This is only true while those states perceive themselves as a "foregone conclusion." As demographics or opinions shift, the red states may swing more blue and become swing states, and the blue states may swing more red (or even green/independent/martian). Until then, marketing is less effective if it's preaching to the choir, or pissing into the wind.
Another angle is for governments to start evoking eminent domain or imposing public domain on intangible property. I'm specifically referring to life-changing or life-saving drugs and devices. Generic AIDS drugs in Africa. Generic poke-a-word communication tablet interfaces.
First, the US Constitution says "to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences," not "to guarantee profits to creators." Second, the tools of copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret law are not the only tools that can apply to this sort of situation.
"The beginning of copyright law" is long before 1970 or the Copyright Act or the First Amendment.
Ben Franklin was a bookseller and author, and yet also opened the nation's first subscription library, hired the first librarian, and talked at length about how these things had to be balanced.
Balance is the whole point of the Constitution's phraseology.
I just finished reading Don Quixote, published in two parts in 1605 and 1615. The fictional characters start volume two by becoming aware that someone wrote of their exploits in a fictional volume one (ostensibly the same as the real volume one). And part of the plot of the second volume is that the characters have to contend with a rogue who rushed to market with a volume two. Don Quixote visits the bookmaker, notes the production of the "apocryphal" volume two, and has a peaceful inner dialogue on the topic of the copyrights and the balance between the bookmaker's livelihood and the facts. (This from a character who will work himself to a froth if you suggest the merest hint of un-chivalrous notion.) In the year 1615!
Older discussions of how copyright conflicts with expression surely exist, but law around copyright started to form more rigorously a hundred years later, so I didn't want to dig too hard.
The points made in the infographic may be powerful, but the presentation completely ruins the impact.
I've seen many of these so-called "info-graphics" that are nothing more than unattractive typestyle masturbation exercises. "Ooh, a grungy filter, that'll make it look great!" It's pixel barf, sliding down a long wall.
If the data is more clearly demonstrated visually, use a graphic, and make it clear. If the data is just a series of bullet points or better expressed in prose, don't feel compelled to make a two-meter-tall PowerPoint slide out of it.
I generally agree with the sentiment, but I want to clarify something.
"The only constitutional issue is that Congress has the right -- but not the requirement, to create copyright and patent law if (and only if) it promotes the progress (of science and the useful arts)."
No. Congress has no rights. Congress has powers. The Constitution itself does not spell out the rights of people, it spells out the limited powers and responsibilities of the government.
No, pure grants for profit-making projects are still just fine with me, as long as the project says that this is the goal.
I've granted money to small artists who needed the cash to press their first CD run. I didn't invest in that artist, I just supported their dream to make and sell a CD. They did the music, they get the money from the CD sales, I got a named credit in their CD liner notes in tiny 6 point text.
Of course, if you're of the opinion that people only give money to get money or goods of equal value, then Kickstarter's really not for you.
The Cloisters Museum in NYC bans flashes at all times (UV is killer), and bans tripods on weekends due to crowds and extra hazards. You can go to the desk and get a tripod pass most of the other times. I've done some pro-level panoramic photography in there without a peep from the guards. A housewife with a point 'n shoot would get reprimanded if a flash goes off, though.
I tend to agree with the premises of the infographic, but I hate to say I was not impressed with the image at the bottom of #3. If you don't have concrete patent numbers to make the point, don't show patent numbers. It was like watching a really interesting drama on TV, but spotting a boom microphone hovering over the actors' heads: hard to maintain the assumption of accuracy in all the other numbers from that point on.
"The Marshals Service indicated that its first course of action in such situations is to seek the removal of such content -- which strikes us as a little odd."
It's very easy to see authority figures in absolutist authoritarian colors. Many times, this is justified. Unlike many cop-vs-photographer cases, they didn't force the deletion (destruction of evidence, abuse of power). Unlike a credible "terroristic" threat, they didn't force retention and investigate the poster deeply.
In this case, it may not be as nefarious as it may sound on its face. Consider a cop who is called to a dispute between neighbors.
"Sir, you have every right to hang underwear on the plastic flamingo in your front yard. But I'm asking you now, would you please not exercise that right, and take it down, just to appease the situation with your distraught neighbor, and let us all go back to our more pressing duties?"
Using bit.ly has two benefits: short to type, and analytics.
Mike giggles about AP not knowing how to do html links, but it looks to me like there is a reason to the madness here. Links short enough to type is not a factor for online usage, but if it's put into print, you can't do the HTML tags. They could do some cute filtering to make the print-shows-URL version from the HTML original, but to be honest, this also serves the distinction between an author's story and the editor's role. The parenthetical link is handled the same way an Editorial Note is handled: minimize changes to the article author's content while offering additional context information.
Plus, it's obvious that if someone DID get through with a bomb, the image of their nude-o-scope visit is material evidence. And the images of their last five nudes on their last five (ten, fifty) flights will be mined to understand how they developed their capability. There is absolutely no way they're deleting or shredding images until they've filled available storage capacity, and also lost all funding for more capacity.
This is certainly an example of a business (from a business aspect, Celine Dion is a brand), where the business's legal staff is getting in the way of her fans. Considering the blog has an ongoing interest in (1) quashing of free speech, and (2) "connecting with fans" (CwF), I think it's just fine to discuss this. Other businesses should take this as yet another example on why the legal staff should not be driving policy or knee-jerking in ways that damages the brand.
One problem with tying password to encryption is that every password change requires decryption and re-encryption under the new key. You can make it indirect: password used to encrypt an "inner key," and the inner key used to encrypt the data. The inner key is small and can be decrypted/re-encrypted easily, while the inner key itself doesn't change value so often.
Nothing new. In the telegraph days, operators referred to knowing their peers' "hand"... the subtle indications of timing and abbreviations in that individual's messages. Of course, "hand" called back even farther to the idea of penmanship or handwriting.