Fair use is ALWAYS legal, no matter who doesn't like it. The only reason there is any gray area is because the copyright moguls refuse to allow their flunkies to codify fair use.
Because codified fair use would declare certain uses beyond their control, which is all the current system is about.
Also, if the first 2 seconds are ok, why aren't the next 49? Why is a legal use suddenly illegal if I do it twice, when each use would be legal on it's own?
Yet, even if natural property rights are not infringed on by stronger parties (the ones with more money, political power, guns; the monopolists, in other words), you STILL have to work your whole life to eat and survive.
In that light, you are totally correct. I went to see the Hobbit. It was full of teens, tweens and grownups, and after the previews were over, every phone in the place went dark. I was towards the back, and there were NEVER any errant glows to distract me.
What's wrong with it is that the dear politician doesn't know what he's talking about, per usual. Like your quote stated, white spaces are used to reduce interference between TV channels, and less so, radio stations. Signals in the white spaces of sufficient strength to be useful for communication will interfere with both the higher AND lower channel. The whitespace signal will get interference from the surrounding frequencies, also. There are mechanical devices for reducing interference (filters), but TV signals are strong. To counteract those signals, filter sizes get prohibitively large, quickly.
Everything you say is true, or plausible. I don't see how that detracts from the success of their experiment, nor how it somehow invalidates the conclusion that fans can be a bigger driving force for success than promotion, if they are allowed to be.
Also, the POINT of the concert was to hit a smaller venue, so that local fans would be able to attend. So, no. A central point would have defeated the purpose, as Folkestone and York are ~250 miles from each other, and Stoke a similar distance from either.
Fair use does not now, nor has it ever, required attribution. What you are talking about is "plagiarism," and that is a concept that only has immediate teeth in academia. While plagiarized work will (eventually) hurt your reputation, as long as it is within the foggy and treacherous bounds of fair use, it is legal. Just stupid.
Sorry, but your analogy fails in one important aspect: When the apartment is in use, there is wear and tear that occur. Also, the landlord is unable to give use of that apartment to another person. So, while it would be nice to give that apartment to the first person on the street without a house, there are only so many houses to go around. That is "scarcity."
Intangible goods (songs, videos, writings AKA 'culture), on the other hand, experience no wear and tear, and are infinitely reproducible at original quality. CDs, DVDs, books and the like are finite and perishable, but the content is not. Unlike apples, oranges and apartments, these intangible goods can be shared among ALL people who can access them with no loss in quality and no reduction in inventory.
No, those of us who pay attention to you, due to boredom or intestinal discomfort, are quite comfortable admitting that what we practice is a form of censorship.
The question that we ask is: So what?
Techdirt is allowed to (truly) censor any comments they wish, and not only is it legal, it's usually ethical. This is their backyard. What they don't like does NOT have to be tolerated.
Instead, they (as far as I can tell) allow themselves only the same powers as their audience. Unless I am mistaken, EVERYONE only gets one vote.
Even then, the content is easily available. You (or your ilk) keep comparing it to finding a censored book in it's difficulty. It's more like putting a blacked out cover on a porno mag. You're free to look, but if you don't want to see it, it's not staring you in the face.
Remember, free speech does not guarantee consequence-free speech. And in this case, the consequences are small indeed.
Actually, the press is supposed to be the eyes and ears of the public. The police, being public servants, are answerable for their activities to said public. That is, "What are you doing, and WHY is it necessary?"
Of course, you knew that when you ignored the phrase "whenever possible," since assisting the press is not possible when an officer is actively performing their duties.
I still find it odd that a plane in the air, which has it's windshield ABOVE the nose of the plane, as well as effectively recessed behind the curvature of the fuselage, was vulnerable to a laser from the ground.