There is a pretty hard and fixed line in the legal sand regarding hotels versus rental units. There is the very basic question of fitness for use, zoning, and all that.
That's what they like you to believe, but how well is any of that enforced? Search "hotel fire calgary". That was a supposedly professionally managed and bylaw compliant hotel which had padlocked chains disabling the fire exits. That's in Canada, not some "third world hellhole" country.
This entire discussion is BS. Just as cops don't really protect anyone (they just get to clean up the resultant mess), protectionist bylaws don't make commercial establishments act safer or better for their customers. They just keep out competition and allow the chosen few to keep their rates high. Protectionism is a very popular tactic for politicians and their friends, but its value to us is specious (based on pretense; deceptively pleasing) at best.
Swartz was involved in the development of the web feed format RSS, the organization Creative Commons, the website framework web.py and the social news site Reddit, in which he was an equal partner after its merger with his Infogami company.[i] Swartz also focused on sociology, civic awareness and activism. In 2010, he became a research fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Research Lab on Institutional Corruption, directed by Lawrence Lessig. He founded the online group Demand Progress, known for its campaign against the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Do you have a wikipedia page, or are your many accomplishments listed anywhere online?
No, it's not. Substitute "imaginary" for "intellectual", and it becomes clear. How do you transfer a thought held in one person's imagination to another person? You can describe it in words, or perform it in their presence, but there's no guarantee they'll then have the same thought that you're imagining. In fact, they'll immediately translate or transform it based on their personal point of view. It can't possibly be a one to one transferrance.
Tort is a wrong. "Extortion" means "outside of being wronged".
Interesting theory, but perhaps you should learn to use a dictionary prior to pontificating. "Extort" is from the Latin "extortus", meaning to "obtain by coercion or intimidation." "Tort" is also from Latin, but from "tortum" or "tortus", meaning "Any civil wrong or injury; a wrongful act (not involving a breach of contract) for which an action will lie; a form of action, in some parts of the United States, for a wrong or injury." It appears the two words are only somewhat related homonyms (however, I'm no expert on dead languages).
On a more relevant note, have you yet nailed down the date and time when Mike peed in your cornflakes? I ask because I can't think of any other reason why you'd continue to force yourself read his stuff. You don't appear to gain any pleasure or knowledge from the experience.
... getting politically involved is certainly a proper way to pursue that goal. But I also don't think someone who has been openly flouting the law for years - and was convicted for doing so - should be commended for now trying to go through traditional channels to change it.
Why not? I'd think that's exactly what the authorities would wish for.
I don't know Peter and I can't remember being at TPB. I don't infringe on copyright; I advocate boycotting. However, I too have been "openly flouting" the law for years, assuming you mean, "To mock or insult; to treat with contempt."
My point was that Mike doesn't support piracy, so I can't believe he would support the candidacy of someone who has made a career out of it.
You don't have to support piracy to despise how copyright maximalists have in recent years corrupted the law and (supposedly) our elected representatives. I think your understanding of this issue is very one sided and pretty shallow; lacking depth. If you'd open your eyes to see the massive multi-jurisdictional regulatory capture that Hollywood (et al) money is buying these days, you'd be appalled too. You might even begin to understand what drives Peter and Mike to weigh in on this. Go play a DVD movie, and note the screen that says there's a quarter of a million dollar fine for copying said DVD. Now, how the hell did that happen?!? If that isn't WAY over the top, I don't know what is.
This isn't a new phenomenon. Popes used to sell Indulgences to sinners. Greed, corruption, and bags of money from privileged interests have always greased the wheels of civilizations for those willing and able to stoop so low. The wolves have paid the sheepdog's toll, and now the farmer's paying for the sheepdog's treachery.
I don't blame the artists who actually produce their stuff. They're as much victims of this mess as we all are. I do wish they'd stop enabling this mess through dealing with the people who're causing it, but that's just me spitting into the wind.
That said, 99% of the time when people are arguing that you should have to speak English in the US, they are just trying to express their racism in a way that doesn't scream "racism".
I guess I'm a one-percenter then. If I emigrated to China, I'd learn Chinese. I expect those moving in the opposite direction to be just as considerate. There's nothing racist about it. If you can't speak English, Spanish, or French in North America, you can't even talk to 911 and be understood.
... 2. the researcher need to pay a fee to the publisher, plus have to give up its copyright for the paper to get it published ...
What's the rationale behind point 2?
Researchers have allowed themselves to be convinced that their research can only advance their career if it's published in certain specific journals respected by their peers in their field. "Nature" & etc. are respected by tradition; their alternatives, not so much.
My colleagues and I spend so much time telling the same people over and over again about what is going on with this stuff, and have to say it again next time we get our budget cut.
Have you been telling it to the Adrian Diaz's of the world? You may be telling the wrong people. You librarians should get together across academia and determine who are all the Adrian Diazes out there, then hit them all hard simultaneously. Cc: the parents of all the paying students who're taxpayers being fleeced by this ridiculous system.
I also wonder why the researchers put up with this. Were I doing research, I'd want to get my results out to others in my field ASAP so they could more easily attempt to replicate my results. Do an end run around them and pipe it to The Pirate Bay to torrent it!
Surely the solution is simple, to protect the imaginary rights to imaginary property ...
I've an easier way for them:
"Imagine me wanting to buy anything from you under terms like this, because that's as close as you're going to get to a sale. I prefer to do without (boycott) instead.
Some of my favourite music is forty-one years old, can be found on YouTube, and is still subject to regular DMCA takedowns, regardless. I've legally owned the LP and cassette tape versions (and still use the latter), and the takedowns are just annoying me and hurting you. Have a nice life."
There won't be enough interested people. They'll be too busy watching American Idol ...
The Continental Army was never more than a tiny fraction of the population of the Thirteen Colonies, yet they won against a fairly committed superpower of the age which controlled vast resources just North of them in Canada. I've always thought it amazing that the Brits managed to lose that fight.