That's precisely why the advertising and marketing industry exists in the first place. After all, everyone knows it doesn't actually work -- at least, not on them... just on all the other poor schmucks!
> It's worth remembering that virtually every new copyright law (or re-interpretation of existing law) > that's come out of Washington since the start of the digital age has been blatantly anti-consumer.
That criticism is an indication of a major part of the underlying problem, right there:
"Consumers" is a whole different category -- not to mention a whole different mind-set -- than "society", "the general public", or "citizens".
Copyright isn't supposed to be sort of commercial legislation, about consumers versus industry. Copyright is supposed to be about the public interest, about balancing an artificial, government-created, private privilege (one specifically enacted to benefit society at large) against the broader interests of the citizens of that society.
"Consumers" is a term that should be rarely encountered in discussing copyright law, and treated with care (perhaps even suspicion?) when discussing copyright policy.
Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
That analysis would be so much more reassuring, if Trump hadn't already gotten this far.
(And if the GOP wasn't mostly falling into line behind him regardless of previous claimed unwillingness to do so. Trump may be running an opportunistic scam -- but a substantial portion of the public seems eager to believe whatever convenient claims and promises he spouts, and overlook the less agreeable, contrary ones... and that's a human proclivity that scammers have long found quite useful.)
Firstly, I'm pretty sure that neither "horse excrement" nor "goat vomit" are protected by anybody's trademark.
Secondly, I'm pretty sure that neither "horse excrement" nor "goat vomit" can be defamed either by some implied association with, or by direct comparison to, that Donald Trump character. (Otherwise, we'd probably already have heard from them.)
That's at least the second time I've seen that fundamental error made in this very thread.
It's well known (or should be) Repellent Rocks are only effective against lions. To deter Tigers, you need a tiger-repelling Stick. All the rocks in the world won't help you spot and correctly identify an actual tiger on the prowl -- the rocks just get underfoot, trip you up, and distract you from the vital task of watching out for apex predators.
- - - - -
Similarly, of course, Facebook and Twitter screen-names won't help reveal and identify actual, committed terrorists -- to the contrary that will only leave our diligent protective agencies trying to sift digital land-fill for the occasional diamond (which will almost invariably prove to be paste jewellery or a child's toy). No; for this vital task, one clearly needs the far more relevant comment histories -- such as the troves of valuable data to be gleaned from the online forums for Dilbert, Calvin & Hobbs, and XKCD.
"The one individual found by the Inspector General to have disclosed the private information to an outside source, the Washington Post, has resigned from the Secret Service."
Of course, we can safely assume that this particular individual would, indeed, most certainly have been promptly arrested and tried -- if not for the fact that this person managed to flee beyond the reach of the law and the authorities, to safe haven in Russia before those in charge realized anything was amiss and cancelled that rule-breaking, oath-betraying individual's American passport?
Late one evening, the famous folk-tale hero and "wise fool", Sufi master Mullah Nasruddin, was on his hands and knees searching for something under a streetlamp. A passer-by saw him and asked, "What are you looking for?" "My house key," Nasruddin replied. "I lost it."
The man joined him in looking for the key, and after some time had passed without any success, the helpful fellow asked, "Are you sure you lost it around here?" Nasruddin replied, "Ummm, no... I lost it over there, by my house."
"Then why in God's name," the man asked, "would you ever be looking for it over here?" Nasruddin promptly explained, "because the light is so much better over here, of course."
Ever since the US-Canada FTA, I've seen this play out over and over.
The proponents insist these "Trade Agrements" will benefit everyone, the critics point out obvious flaws that make this unlikely, the deals are struck anyways...
... and the critics prove to have been right, but that gets little attention, the media expounds the success, because the fan club has gotten richer -- on-paper benefits for society, real profits for the few, real costs for the many.
So, by that logic, Webster, Randomhouse, Oxford, Fowler, and a few others could end up battle it out in the courts over who owns the copyrights on the English relatively current English language publishing...
Actually, there's at least a couple thousand native Esperanto speakers.
Most of them are children of parents who didn't have the same native language (often they met at international Esperanto events) who ended up living and working somewhere where neither parent's mother tongue was the dominant language.
In my corner of the world I've been aware of two such families. The one I (briefly) encountered, the parents were Norwegian and Korean, and of course the local language here Western Canada) is English.
It's worth noting that the first "popular" IAL (International Auxilliary Language), Volapuk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volap%C3%BCk was an explicitly proprietary language -- it failed in part because its initiator and "owner" refused to give up control over the language's use and development.
Esperanto has been far more successful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto -- and this was in part because its initiator explicitly gave up any proprietary "rights" and control over the language. It has even been argued that Esperanto was actually the world's very first "Open Source" project.
Same here. I was looking at getting a ROKU -- I spent my free time last weekend looking at options.
But now I've decided that there's a ton of DIY guides to making your own media player appliance out of a $35 Raspberry Pi, a hard drive, a box to put them in and possibly a few accessories (not to mention a choice of several free, purpose-built, (media-player specialized) operating systems to load on the thing).
It's so easy that I'm aware of non-techies who've done it -- and been satisfied with the result -- so a for a regular Linux user it should be a snap.