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.
I see great utility in the noderivatives option as many creators may want to limit modifications to their work while still allowing broad use of it. While I would prefer these creators use a more open license, it is fundamentally their choice and I respect their decision (for a limited time) to restrict derivatives.
I fail to see Helene Lindvall's point. Let us assume she is completely right and that file sharing is encouraging the creation of and attention to "plastic pop".
Personally, I do not like Pop at all. But if that is what the public wants, what is wrong with giving it to them? If people are willing to support it, why not create it for those people?
Also, the existence of Pop, even in large quantities, does not in the slightest detract from my ability to find high quality Symphonic Metal like Nightwish, Within Temptation, and TSO. File sharing is obviously not stopping the creation of excellent musicians like these (Nightwish released their latest album earlier this year and TSO has announced a new project in the works).
So, even if she is completely right, what is the problem?
I have a 6 year old, a 3 year old, and an infant. Personally, I love some of the enhanced e-books available on the Ipad for my 3 year old (and even tolerate some for my 6 year old).
They cannot ever replace having me or my wife actually read to my young girl, and no one should use them to replace actually spending time reading to their children and teaching them to read. But with that said, they do not make a good supplement that is always available and still better for her than watching TV.
If we want to get technical a line is a primitive or "undefined" term.
It is algebraicly described in the form y = mx + b and in Euclidean geometry given two points there will be a single, unique line passing through those points. The axioms imply that the line must have infinite length and no width.