Considering that almost all the music I have purchased in the past few years has been found on Pandora or at least an artist I found because of Pandora, I find it surprising that the labels aren't paying them, much as they often pay radio stations, to play more of certain songs or musicians.
This particular article struck me as a bit melodramatic, yet I agree with all of its core points.
Chief amoung them for me is that graphics are not what make a game great. I do enjoy good graphics, and they are a factor, but only one amoungst many. The gameplay and story are more important. I played Planescape: Torment fairly recently and it was phenomenal despite the graphics being dated.
Unfortunately, you have a point. And it is a point that should be remembered by consumers.
With that said, the PS4 currently looks far superior to the XBox in being more consumer friendly and having better hardware as well.
Given Sony's history, I agree you have a point and we should approach with caution to make sure they stay with it. But for the moment I am happier with their stance than I am with Microsoft's and I have money waiting for PS4 launch day as long as they don't change their policies.
I buy almost all of my games new, but I also generally resale my games afterwards. That ability is a factor in how much I am willing to pay for a game, especially one that I am unsure of. Especially for a game I am not certain I will enjoy, it is a major factor to know that I can resell it to recover at least some of that money to buy the next game.
And that is before we get to the fact that them declaring by fiat that I cannot resell really annoys me and I would be more inclined to look at other options with fewer restrictions.
There are a lot of things I post to the internet that I suspect are useful, including some of the comments I leave on technical message boards and answers to technical questions, that I don't want to get paid for.
I posted them hoping to help someone, like the person that asked the question, and the most payment I would even want is a "Thanks". I don't want to burden anyone helped by those things with the idea of paying me for them.
I have no problem with advertising as long as it doesn't get in the way of the other content. As you say, I actually like some ads. If the ad is informing me of a solution I didn't know about to a problem I have, it will likely get my attention and possibly my money. The same if the ad is entertaining and funny (my wife bought me the old spice body wash specifically becuase of the ads and still does.)
My one surprise was how fast TV shows depreciate. Now that I have netflix available, I often find shows more interesting after they've been around long enough for friends and community to tell me what is actually worth watching. I just started with Game of Thrones after it has been on for a while, and I find myself enjoying Thundercats when I watch it with my young children. (Far too few good shows that young children can watch that still entertain adults if you ask me.)
Well said. When I sign up for a game that is inherently online and must be for a core game component(Magic: The Gathering Online, Star Wars: The Old Republic) I understand that it depends both on company and the community and that doesn't bother me.
But I detest the idea of adding an online requirement to a single player game. I wanted to buy the new Sim City for my son, but then I found out about the online only component. My son is 7, has one of my previous computers that I fixed for him, and does not have internet access on his computer. So, I bought him Sim City 2000 from GOG instead.
"Here's where these artists make one of the worst assumptions -- that withholding their music from streaming services will result in a corresponding boost in sales. "
The vast majority of music that I like I find on pandora, and I buy most of it from Amazon based on the link on Pandora. For most music that fits my taste, if it isn't on Pandora I will probably never know it exists.
No, its not an open and shut case. Now, if this doesn't settle a court may ultimately find that this was infringing and illegal. But before they do so they must consider fair use. Here the question is fairly murky with good arguments either way, but its definitely not open and shut.
As for breaking the law while exercising free speech...The law, by definition, does not allow it. But society often lauds a certain amount of non-violent civil disobedience and non-violent law violations in the context of making powerful political statements. Gahndi and Martin Luther King Jr. both advocated a certain limited amount of non-violent law breaking and MLK participated in it and went to jail more than once.
Also, if you want to challenge a law's constitutionality in court you often must break it in order to create a live and current case. One of the Japanese curfew cases during WWII was created this way by a man of Japanese descent violating curfew with his lawyer aware and his secretary calling the police to ask that he be arrested.
To be clear, I am NOT comparing these people to MLK or other such civil rights heroes. I in fact openly state that I believe they morally did the wrong thing in using this picture, and I generally disagree with their stance.
But, it is not as simple as saying this is an open and shut case or saying that you can absolutely never break the law in exercising free speech.
Its not that simple and it depends on the circumstances, but yes there would be a wide variety of circumstances where someone can use an image you took to support something you hate and you cannot (successfully) sue to stop them. At least in my opinion, that is as it should be.
One of the reasons fair use exists is to limit the ability to use copyright as a form of censorship. A photograph in particular, especially one that depicts something controversial is in addition to any artistic depiction a capturing of a moment in history. That may be valuable to newspapers, commentators, and historians. Fair use partially exists to make sure all of those people are not undully hampered in doing their duty.
" Granting them protection may encourage us and our children to behave in a way that we generally regard as morally correct, or at least in a way that makes our cohabitation more agreeable or efficient."
Even if I were to grant every premise in the argument sketched here, it does not provide that we should Legally grant robots rights. It may, perhaps, persuade me that I should treat my robots in a certain fashion and teach my children to do the same, when these hypothetical robots exist.
But that does not mean that courts or law enforcement should be envolved in it. It is rather a moral issue within my family (and arguably more of an exercise, something I do now so that behaving morally when it matters later is easier, rather than something I do for its own sake).
This post depends very much on how you define completely free market. If by free market you mean a completely free market such that there is no government regulation of the market (though there may be laws criminalizing non-market activity such as theft or murder) then you are right that copyright has no place at all since it is a creature created by statute and given form by regulation. Though I'd point out that monopolies can certainly arise in a free market if there are natural barriers to entry and a fair bit of regulation now is about about preventing and regulating monopolies.
Now, if by free market you mean a market that is largely free and with minimal regulation (we can argue about how much regulation is permitted before we draw the line, but it is clearly distinct from a concept like communism where the state controls most of the means of production) then we can easily accept that a copyright is a reasonable regulation on the market that creates monopolies only on very specific products. After all, it does not give anyone a monopoly on books, only on the specific book to which they created and someone else is free to compete by creating a new book, even a new book on the same topic.