A concert-goer filmed (presumably) a pianist with a cell phone.
The concert-goer (presumably) paid for a ticket.
There was an audience, so many others paid for a ticket.
The audience was at the Ruhr piano festival, noted in the article as "the largest worldwide gathering of the international pianist elite", so many, many others paid for tickets.
Sounds like the concert on the whole is pretty successful. How again is Youtube destroying it? If this world-renowned pianist is struggling, maybe it's not due to Youtube, but it's because (again, as quoted in the article) of "the relatively few concerts he performs each season"
Actually, there's a fairly easy fix this. If you want the government to get all excited about allowing people to unlock their phones, just tell them it'll make it a lot easier for them to spy on "terrorists". They'll absolutely wet themselves in joy.
I have no idea if unlocking a cell phone would make it easy to spy on people - maybe it would, but I'd guess more likely not. But since when has Congress been interested in the facts? "You mean we can more easily spy on citiz...er, terrorists, if we make it easier to unlock cell phone? Law passed! Get this to the President STAT!"
It's never been harder for musicians to make a living at their craft, which is why employment in music is down 45% over the past 10 years.
Even if that's accurate, I can make the argument that while music employment may be down FOR THE LABELS, music itself is up dramatic, both from a creative and employment standpoint. Being "employed in music" doesn't always mean that you're employed by a label.
Technology destroys jobs
It'd be more accurate to say it renders jobs obsolete. Otherwise you'd be working in that food system you love so much - digging a field with your bare hands to drop seed in. You think that the plow didn't put people out of jobs?
This explains all the rage during the SimCity launch. It wasn't because of the DRM or the servers crashing or the sucky gameplay, it was because video cards was overheating and turning people into homicidal maniacs.
And I can't tell you how many times I've felt an uncontrollable urge to kill dragons and bandits after an overnight Skyrim marathon. All this time I thought it was just sleep deprivation and the half-dozen bottles of NOS.
I guess it depends. I pay DirecTV $100 a month for 300+ channels. I can count on two hands the number of channels I watch somewhat regularly. I can count on a single hand how many channels I would consider "essential" - the ESPN family (I'm not counting the broadcast networks).
If ESPN came out and offered all their content streaming live for $50 a month, I'd still save money every month, and that makes it worthwhile to me. I doubt Disney is getting $50 every month from DirecTV on my behalf.
It's no different than the HBO/Game of Thrones meme: Take my money! Consumers are screaming for better options and more choice, and are willing to pay for it. Networks seem to be purposefully sticking their fingers in their ears, because it's easier to buy political power the old-fashioned way than to have to change for Internet-centric world. And why bother, when you've built up so much power in DC over the past century that you can pretty much regulate to death anybody who tries to do any actual innovating?
Understood, and I agreed with your original point while I was writing the response. This person, and those in power who think like him, are most definitely not idiots. They know exactly what they're doing and why they're doing it. They are opportunists by any definition of the word. They're fully aware of what they're saying.
A law enforcement official pushing to expand his powers after a shocking crime is about as "idiotic" as a guy going to his boss for a raise when whatever he's working on succeeds fantastically.
An expansion of law enforcement powers almost always comes at the expense of the rights of the citizenry. Getting a raise from your boss doesn't necessarily mean your taking money away from your coworkers.
One question, though, Stewart, tied into Boston Marathon as you've done with yours: all of this surveillance, all these increased security measures, all this warrantless wiretapping, all these pat downs and scans at the airport, all of these drones flying all over the world, all these double-secret interpretations of super-secret laws, all of these redacted FOIA responses, all of this Cyber Pearl Harbor hand wringing, all of encroachment of the government into every aspect of American existence?
It's not funny that in actuality, they do have unlimited power, via the tens of millions of voters who don't give a flying fuck about holding their elected officials accountable.
There's not one single elected official in Washington who's scared of being voted out. With a incumbency rate of over 90% for Congress, an elected official has virtual carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. They only fear the electorate when it's motivated behind a single common purpose - see the SOPA/PIPA protests. Oh sure, they started jumping off that sinking ship on global protest day, but I didn't see many disavowing that legislation before then.
It's not until we turn the lights on that the roaches will scramble. Until then, politicians DO have unlimited power, by our inaction.
I'm not worried about that crap. I just found out that my body is swimming in something called deoxyribonucleic acid. ACID! Like, that metal-eating slobber that that alien thing leaves all over the place. If it can eat thru a metal floor, imagine what it's doing to my body! Yuck!
The clearinghouse "doesn't necessarily prevent trademark infringement or cybersquatting, but it does help trademark owners and brand owners somewhat in mitigating the damage that might occur," he added. "We've been telling brand owners it's not that expensive to protect themselves and they ought to do it."
That's a real nice looking trademark you got there. It'd a shame if something were to happen to it....