And he's mostly right... because it goes right back to what Rob said. For the most part, they don't seem to make that many good movies these days. They've focused on crappy, formulaic, derivative flicks. Every so often a good film gets out, but Hollywood has become afraid to make good movies most of the time. Perhaps if it spent more time focusing on that, and less on whining about how it needs to be protected, it wouldn't have so many problems.
The Hollywood model hasn't changed in the last 100 years. They follow Pareto's law (or for the more discriminating Sturgeon's law) and 80-90% of what they make is dross. 50 years ago it was star (Stewart, Gable, etc.) and genre driven(western anyone?); today they have added franchises to the mix but it is still quantity over quality. Critics have been forever suggesting better movies but Hollywood figures, it ain't broke so what to fix.
They protected the studio system with the same vigor then as they do copyright today, for the same reason, control of the assets for exploitation. The only difference today is that they can monitize the library easier (although that has always been part of the Disney model)
They do a pretty good job of reviewing the ruling. As noted, it was the medium that decided the case. Because Blogs and Tweets require the participation of the recipient to be communication, rather than passive such as phone or email, it wasn't harassment. Also important was the fact as a public figure, the individual was not as protected from comment as a private person would be.
Infringement is more akin to smuggling. Smugglers react to an artificial scarcity to provide what is desired. Nothing is stolen, in fact the total supply is increased unlike theft. The only loser is the holder of the economic benefits of the scarcity.
"It's pretty sad, because Homeland Security and the Justice Department are supposed to be about defending the Constitution, not ignoring it."
You should have a much better understanding of Customs history that I do. Customs since Roman times has always been about collecting the taxes and tariffs. Most of the time, the tariffs were supporting protectionist policies. In merry olde England, the tariffs didn't even need approval of Parliament. Although they are supposed to follow the constitution, Customs primary duty has not been protecting it but enforcing protectionist policies and collecting taxes
The Customs Service doing the bidding of commercial interests is entirely consistent with 2000 years of tradition.
I think that Baen represents many of the 'new' business models that Mike and others discuss. You failed to mention that they also have a web board that you can connect with many of the authors and over the years has been the source of about 25% of the publishers author stable.
Baen also demonstrates the advantage of market focus. Not big in absolute terms but within it's niche, it has a strong following.
A Cautionary tale; several of the authors will not participate in the web boards because of some trolls accusing them of stealing ideas.
The vision that Jim Baen showed in building his publishing house has waned somewhat in the last few years since his death. I know that Eric Flint who is a strong advocate for what Jim was trying to achieve took over after that but as a working author, I don't think he has the same skill set Jim had.
This actually is nothing new, many businesses face these choices today and have for years. That publishing game simply had a high barrier to entry that has gone away. This is the classic employee or free lance conundrum.
Reminds me of the consulting business. Free lance has better upside returns with higher risk. employee had some stability but traded that for no big rewards. Both of them depended on the marketing of the consultant. It just depended on who was doing the marketing.
Remember that a not insignificant number of writers will self-publish to maintain control of the material rather than let an editor alter the sacred word. These guys (far cry, hurt locker types) are going to go biblical on the pirates.
first born son, stealing manna from the mouth, etc.
The point is that Obama runs the Justice department and although there may be options to bypass due process in law, the choice to do so and to litigate that position is entirely an administrations choice.
I don't accuse of Obama doing anything new, I point out that he isn't doing anything different. When your platform is 'change' and nothing changes, you can expect to get called on it.
I disagree that his administration is worse than the previous in this regard; not that it is any better. There is not a whit of difference between Bush's and Obama's approach to respecting the Constitution.
Where I am encouraged is that the Court's are now reflecting on the implications of this disregard and calling them on it. The farther we get from 9/11, the more we realize the sky is not falling and there is no need to panic.
Airlines maintain a list of flier's that aren't welcome anymore. I believe that it only applies to that airline. I remember being on a flight where they had to escort a passenger off the plane to spend the night in Cook County jail and we were told he would be on the airline no fly list. This was before 9/11.
I am sure it is not the same as the TSA no-fly list unless the idiot made terroristic threats.