To advocate slightly for the old way of doing things, it has to do with "Garbage In... Garbage Out..."
If children never learn their multiplication tables because it is assumed that they will always have access to a calculator... They would never know that 5x5 does not equal 30 because they accidentally hit a 6 instead. Only by knowing approximately what the answer should be in the first place, will they be able to quickly catch and troubleshoot errors in their work.
Their is a huge difference between reporting news of the suit, and publishing an opinion piece saying this thing is the next best thing since sliced bread, when your corporate masters are trying to denounce it.
Just like it would be legally foolish to publish an opinion piece saying it is a box of donkey scrotum rubbed in skunk feces, as that may only lead to your liability.
The safest out, just don't do a review of the product.
The difference between YouTube/Viacom, Google/EU, etc, is that they are merely presenting information already out there, whereas CNET is presenting a brand new OPINION piece that directly contrasts the evils CBS is trying to extoll in their legal arguments.
I'd much prefer that the FTC actually stay out of the parenting business and leave that to me
But this is the US of A, where liability lawyers are the most played commercial on daytime TV. We need our coffee to say "Caution: Hot" on it so we don't get sued when someone spills it. Buckyballs must be banned because some kid ate rare-earth magnets. If a burglar trips on the carpet, we ourselves become liable for his medical bills.
Why should we be responsible for our own actions, when we can just legislate against bad stuff, or sue?
Is that everybody is smuggling out oil money on behalf of dead princes to the tune of $32,000,000. I have received 7 requests for assistance just this week. Perhaps if all of this money stayed in the country in the first place, people would be able to afford their new ipod tax.
Surprisingly to many, the is a longstanding legal doctrine knows as the Felony Murder Rule. Positing an extreme scenario, you and your compatriot decide to rob a bank (a felony). In the course of the robbery the police show up, look upon your compatriot, who has no weapon, as a threat and shoot him deader than a door nail. You, of course, have no weapon other than the pen and paper you used to inform the teller to hand over money. Result? A likely indictment for first degree murder of your compatriot because he died during the commission of a felony, even though his death was completely at the hands of the police. Obviously, the law works in mysterious ways and has wholly unexpected quirks.
Except that's not what we're talking about here. A more accurate analogy is this...
I own a mall. It is a 24/7 establishment. There are many legal things people can do in my mall. Maybe there is a store where people can buy stuff. There might be a library. There might be a movie store. I leave the doors on my mall unlocked, so people might be able to come in and use it for mallsy type stuff. This happens every day all across the country.
But by this extension of logic, if somebody comes into my mall to steal from the video store, I should be held liable for failing to lock the front door.
We all know the real reason that "Return of the Jedi" never recooped is because Pirate Mike and his lackeys uploaded it to Pirate Bay 2 days before it was released into theaters... And Aaaargh, Piracy!
Just to be clear, the RIAA and MPAA are the trade organizations for the labels and studios, respectively. The labels compete against one another as do the studios. In addition, they compete against the indys, foreign producers and more broadly- others competing to capture the entertainment dollar of consumers.
but now you say
But given the popularity of US movies, music and software and the economies of scale they enjoy and the technical and artistic expertise, I humbly submit that if it was easy to make a market in a poor, third world country- people would already be there. Nigeria and India have a robust and low cost motion picture industries.
So which is it? Are they worried about competition from low cost indies, or are they the sole creators of the content people want?
If, by your own argument, the MPAA and RIAA members are the sole source of the content, why don't they just up the price, so they aren't undercutting themselves in other pieces of this "global market?"
Again, this isn't about the RIAA or MPAA worrying about people buying Bollywood vs Hollywood, or competing with indys or foreign producers. They have a monopoly on their own titles. This is about Hollywood having to compete with ITSELF. This is most easily solved by normalizing pricing on a global scale. Yes, that may mean a couple fewer Avengers sales in Kenya, but they wouldn't have to worry about their own product undercutting themselves.
A CD that sells for $10 in the US might only sell for a fraction of that in another country. In order to stay competitive in that country, they have to price at maybe $2. The local distributor licenses from them at a price in consequence of that $2 retail price.
This is how things work in a normal capitalist environment, but you neglect to mention one VERY CRITICAL aspect... The MPAA and RIAA are the SOURCE of the content. They're not worried about people buying Bollywood instead of Hollywood. They don't have to sell for $2 to "stay competitive" into that country, because THERE IS NO COMPETITION, except with themselves. If they don't want their product to undercut their own product, they can normalize pricing throughout their distribution chain. Easy enough done.
From an IT standpoint, I can see B&N's concerns...
While public usernames are in essence public, they are linked to potentially identifying information on the back end. Due to legal liabilities, this information would have to be transferred with the public usernames.
"I'm not asking about Canadian copyright, and I'm not asking for everyone's views. I'm asking Mike for his views."
Actually, what you said was "Just to be clear, Mike. In your opinion, are there any "good" copyright laws?" No specification of country. And if you read the article, it does hold the Canadian law as a good example to follow. So that would be a good example of a copyright law he likes, even if there is a clause he doesn't agree with.