In this case life +x has been relatively well established by research to be superior.
Three things: 1. Which research papers? 2. Who did the research, and/or who paid for it? 3. Who exactly is benefiting from life+X duration according to this research, because it's certainly not the public.
Life plus 10 to 30 years seems to be the buffer with some reasoning behind it (Organized crime killing creators to force public domain).
If that's the reasoning of why life+any amount of time whatsoever is 'reasonable', you need to look for a better example. Murder is already quite illegal, and I find it rather difficult to picture someone being murdered just so that their song/story/artwork enters the public domain earlier.
"Right, now that we've gotten rid of [Creator X], just 10 more years, assuming none of us go to jail for murder, and we'll be able to make a killing once their works enter the public domain and... everyone can copy all of it freely... we did not think this through."
Everything is cheap when you're not the one picking up the tab
It wouldn't surprise me at all if $10,000 for a table was the least of their wasteful spending. After all, it's not their money they're spending, why wouldn't they go all out and get the best stuff they can find, spreading their 'good fortune' around to friends when they can?
Who knows if the "insolvent" Perfect 10 will actually ever pay up, but the real question is if it will ever stop filing such questionable lawsuits.
That would be 'No', and 'No' respectively.
Unless there's an actual penalty for refusing to pay, like being barred from filing any future lawsuits until they have done so, they have no reason to pay. What, is the judge going to send them a sternly worded letter?
Ultimately, they have no reason care what the fine amount is, they'll just keep on filing lawsuits, collecting money from those that can't fight back, losing in court against those that do, and utterly ignoring any judgements against them. An order to do something carries absolutely no weight behind it unless there is a penalty for refusing to follow it, and I'm not seeing any such penalty here, though I'd love to be wrong.
Yet another great reason why these 'trade' agreements need to die, entirely. Don't just try and trim out the worst bits, the entire things are rotten through and through, and it needs to be made abundantly clear that any 'agreement' made behind closed doors is not acceptable.
If it affects the public, and is supposedly being negotiated on their behalf, then the public has a right to know the details of it, end of story.
Why go through the effort, just pick up a dead phone and listen to it for a bit, and you'd get the same response, given both would tell you nothing(though a dead phone is a little less likely to bluster and make ridiculous threats).
It's not that they didn't care about the game, they likely just saw this as an easy way to kill off any potential competition it might have posed for their current titles, with a minimum amount of effort on their part.
All they had to do was stonewall and send out legal threats, and a game that people almost certainly would have bought, potentially taking away money from their current offerings, was killed off. Barely any work at all on their part, and they remove any potential competition they might have faced from the game from the equation; from their point of view that must have seemed like an excellent deal, and it's no wonder they acted in this manner.
Sounds fair. I mean, if it really is harmless, anonymous, public data, then it makes sense to allow the public access to it, since it's their plates being recorded.
... well, unless of course the data is not in fact harmless and anonymous, and people being able to view it would be all that would be required to show that, but I'm sure that's not the reason they don't want the public to have the same access they currently enjoy. /s
Well you see, just like the rest of their ('It's legal, promise!') 'toys', they can't give any details, or suddenly the tech will becomes completely useless, as criminals who previously knew that the police had such tech, will now know that the police have the tech, and avoid it by not having cell phones or driving.
As such, you're just supposed to trust them on it, and given they have absolutely no conflict of interest here, clearly they would never make stuff up or grossly exaggerate things to defend their shiny toys.
'...without a proper and fair effort to truly understand the anonymous nature of the data, how it is used, and how it is protected.'
Is in direct opposition to this one:
'...generate investigative leads that help law enforcement solve murders, rapes, and serial property crimes, recover abducted children, detect drug and human trafficking rings, find stolen vehicles, apprehend violent criminal alien fugitives, and support terrorism investigations.'
Actually anonymous data would be completely useless for any of that, because if you can't connect a hit from the readers to a person, then it's not going to do you any good. What good is a picture of a plate, if you have no way of connecting it to the driver or likely driver of the vehicle it's attached to after all? If you can track a vehicle, you can track, with fair accuracy, the one who owns and/or drives it, so there's nothing 'anonymous' about the data being gathered here.
(As an aside, with all the other things they claim ALPR systems are good for I'm kinda surprised they didn't include '... stops meteors from hitting the Earth, causes puppies to spontaneously appear in the arms of sad people, finds your car-keys, acts as an effective tiger deterrent...')
Well, it would seem some congresscritters have realized the power they have here, and are bucking for a 'raise' from Comcast. Once Comcast realizes this however I fully expect the glowing recommendations and support for the merger to start pouring in though, few things are more obviously for sale than politicians after all.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Digital versus Physical goods.
If you want to have fun with the 'Copyright is property' people, just follow the logic of that argument. If copyright is, or should be, treated just like other forms of 'property', then clearly it needs to be taxed as such.
If your 'property' is so very valuable, then you'd better start paying taxes on it, and hefty ones at that given how much companies claim it's worth.
Tell them that if they want copyright treated as property then it's going to be treated like property, and you're likely to see more backsliding than you'd find in an instructional video on moonwalking.
So, the FCC screwed up before and made the mess, and now that they're trying to do something about it you cry foul? How does anything ever get fixed under that logic?
'Well, employee X screwed up, and while he says he wants to try and fix the mess he made, I think it would be a better idea to keep him from doing so, just in case, and hope the mess fixes itself.'
Also, regulations as a whole are not the problem. Properly written and utilized, regulations keep companies from going from 'moderately predatory' to 'We'll do whatever we want, and we're big enough you can't do anything about it'.
Regulations on their own are not a bad thing, unless you're a company with bad or anti-consumer intentions.
Now, can regulations be bad, when they are written, either directly or indirectly by those they are supposed to be regulating? Yes. However, they can also reign in companies and force them to at least pretend to care about their customers, their safety, and things other than the company profits.
Like many things, regulations can be good, and they can be bad, it's never entirely one or the other.
I've seen that asked before, and in fact I've even asked that question myself to those who claim that the FCC getting involved is overkill or a bad idea, and I don't think I've ever seen a real satisfactory answer.
Was Title II, and/or the FCC stepping in ideal? No, but I don't think I've seen anyone argue that it was. What people have argued was that it was the best option out of a bunch of bad ones, because clearly the chosen option of 'Just let the market sort things out' in place before that point wasn't working in the favor of anyone but the major companies.
Not wanting to visit a site with a name synonymous with dodgy scam artists, and potentially put my computer at risk because of it, is now 'rushing to ignorance'?
Like I said, my assumption there may not be fair to the site and what's actually on it, but if they don't want people assuming that it might not be the safest site to visit, and avoiding it as a result, then they chose the wrong name to register with.
After years of 'arbitrary, capricious, and an abus(sive)' behavior, suddenly when someone tries to call them on it they throw tantrum after tantrum, screaming about how unfair it is that a government agency is trying to take some of their favorite toys away from them, and is threatening to slap them down if they continue hitting their customers with them.
Act like an adult, or get treated like a child. They've shown that they cannot act responsibly on their own, and now the government is having to step in, and they have no-one but themselves to blame for it.
No thanks, I don't feel like stress-testing my malware and virus blockers. Now, admittedly that may be unfair to the site, it may be completely legitimate, but with a name like that, I don't think I care to find out.
As I understand it, he leaves out the copyright status markers because he feels that it furthers the idea that everything must be owned, and any use must require permission. 'I do not agree wit the system as it is, so to avoid providing legitimacy for it I will not involve myself with it' basically.
Whenever it's come up though, he or one of the others always make it clear that everything on TD can be shared or copied as much as people wish to.
Yet more evidence that the 'official channels', when they exist at all, are little more than traps to find those with ethics enough to point out a problem, but who aren't smart enough to realize what they're setting themselves up for if they report it.
It's no wonder whistleblowers are going outside the government to expose wrongdoing, they know the 'official channels' are useless, by design, at best.
Re: Re: Re: killing anyone anywhere for any reason
Kill anyone, at any time, for any reason... wow, that almost makes the UK's 'hack any computer at any time for any reason' program look sane in comparison.
Constantly living in fear of having bombs dropped on you by a country/government who doesn't even care enough about who it kills to make sure they know who's under the crosshairs before pulling the trigger. Yeah, seems like a great way to make people love the US to me, can't see how that could in any way backfire. /s