Any country is allowed to tax different businesses more or less as they see fit, maybe they should allow this business of open mining go ahead just let them know that the country is not going to give away their valuable resource for anything less than 90% of the money made. If the business wants to use this as a tax write-off elsewhere, then they need to understand that they will be charged a tax on every ounce of silver they mine even if it is more than what the silver is worth.Also they would need to pay 5 billion deposit for the cleaning up f the mess they make 5 billion that can be used to resettle the land they dig up.
There are many ways this type of threat by big business can end up being very profitable for a country, especially if they start including in every contract or investigative contract any mining company produce the rights to stop everything at no cost to the country and taxpayers.
My first thought was it could make any future 'trade deals'/negotiations difficult, if they get a reputation of refusing to honor the terms in them(the US apparently does so all the time, but few countries are willing to stand up to the US sadly), but considering it's a 'trade deal' that got them into this in the first place...
You are probably right. The labels would rather block the work of this brilliant musician even if it means they won't get another dime out of them than to ever let them fall into public domain before my great grandchildren would reach retirement age.
Quick point of clarification. Is anything very terrible actually going to happen if the Romanian government just refuses to pay up? It might hurt their credit rating, but unless this Gabriel Resources outfit somehow persuade the Canadian government to invade Romania (and I don't think even the Canadian Tories are that 'pro-business') I don't really see a way of enforcing the suit.
Where exactly do you see violation of quoted statue?
It says you're a criminal if you "transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit" "a photograph" "of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual contact, when the actor knows or should have known that the person depicted did not consent to such" when the person has not consented to that specific move to "transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit" that photograph.
So, yes, that's where people violated the statute. Did you not read it?
they showed whose side they were on, particularly de Gucht, when they did as much as they could to get ACTA implemented in the EU. he in particular, but ably abetted by the rest of the Commission, are not interested in what is best for the EU or its peoples in the slightest!! the whole lot of them need sacking and suing for what NOT doing what the job is supposed to do!!
It's great that he doesn't care about the standard copyright rules and doesn't consider them important.
But, I hope he has some of his wishes in writing. If he hasn't specifically released his work under a different licence, he could find his work co-opted or blocked from release because certain corporations have made sure those rules apply after his death whether he wants them or not. Especially since a quick glance at his Wikipedia page lists work with several major labels.
What planet have you been living on? The medical industry--doctors, insurance, hospitals, equipment makes, etc.--has been fabulously profitable. There is massive profit in "The Market", as you call it. The ACA is about one thing and one thing ONLY: gaining control over people's health and therefore, control over their lives. It's straight up Socialism of the USSR brand. Of course the insurance industry is on board and wants to profit as best they can, they have no choice in a government takeover.
If I believed for a second that that was intentional, I might agree with you, but I strongly suspect it was just some EA exec moron who basically burst into the Bioware offices with a 'Hey peons, I've just had this great idea for the ending to the trilogy, much better than anything you could have come up with!'
I'll stick with my opinion. As I hope that people with similar opinions who have the power to change the system will stick with theirs and stop this crap once and for all.
Unfortunately, as I have no voting rights in the US, I have to watch your corrupt system get bought from the outside, then fight once the same corporations try using it as a precedent to enforce their will on to mine.
It's a shame that you have judges so corrupted that they consider the rights of corporations over the wishes of long-dead authors whose work is being removed from the public domain - but that in no way invalidates mine or the opinion of others who disagree.
That would be the one where those large businesses make sizable 'donations' to the people pushing corporate sovereignty in 'trade agreements'. When you're getting paid that much, all sorts of otherwise crazy or corrupt stuff starts to make 'sense'.
Those of you who weren't around in the 60's and aren't familiar with Mr. Leher's work should check him out on YouTube. He is the greatest satire writer of all times. It only makes me like him more to hear that he is so cool about the copyright issue. Music was only a small part of his career despite the fact that he sold millions of albums. He taught a number of subjects at several prestigious colleges as well as being a part of many scientific research projects. A true genius.
"Essentially, if you want to watch GoT right now legally you need: - A TV - An electricity supply - A subscription to HBO"
No, you only need one of those things. If you have the HBO subscription, you can watch the HBO Go content without a TV, and you don't even need your own electricity supply to charge the device.
"All of these things can be used for things other than watching GoT. "
Indeed, but you're *really* stretching the point here, to a ridiculous level.
The first 2 things you mention have a huge number of uses that have nothing to do with watching any TV at all, let alone specifically that show. It's a totally valid assumption that someone interested in watching a TV show will have a device capable of doing so, and the power to use it, already in their possession.
The criticism is of the need for the latter, and the silly number of prerequisites necessary to be able to obtain it. You don't have to go into the realms of fantasy to understand the point being made.
"or he would actually want to watch Breaking Bad, CSI, whatever else is on, so the GoT cost is low."
2 of the shows you mention are available with a Netflix subscription, Hulu or other methods with low costs - and one even available on free to air. They have multiple ways available at different reasonable price points. GoT isn't, unless you already pay for a prohibitively expensive number of pre-required services or wait to pay another premium long after the show's aired. That's the point.