Every time we have a change in our personnel and need to transfer a licence to a new user or a new computer, we have to go through the incredible hoops set before us by Adobe.
I consider their products to be expensive to purchase (with frequent updates being required caused by the very backwards compatibility issue described in the article) and in many cases ludicrously bloated. It is beyond inconvenient.
Ironically, one of our former employees, who was enthusiastically advocating our own products be locked down by some complex licensing technology, was an ex-Adobe salesperson. He was extremely enamoured of the company for which he had previously worked and had no grasp of the trouble these tools cause for the customer who has actually bought their licence. And as has been observed so many times before, these same products can be obtained with cracks and serial codes from the torrents, thereby proving the pointlessness of these appalling mechanisms.
Given that linking is merely bringing the material to a wider readership, does he also, by extension, believe we should ask permission before reading his article? It seems the mark of a clueless person to publish material on the internet only to object to it reaching a wider audience than those who might have come across it on the site on which he himself published it. Words fail me.