One line in this article I found to be particularly educational: " There's the "flying device is dangerous if something goes wrong" argument...".
I was unaware, until now, that turning a device off magically attached an invisible tether to it so that it couldn't become a "flying object"!
This is why I love TechDirt; you learn something new every day.
"Copyright protection and licensing images are two elements that ensure the sustainability of a professional photographer’s career" - this is not really correct. Those elecments are nearly irrelevent; what sustains a professional photographers career is consistantly and continuously creating more new photos that people like.
Many professionals "create things" as part of their job; they don't get paid over and over for the same creation - they get paid ONCE. If they want paid again, they have to go out and create a new thing.
I "create" security systems. I get paid just once for each one. I don't get paid again each time it's used, or even each time "my creation" is sold. I get paid ONCE. If I want paid again, I have to create a new system.
(Anyone that asserts that this sort of "creation" is different than "artistic endevors" should go out and learn to do it - it is, in the hands of a truely creative person, truly an "art".)
In fact, the vacuum I use for work does not need to be plugged in to use it - it runs on rechargable batterys! Why? because electrical supply is spotty or unavailble in the places I work (construction sites). At home, if the power goes off, I can't see to vacuum anyway, so who cares if the vacuum doesn't work?
I know many people that live in areas with spotty cell phone coverage, and they have cell phones anyway. Why? because their cell phones work everywhere ELSE. For home, they use landlines.
So, MS's arguements fail .. because there ARE alternitives. For "always online DRM", this aren't any (legal) alternitives, making it an "apples and oranges" comparison.
"the mission of newspapers is to inform the public" - really? Seems to me their mission is to (1) make their big-money friends look good (no matter what they've done) and (2) make money by selling advertising and subscriptions. So they take the "news", wash it, spin it, sometimes candy coat it and then they publish it. Sometimes they even accidentally include some facts!
They decide what is "news worthy" and what isn't. They don't REPORT the news - they create it.
A quick seearch of the internet for what percentage of the population participates in "less than legal" downloading,
I found estimates between 13% and 18%. Being generous, I'll double the high estimate ....
64% do not
Of the 36% that download, 44.8% of them [from article] (or 16.13% overall) pay nothing
if 60% overall don't pay [from article], and if only 16.13% are downloaders, then 43.87% of non-downloaders do not pay
so, only 56.13% of non-downloaders are paying customers
Now, to apply their own math to non-downloaders....
43.87% pay £0
56.13% pay £33.43
Therefore, non-downloaders must be spending an average £18.76 per year,
only 70% of what downloaders spend "on average"!
First of all, these sites do not CONSUME the content - the consumers (i.e. paying customers sent to the host site) "consume" the content. Consumers, I would add, that otherwise would not have found the host site at all.
In the process, the consumer is subjected to the host site's advertising and/or paywall, so the host still gets to collect it's pound of flesh.
If anything, the host site should be paying the service that is making it easier to find and access the host's goods for sending clients their way.