The major problem with Option 1 is that it undermines forward looking efforts to move the US to be more of a police state. Option 1 is almost an admission that there is little to be afraid of, at a time when the government needs people to be afraid.
Look at the model of some of the countries that we were fighting in the previous century. In one such country almost half the population was employed to spy on the other half. How would that work with Option 1? From what I seem to observe, the US in this century wants to change into the type of countries that the US was fighting in the previous century.
It's the quality of the malware contained within the ad.
Why should an ad be executing code on my computer? It's one thing if an advertiser wants to put pixels in front of my eyes. Even targeted pixels, which might be better in that I may be potentially interested.
Advertisers know no bounds. Have no shame. Advertisers would get legislation to make it mandatory to put animated advertisements on the insides of our eyelids if the technology were available. After all, the argument would go . . . when you close your eyes, you're not looking at anything, so what does it hurt to insert an friendly ad into that space. The next improvement would be sound to go with the eyelid ads.
The world is polluted with ads.
The problem is it doesn't scale. It's not as bad as telemarketing. Or spam. But it's effectively the same problem as spam, but at a cost to the advertiser. If every possible advertiser could get an ad in front of your face, any time they want, life would simply not be worth living. And the advertisers would not care!
Dear advertisers: when I need your product, I am resourceful enough to find it!
Remedy for trademark infringement -- withhold coverage
Setting aside whether or not this is actually trademark infringement (and I think it is not) . . .
The remedy for trademark infringement is a legal process. Not withholding coverage. You can even sue over the trademark issue and still be obligated to provide coverage.
I think Blue Cross should be sued over that particular issue. In addition sue Blue Cross to get a declaration of non infringement. And for costs. And maybe punitive damages for threatening to withdraw coverage.
Actually an automated system might be better at determining whether an image is pornographic than a system could be at determining if an image is infringing, or is fair use.
The determination of pornographic is determined merely by the content.
The determination of fair use requires information not within the content (image, text, video, etc). How does the use affect the market value of the work? How similar is it? How much of the original work does it include or appear to include?
Computers can already determine whether an image is of a car, or a dog, or a person in a black shirt with a guitar.
Can you please define what is an infringing domain?
Do you mean a domain name owned by a copyright infringer? If so, what material has the infringer infringed, and which of their servers is it hosted on?
Oh, so this site does not host infringing content. Merely links to it? Isn't that like telling someone "the crack house is on 14th street". It doesn't mean I am facilitating or enabling or even condoning use of illegal drugs.
It is organizations like the AP that should INSIST on Creative Commons licensing.
The AP would not need to keep track of detailed rights, or the particular text of a permission grant from a particular photo owner. They would not need to ask for all rights.
The AP would simply record who the owner of the photo is, which CC license it is under, and that would serve as a short easy to understand indication of what rights they have. For exmaple, all the AP needs to do is give credit.
You can stream Netflix using the Google Chrome browser -- even on Linux.
Now that may not answer all of your (or my) DRM objections. But I find Netflix to be a decent value given that I can use it on just about anything anywhere. All my android devices. All my set top boxes. Chromecast stick. Any computer with a Chrome browser. Some other browsers on Windows. And on devices I do not even own: Roku, Firestick, etc.
Not only must punishment be reasonable, but it must be given to the people who deserve it.
This includes extra judicial punishments, like the police beating someone up on the way to booking. Or while in holding cell.
This includes using government power to harass someone and destroy their lives. See Aaron Swartz (The Internet's Own Boy).
This includes thin skinned public officials harassing people critical of them. Using police power to do so.
And many more incidents.
When police stand up to protect bad cops, this does not make the public trust the police more. This is a bit off topic, but if you want good social order and for people to respect they law, they also must respect the people administering the law. The people in the system must be seen to be The Good Guys.
Good social order? It doesn't help when everyone can plainly see how brazenly corrupt congress is.
Even though this appears to be a hoax, I wanted to point out . . .
It seems the song played from 0:36 to 1:22 of the video. That's 46 seconds. It did not even get to the highly recognizable "eye of the tiger" part of the lyrics.
It should be easy for a copyright holder to claim well past $1.2 million in actual damages. Millions of people heard this story on the news, including the audio fragment of the song. And each of these instances is a lost sail, or sale, or something. That's how copyright is and was intended to work.
As for it being a hoax, it is easy to overlook anyone, including TechDirt being hoaxed by this. After all, you CAN NOT PARODY or hoax copyright pigopolists without it being completely believable. Just remember the hoax a few years back about the MPAA wanting to charge home users a performance license fee if there was a large screen, more than two viewers, and comfortable seating. After all, such an arrangement approaches or might even exceed the comfort of a theater.