I don't even like the voice aspect of phones, let alone adding video. I prefer asynchronous, non-intrusive forms of communication like e-mail or SMS. I'm actually working to put distance between myself and other people with tools like Google Voice.
Some people may have little to do and want to watch people talk, but I have crap to get done. I don't have time to watch scripted television, let alone a relative recapping how they've been working on their garden.
At least with Twitter, I can skim past people's small talk banter ... but on a phone, I'm an audience of one that should respond, and if you add video then I'm on performance to not only pretend like I'm listening ... but now I'd have to pretend like I care!
It's about jurisdiction. How can a California court tell people in Colorado what's legal and illegal? The robocallers are calling from Colorado, robocalling is legal in Colorado, California has no jurisdiction to do anything.
So, your argument against on-line comics is that a newspaper is necessary to promote comic strips. But a newspaper can only print a couple pages of comics along with ads, puzzles, and other entertainment pieces. So, out of the "literally hundreds of new cartoon strips coming out every year" how are any but the couple dozen established strips going to get into the precious little bit of space that newspapers put to comics? Newspapers aren't going to take a risk on an unknown comic strip at the expense of an established brand.
Instead of making it on the Internet where you have a potential audience of several billion people ... you can pray to be one of the top 0.1 percentile that actually gets printed in a widely distributed paper.
Honestly, the Internet method seems to be much easier sell for a budding comic artist than the old newspaper route. A chance at moderate success through web ads & merchandising (Cafe Press can print books, t-shirts, posters, prints, etc for little to no upfront cost for the artist depending on how much they want to put up) ... or going to the old route and hope for your "big break" while starving or busing tables in the meantime.
"people will get tired of taking the risk of file sharing"
What risk? A 0.0000001% chance of ending up the receiving end of a lawsuit? You have better odds at hitting the lotto jackpot than suffering any consequences from the RIAA for downloading music. 18,000 lawsuits settled ... out of how many "pirate" downloaders?
Are speeding tickets a sign of successful speed limit laws?
What idiot would ever expect an e-mail to be considered private? Never say anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't yell across a room.
Privacy is a level of trust between two individuals, not a byproduct of technology. If these two people did not agree on the conversation being private, then there should have been no expectation of such.
Also, just because someone sends an e-mail that says "this is confidential" at the bottom ... unless the receiver previously agrees to that condition before reading, it is in fact NOT confidential. The intention of the sender is great and all, but unless there are contracts and agreements, it's worthless.
They CAN be copyrighted, but that doesn't mean they are. And generally they're programmable, so just don't use any presets and hire the neighbor kid for $5 to pound away for a couple minutes to get something unlicensed.
No, the point the poster was making was to use artists that are not members of the collection agency. Bypass the PPCA's stable of artists entirely and work directly with musicians who wish not to license their music, but to use to promote themselves.
The PPCA should not be collecting & paying to artists it does not represent.
That doesn't actually answer the question. The PPCA could still exist that negotiates the prices with businesses in a method that is fair to both parties, like most business interactions in a free society. It's not the usefulness of a collections agency that was being questioned.
The question is: why is the government the entity setting the price? Why can't the business and the collection agency work on a price that they can agree on to be mutually beneficial? Why is the government enforcing a price independent of real-world economics of supply & demand?
Google shouldn't have done what it did. It had no reason to, and at the scale of information they collected, it is frightening what they could potentially mine out of it.
But ultimately, they didn't do anything "wrong". This was all information being sent via unencrypted WiFi signals. It's like having a loud phone conversation outside and getting upset that people are listening. When you are using unencrypted access points, don't do anything you wouldn't assume someone could see by looking over your shoulder.
Hopefully it raises awareness of WiFi encryption, much to the detriment of college students looking for free Internet. Because if it wasn't Google, it could be anyone else, who wouldn't tell anyone and keep doing it and really would do something nefarious with it. Ultimately, our systems need to be encrypted, because you can't claim privacy if you do nothing to make yourself private. And when you do use public/open/unencrypted WiFi networks realize they are just that: public, open, and unencrypted ... and don't broadcast any information over those signals unencrypted that don't want people to see.
As an extensive Google products user, I still feel this is a huge stain on the company's image. For me, much less from a direct privacy issue, but from a quality control issue. The code collecting the data wasn't meant to be implemented and took 4 years to discover. I know Google likes to overuse the term "beta", but someone should have caught this before. I mean, 4 years worth of WiFi data getting collected all over the world ... did nobody ever review the data being collected and wondered what all this extra data was?
At least they've been upfront and are working with governments to meet their respective standards for dealing with the data they have. But really it shouldn't have gotten this far at all. I want to see some improves from them in terms of quality control.
The Air Force didn't take advantage of anything. Sony sold a product at a price that people would pay for it. Sony could have sold it for more, but then no one would have bought it. Sony's intentions & hopes on what happens after that sale are irrelevant. There is no good faith clause in a sales contract that says the buyer agrees that they will spend $X on games to help Sony out.