Copyright law still applies. Back when the statue was commisioned, the city had the option of adding a clause to the contract that would turn the copyright over to the city. The city chose not to do this, so the artist keeps the copyright.
Probably because it's not a criminal offence for a government official to knowingly violate the constitution. at worst, the punishment is a slap on the wrist followed by a fine that the taxpayers have to pay.
Given the pace at which the industry is investing in advanced capabilities, there is no present need to redefine “advanced” capabilities
Of course there's no need to redefine "advanced." The current standard is well in advance of what the ISPs are providing now, and at the rate they're upgrading, it will be a very long time before they catch up to the standard.
It's all part of the government's war on whistleblowers
The police activity has to be kept top secret. After all, if terrorists knew the procedures used by the police, they'd be able to find ways around them. This means that anyone releasing video of police activities is revealing police procedures, and must be treated as a security leak
To start with, Obama CAN'T send in the national guard. That requires a request from the state government, not the federal government. Secondly, the National Guard is a military force, not a police force. They are neither trained, nor equipped to handle civil protests. Most of the protests can be traced to the local police using military tactics to solve a civil problem, the National Guard wouldn't change anything.
The moment you start equating FCC regulating decisions with treason, you begin to sound so much like a crackpot conspiracy theorist that any valid points you might raise are simply dismissed as yet another crackpot theory.
However, they do miss one issue, which is the question of potential market size. That is to say that for every book, there are only so many people who would be interested in it, a non-specific but certainly finite number of people who will part with money to purchase the product at all.
Amazon hasn't missed that at all. That portion of the population who wouldn't buy the book at any price are simply not part of the potential market, for any book, at any price, and in any format. The potential market is the rest of the population who might buy the book. Amazon has shown, with the facts to back it up, that the actual market varies with the price of the book, and has shown exactly where the point of maximum profit is.
Lowering the price takes the biggest part of the profit right off the top, it rarely changes the costs.
You're assuming that the fixed costs are set in part by the number of books sold. They're not. For ebooks, the cost of selling one book is the same as the cost for selling 100 books. If I can drop the price to 1/10th the original price, and sell 100 times as many books, I come out way ahead. The bottom line is that Amazon's pricing results in the book publisher getting MORE money for the same amount of work. There's absolutely no way that can result in less profit.
Surprised that nobody has jumped all over this. Everything in the law right now points to the concept that E-books are likely to be subject to first sale rights, which means that yes, they will at some point be able to be resold.
The courts have already said otherwise. See this story. Resale of an electronic document is a violation of copyright, no matter how careful you are to ensure that the original is destroyed after the sale.