Less 'amusing' more 'solid (if sleazy) business tactic'. They got their start building off of the public domain, now they want to make sure no-one else can do the same and potentially compete with them.
That's what we already have. When nothing created during your lifetime will enter the public domain while you are still alive, for all intents and purposes copyright is essentially eternal. Doesn't matter if it's life plus 70 years or 700, if it lasts longer than you live, it's permanent with regards to you.
Because they still have to pretend that copyright is meant to serve the public. It's a blatant lie of course, but they still like to pretend it's the truth, and flat out pushing for life+infinity openly would be more honesty than they're capable of.
This seemed bizarre to us. It's hard to see how anyone could legitimately could support extending copyright terms, but the USTR refused to back down.
Indeed, wonder why they would be so insistent on sticking to the current duration as it stands in the US currently?
Ah yes, probably because of this:
This made no sense, given that here in the US, as we undergo a major copyright reform effort, even the head of the US Copyright Office has admitted that perhaps it's time to start moving back towards life plus 50 years here in the US.
By insisting that life+70 years is included, they keep the law from potentially being changed in the US, as to do so would 'violate our international obligations'.
This change could benefit New Zealand artists in some cases, but the benefits are likely to be modest.
I'd love to see them try and defend this claim, given copyright already lasts for the artist's entire lifetime, plus fifty years, and last I checked, once you're dead, all the money in the world means squat, so how exactly is adding twenty years to the duration supposed to help the artist?
Honestly, at this point they should just admit that they don't give a damn about the artists or other creators, and that the laws are solely for the parasites that don't create anything but legal fees. A corpse gets zero benefit from being able to collect fees for an additional twenty years, but the parasite who owns the corpse's copyrights certainly does.
Just because the cops were told by the higher-ups to get the information does not make them any less guilty. They were either incompetent in not realizing that their actions were a pretty clear violation of the rules set down, or corrupt and simply didn't care.
Just because other groups were involved does not make the police any less guilty of their actions.
Sounds reasonable. Automatic but severely restricted copyright as soon as something is created, with registration being required for the 'full' protection of copyright, and renewals required if someone wants to keep their work under copyright for extended durations.
The way to fix orphan works is not to increase the burden, it's to fix a broken copyright system, and to require registration in the first place.
They way to fix the orphan works problem does involve increasing the burden, but not in the way the Copyright Office is suggesting.
Rather the burden needs to be increased for would-be copyright holders, and decreased for the public. Registration needs to be mandatory, so the public doesn't have to go on some stupid hunt for clues, trying to find out who owns a given copyright and if it's still valid.
That may make forcing them to hold up their end of the contract this time around an exercise in futility, but the idea is to put enough pressure on those being bought that are writing the laws that they start at least pretending to care about something other than who they're selling out to next, hopefully leading to the elimination or overturning of state laws that have been passed to ensure that Verizon and the other teleco companies don't face competition.
Get rid of those laws, and they can then start offering smaller ISPs the same deals that Verizon got, and I imagine a good many of them would jump at the chance.
A cost which would be the same whether you're talking about digital or physical format, so if that's boosting the price of the digital version, it should be boosting the price of the physical version the same amount.
Forget begging Verizon to do anything, they should be writing letters to the public, making it clear that Verizon isn't interested in holding up their end of the various bargains, and if they want a decent service, then it's going to have to come from elsewhere.
Urge the public to put pressure on their (theoretical) representatives to open the playing field, and offer the same terms that Verizon both took and ignored to anyone willing to step in and fill the void. If Verizon isn't interested in meeting their obligations then drop them, and find someone who is willing and able to do so.
If someone complains about a product, but still buys it, the seller has no reason to pay attention to the complaints, as they aren't affecting their profits. If someone complains about a product, and doesn't buy it, then the seller has a real reason to pay attention to the complaints, because they are affecting their profits. Therefore if you object to a product, or how it's offered, unless you stop buying your complaints are almost certain to be ignored.
Unless you're arguing that the above is not true, or that there's some more effective way to protest against a product or feature that you don't like, I think I'm going to stand by my claim/opinion that refusal to buy is the proper way to deal with DRM, in that it's the most likely to actually be effective at dealing with the problem on a long-term basis.
If an eReader can display color, then it will display a given pic in full color. If it isn't capable of displaying color, then it will still display the pic, it will just be in black and white. While color vs black and white has a real price difference when it comes to print, given the different inks and papers required, for digital so long as the device can display pictures at all there's no real difference, so I don't really see that being a valid reason to boost the price.
At most I suppose I could see the argument that more pictures requires more formatting work to get it ready, but that same argument would also apply to the physical versions, so you'd expect both to rise in price roughly equally.
No clue what you mean when you said I was looking at the second hand price, I listed the prices as they were displayed in the 'main' price box, ignoring the Used/New listings below it.
You don't re-paint a house destroyed by rot and termites, you bulldoze it
The OIG recommends a complete overhaul of the NYPD's use-of-force policies, as well as the creation of new incident reporting systems.
At this point forget 'complete overhaul', the entire force, top to bottom, needs to be fired and replaced. When the entire force is corrupt, then minor changes or 'clarifications' of policies that are already being ignored aren't going to cut it. Get rid of every last one of them, and start fresh. This would both allow them to start from a clean slate, as well as show both public and police what happens if things get too out of hand.
I've looked into plenty, and while some are cheaper(though generally only slightly so), a large number that I've seen are priced equal if not higher than the dead-tree format versions of the same book.
But by all means, don't just take my word for it though, here's the top 10 'Best Sellers' on Amazon, paperback versus digital price comparison, with the price difference from digital and the cheapest physical version listed afterwards. A plus indicates that it's more expensive than the physical version, a minus indicates that it's cheaper.
1. The Martian Paperback/Hardback: 9/14.88 Digital: 8.99 Difference:-0.01
2. A Common Struggle: A Personal Journey Through the Past and Future of Mental Illness and Addiction Paperback/Hardback: NA/15.92 Digital: 14.99 Difference:-0.93
3. The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing Paperback/Hardback: 8.10/10.62 Digital: 9.99 Difference:+1.89
(This next one is particularly ridiculous, given it's meant to be played with by a child, making the digital version a terrible idea) 4. First 100 Words Board Book: 3.30 Digital: 5.99 Difference:+2.69
5. Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard, Book 1: The Sword of Summer Paperback/Hardback: NA/13.95 Digital: 10.99 Difference:-2.96
6. The Pioneer Woman Cooks: Dinnertime: Comfort Classics, Freezer Food, 16-Minute Meals, and Other Delicious Ways to Solve Supper! Paperback/Hardback: NA/17.99 Digital: 16.99 Difference:-1.00
7. Killing Reagan: The Violent Assault That Changed a Presidency Paperback/Hardback: NA/17.99 Digital: 12.99 Difference:-5.00
8. Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Old School Paperback/Hardback: NA/7.92 Digital: 7.52 Difference:-0.40
9. Secret Garden: An Inky Treasure Hunt and Coloring Book Paperback/Hardback: 9.57/NA Digital: NA Difference:NA
10. The Three Little Pigs (Disney Classic) (Little Golden Book) Paperback/Hardback: NA/2.10 Digital: 3.99 Difference:+1.89
As you can see, three out of the ten are more expensive in digital format(+$1.89, +$2.69, and+ $1.89 respectively), two are cheaper by a noticeable margin($-2.96 and -$5 respectively), and of the remaining four, the 'savings' by going digital is $1 or less(-$0.01, -$0.93, -$1.00, and -$0.40 respectively).
Add in the DRM that is likely to be in most of the above, which guts value by eliminating the ability to recoup costs by re-selling the book, and even the ones that are technically cheaper are still terrible deals. Cheaper they are not.