There's nothing wrong, and much right, with profit. Profit is the reward we earn for creating value and helping out other people in society. From that viewpoint there's no such thing as "too much" profit - more is always better.
But one could say the same of joy. But if your joy comes from torturing other people, then there's a problem.
It's the same with profit. It's a good thing in itself, but moral considerations must come first. Profit must be earned by moral means.
Unfortunately these half-joking answers are literally correct.
There's something deeply wrong with the morals taught in our higher education system.
MBAs are taught (against normal human instinct) that they have a moral obligation to maximise profits, even if by immoral means, as long as the method is technically legal.
Lawyers are taught that we live in a zero-sum society and one person's gain is necessarily another person's loss. (This is obviously untrue; we are richer than our troglodyte ancestors.) So they cause harm whenever they're allowed to, because they reason that this must benefit themselves or their clients.
Even journalists are taught that truth is socially constructed and that there are always exactly two sides to any story - no more and no less.
Yes, I'm painting caricatures, but they are based on life.
And of course some professionals have enough human decency and independence of thought to ignore what they're taught and do the right thing. But human nature is such that they're a minority - most drink the Kool-Aid.
I think what is missing is a sense of old-fashioned morality - caring about right and wrong - that became intellectually fashionable with the rise of the Progressives 130 years ago.
(BTW, those who fought the losing battle against this were called "mugwumps".)
The real problem seems to be Ancestry.com's managment technique.
Why are employees incented to throw away records? I'm guessing they're measured on how many "record sets" they process (which might be small or large) instead of how many sheets of paper, how many bytes of information they enter, etc.
So they try to get rid of the bigger records.
The problem is perverse incentives. Change that, and the problem will go away.
(Of course, these incentives might come from NARA - if so, they're the ones who need to change them.)
Never attribute to greed that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I strongly suspect Nintendo management has no idea what is going on here. They probably just told their legal department to "protect our rights" and the lawyers go off and do this.
Why? Because they can.
Their reasoning is simple - the law lets us do this, doing it is "protecting our rights", and we've been told to "product our rights", so do it.
Lawyers are not business people. They don't think about what's good for the company or for profits. They just think "if the law lets me screw up other people, I should do so". Because to a lawyer life is a zero-sum game. And the law lets them.
Re: A professional would have responded in an adult manner, and not with an infantile refilling of the same document with material blacked out and a snarky footnote added.
When dealing with recalcitrant bureaucrats, there is a certain advantage to being not only on the side of the angels, but on the side of the SCOTUS.
On the merits, EFF is clearly right, and the USPTO is clearly wrong here - SCOTUS has already ruled to that effect in Alice.
The USPTO can be sniffy about it, drag their feet, and delay things. But in the end EFF is going to get their way, because they have the SCOTUS backing them up.
In that situation, there's some merit in going out of your way to humiliate the recalcitrant bureaucrats involved. Because you know you can get away with it. And it will teach them to take you more seriously next time.
I do realize that Americans have deep-ingrained Puritan instincts about sex.
And that people over the age of, say 40, didn't grow up with the Internet, and that influences their thinking.
But stop and have a look at reality. The internet is a ocean of pornography. Is ANYONE going to even notice a few more drops in that ocean?
I'm 100% fine with laws that prevent adults from coercing minors into sex. But are photographs really going to do any harm in themselves?
Is photographing a naked minor (or a minor having sex) really worse for anybody than the very fact of the minor being naked in front of an adult, or having sex with same? Are the photographs going to steal their soul or something? [Rhetorical question. No.]
If it weren't for the Streisand Effect of publicity for child porn prosecutions, who would even notice a few more porno pics on -ferGodsSake- the Internet?
Exactly right - the world has become so safe that people freak out at harmless things.
It's exactly like the allergy epidemic. Our ancestors lived with filth and parasites, and evolved immune defenses against them. Today we live in clean houses, shower, and use disinfectants. Result? Immune system freaks out at nothing, because it's evolved to react to SOMETHING.
Same with danger. Our fears are tuned to react to SOMETHING. Without something real, we react to harmless things.
We either need to end this civilized-living thing (it's unnatural), or start hacking the genome to make ourselves better suited to today's world.