In a behind-the-scenes drama, the Sony Pictures chairman Michael Lynton last month told industry colleagues of a plan to withdraw from the movie trade organization, ...[but] the MPAA convinced Sony to stay in...
I wonder how much the MPAA is now paying Sony to keep them in their racket. It would look very bad to have them lose such a prominent member.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
—Hermann Göring Nazi Reichsmarschall and founder of the Gestapo
Oh really? So you think anyone who over-estimates what something is worth and pays dearly for it is somehow entitled to their money back? Do you think Hermann Göring deserves his money back after paying today's equivalent of $7 million for a Vermeer forgery by Han van Meegeren?
If I had Hep C, I'd book a ticket for a 90 day tour of India and take the drug while I'm there. I bet it would cost well less than $10k, and who knows? Maybe I could negotiate with my medical insurance company to cover some of that cost.
Yes, this is why my policy costs so damn much, despite having a clean record. I was just hit and my brand new car was totaled by a drunk driver last May. His "policy" covered all of $5000 per incident. For a 4 vehicle collision, this is woefully inadequate, which is why I'm glad that my insurance (both health and vehicle) covered pretty much all of my expenses.
I do have the option of going after this asshole alcoholic legally, but since my out of pocket expenses was ~$100, it's not worth it. If it were in the $1000s or more, you can bet I would take him to court and sue him for that money.
Anyway, my point is there is going to be no perfect system. In your "prepay through the DMV", there's no free-market way to shop around for the best rates, so good drivers like me will ultimately end up paying more than they should (just like today). And—Shia surprise!—people would still find a way to work around that, even if it is simply to not bother registering their cars.
Someone should start "insuring" anyone in Utah for $1
What is the definition of "insurance" in Utah, anyway? To me the way around this clearly discriminatory legislation is to have an "insurance" policy that costs $1 and has a deductible of $1 million after which it pays 1/1,000,000 of the costs.
...and also garnered 1/3 of the vote with less than $1000 spent on my campaign for county school board. I love to see more ordinary people stepping up and taking on the career politicians.
I don't agree with the cynicism @jupiterkansas; sure there is always a risk that a grassroots candidate will get sucked into the political machinery, but it's a guarantee when you vote for the other candidate.
Increased delays and added costs at U.S. airports due to new security procedures provide incentive for many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination rather than flying, and, since driving is far riskier than air travel, the extra automobile traffic generated has been estimated in one study to result in 500 or more extra road fatalities per year.
Re: 'Big broadband is going to howl and protest...'
And sites like TechDirt will continue to provide an healthy, ongoing application of sunlight to disinfect such chicanery. Do not underestimate the influence that the people and the press exerted here to cause such a dramatic 180° from Wheeler.
I just got into a discussion with a colleague who was advocating a breed-specific "pit bull" law to deal with the fact that pit bulls have a greater tendency to maul people/children than other breeds.
Here's the crux: do we really care about what breed caused the damage? Why not just legislate "if you have a pet and it harms someone, you are responsible"?
Same goes here. Why do we care that these are Muslim extremists? What if we determined the attackers weren't actually Muslim, but were some splinter religion that mainstream Muslims are distancing themselves from? And who gets to decide if they are "real" Muslims or not?
And ultimately, who really cares? Some sociopaths killed a dozen people. Let's punish them for that and not get into trying to legislating away the crazy by conflating it with other traits. Even if—and this is just a hypothetical—there was a .99 correlation between Muslim and terrorist, it still would be a shitty law because it would wrongly implicate innocent people.
So you are arguing he somehow deserves partial copyright? What about the airline that flew him to the location? The guide who drove him into the field? The company that designed and manufactured the photography equipment he used? The electric company that charged the batteries he used? If merely twiddling a few settings (or even just leaving them alone, right?) confers rights, then maybe I also deserve some for not running out of the bushes and screaming "SHOO MONKEY! RUN FROM THE CONTROVERSY!" thereby disrupting the conditions that allowed this photo to take place.
Regardless, despite your false assertion, the USCO Compendium most certainly does make this a pretty clear cut case. But if you really want proof, then why don't you bring it to court Mssr. malbee?
What you and other "real artists" believe, and what the law says are not necessarily the same thing. And in this particular case, they are exactly the opposite.
The amount of effort or expense one exerts in an endeavor is ultimately not relevant in what one receives as a result of said endeavor. Poet Robert Frost wrote one of his best poems—Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening—in just "a few minutes without strain." Whereas countless aspiring writers have written reams with nary a ruble rewarding their effort.
malbee: it actually has yet to be determined that Mr Slater "lacks a copyright".
Since you are playing the part of pedant, then you must also admit that it has yet to be determined the Mssr. Slater actually has a copyright claim here. With no court ruling to say one way or the other, the state of Schrödinger's Monkey is officially undefined.
So I say bring on the lawsuit! If Mssr. Slater is so confident in his rights, then he should have no problem asserting them in court. If not, well that itself speaks volumes.
Lack of copyright isn't preventing Mssr. Slater from collecting money from this picture. It is for sale on his web site, and wtop.com paid him for their use of it back in August when they wrote about it. He has also gotten a lot of attention for him and his photography from this story (I certainly hadn't heard of him before this) which no doubt has led to more business opportunities. To say Mssr. Slater has not benefited from these selfies that happen to be taken by a monkey using his equipment—despite the fact that they are not covered by copyright—is either ignorant, facile, or both.
Protip: if you want to argue intelligently about intellectual property issues, I highly encourage you to learn the difference between "stealing" and "infringement".