Sticking to copyright: while Disney may have "stolen" from fairy tales (no one complained), the labor of thinking up, working out, and producing Mickey Mouse was nearly all due to Walt Disney (and his gang of slave-artists to draw the many images), so the resulting film is ALL his.
No. He stole from Grimm Fairy Tales, who took from thousands of years of stories to tell the children in regards to good moral upbringing.
Then you have to think about this... Walt Disney is DEAD!
He no longer has anything to do with creativity. His corporation is a shell, meant only to make money.
And to ENJOY the product of his work, you only had to pay a nickel!
Wrong. The public enjoyed his work and nowadays they enjoy it on the Pirate Bay since Disney's Vault is a figment of our imagination.
If you don't want to pay, you don't have to, but you've then NO right to enjoy the content.
Nope. I can enjoy it in a number of legal avenues without paying for it. A friend has a DVD. Or a friend has a VCR tape. And I've yet to pay. The same as people sharing media nowadays on Pirate Bay that you can't seem to wrap your head around.
I don't agree. If you read The Lewis Powell Memo you see that corporations frame the arguments regarding copyright and fair use. Most people have takedowns and other issues occur without ever trying a fair use defense in court. There are no teeth to the people having such a defense so it's useless.
We remember that Kim Dotcom along with other victims of domain seizures have had no judicial review in their illegal takedowns.
The host also (again, oddly) claims that fair use is mostly based on a court case from 1982 (which one?!?) and that people fear to test it.
I'm going to go on a limb and think they're talking about Sony v Universal and its fair use rulings. Yes, that's 1984. But it just doesn't vibe that they're talking about a 1982 ruling unless they simply got the year wrong.
What corporations have successfully done is privatize the judicial system over the past 40 years. This privatization was to be written with SOPA where corporations have more rights than people. Even now, we discuss all of the videos and takedowns issued with no fair use. That's the problem. We indeed have given corporations a lot of decisions. It's no wonder that the MPAA feels entitled to push both major parties to do what they want given how it's worked tremendously well for a LOOOONG time.
In 1953, the US ousted the Iranian PM who was democratically elected for a CIA puppet dictator that happened to be a religious fundie group.
The US also implemented Saddam in Iraq to help in the 70s.
Both groups hated each other which can't be said enough.
The US, being run by neocons, ignored Afghanistan and Al Qaeda even though Rumsfeld was given Bin Laden on a silver platter and he opted to ignore it.
The public was lied to with Bush admitting that he committed the War effort to try to privatize Social Security (it's in his autobiography).
He never should have been president. He had the longest vacation of any president. He increased our deficit to fund two illegal wars. He destroyed civil liberties which Obama has continued when there are far better alternatives.
Saddam was nothing more than a target for neocons for oil and the US got kicked out for having a private force (Blackwater) running like an occupation and killing people in the name of the US.
Meanwhile, Cheney makes BILLIONS off of the war effort for guns and murder while the soldiers get the mental health issues.
And when we look at the costs.... The explosions of democracies from the removal of the status quo...
I can't say it was worth taking out a dictator that we installed in the first place.
They won't be graduating. The people will have high debts, no jobs, and few education prospects.
They will be indebted to a system that made them worse off and I'm sure that a lot of people will be angry that they were used to subsidize the irresponsible behavior of a government that didn't help them out with high student loans and few houses.
It makes no sense... These types of conditions are sure to bring about the worst in people by prodding them with sticks until they hit back in considerable numbers.
First, it cheaply ignores the impact every other form of technological progress has had thus far. Robots are used on assembly lines, yet there's no drastic net loss of jobs.
That's kind of wrong since in the US, we lost millions of jobs thanks to "free trade" agreements and CEOs looking to cut costs.
I recall that the NAFTA agreement during Clinton's era shipped jobs overseas and the American people didn't have anything to show for it.
Jobs were created, but it isn't a guarantee that the displacement of workers equates to better, more high skilled jobs being found here in the US.
And when you really look at the economic policies of the US, it seems more beneficial for the USG to tax people for their needing more education in order to benefit society which is a REALLY backwards equation.
We have high student debt caused by most of the money going to the wealthy while there is nothing to help the US get out of the economic austerity posed on them. It's a scary situation to be in. Cripple your future growth by giving the people few jobs, few economic opportunities, and try to keep them quiet about what's going on with your government?
Why in God's name do you feel that Nintendo, a corporation with no amounts of resources on their own, should be able to destroy the livelihoods of people that either make game videos for a living or decide what games to play?
Did Nintendo go their house and decide to play the game? Did they work to help these people create better content? Did Nintendo do any work on creating the videos and the unique experiences that people worked hours to achieve? Do they even need this money to produce more games since they've done quite well in doing so before now?
Why should they feel so entitled to get paid off of other's work?
It's absolutely amazing to me that anyone feels that Nintendo is in the right when we recognize that their position is going to make the public worse off. That's not the point of copyright in chilling free speech or allowing a company to feel entitled. It's supposed to act as a subsidy for more speech.
Bush’s use of the IRS was but one part of that larger assault. As my Salon colleague Alex Seitz-Wald notes today in greater detail, in 2005, Bush’s IRS began what became an extensive two-year investigation into a Pasadena church after an orator dared to speak out against President Bush’s Iraq War. Not coincidentally, the Los Angeles Times reports that the church targeted just so happened to be “one of Southern California’s largest and most liberal congregations.” That IRS church audit came a year after it launched a near-identical attack on the NAACP after the civil rights organization criticized various Bush administration policies.
FDR focused his efforts on derailing a slew of perceived opponents, including Andrew Mellon, who was the secretary of Treasury under President Hoover. In the Roosevelt administration, Mellon was subjected to intense income tax audits, and endured a two-year civil action lawsuit, which was referred to at the time as the "Mellon Tax Trial."
This is the same Andrew Mellon that wanted farmers to be purged.
Few would peg civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as a felon. But in February 1960, the Alabama grand jury issued an arrest warrant for King on two counts of felony perjury for fraudulent tax returns in 1956 and 1960.
Yep, that Martin Luther King.
Labor organizer Victor Reuther urged Robert F. Kennedy, who was attorney general at the time, to suppress the rise of conservative groups around the country in a memorandum addressed to the entire Kennedy administration and "certain sympathetic senators and congressmen." The 24-page memo contained various plans, including stifling the flow of funds to conservative organizations by way of IRS investigations in hopes of finding a reason to remove the groups' tax exemption status.
One of the major targets was the John Birch Society as described by the late historian John A. Andrew III in his book "Power to Destroy: The Political Uses of the IRS from Kennedy to Nixon.
Hmmm... Liberals and conservatives as defined by their political ideology.
Not sure where you get that. All I am saying is that the report points out that certain pirates are the biggest spenders, and my reply is that they are only a small part of the market.
But that's the problem. The markets have grown larger and the people spending the most aren't the ones being catered to. The markets also include the people with disposable income such as teenagers who share and find content regardless of legality. I haven't yet read the report but I would guess that is the main market which makes sense for a number of reasons. Firstly, without the larger responsibilities of adulthood, their money goes to finance more projects and use content. That really hasn't changed since... Well, quite some time.
llowing piracy to expand to the point where everyone (including your parents) would be using it as their sole source wouldn't increase business.
But in report after report, that's what happens. When Steam lowered prices and followed a global release of a few days instead of weeks, piracy disappeared for them and Germany as well as Russia became great customers.
Lowering prices and increasing availability has worked far more than catering to the current average.
Besides that, who relies on a sole source for content? That makes no sense.