The FCC caused this... so why are we expecting them to resolve it, Regulation is typically constructed of corrupt rules that create winners and losers at government behest.
Actually the pebble that started this little avalanche was the FCC attempted to slap down I believe AT&T for violating rules that for all intents and purposes they wrote, AT&T objected, took it to court, and the court said that as things were written the FCC couldn't do it's own freakin' job of keeping the cable companies in check.
Greed caused this mess, the greed of companies that couldn't even act within the lines that they had drawn because they had more greed than self-control. You want to blame someone, blame them for their complete and utter lack of restraint.
Also, if you're going to argue that the FCC causing the mess means they can't be responsible for trying to clean it up, good luck finding a government or even private agency that hasn't screwed up at some point. If they caused this mess it's largely because they were too hands-off, and now that Wheeler at least is showing some semblance of standing up for the public, the spoiled cable companies are throwing fits.
With regards to regulations, the FCC caused this particular mess primarily because they didn't go far enough in banning zero-rating entirely, and they're either too spineless to enforce the rules that they actually passed, too hedged in by cable companies and their bought politicians to be able to risk doing so, or both.
It's not an enviable position for the traditional TV industry to be in. To seriously combat cord cutting, it needs to offer a more flexible product at a lower cost -- something that (with a few "skinny bundle" exceptions) it absolutely refuses to do.
Something I've heard about, though I've no idea how accurate it is, involves a way to catch monkeys.
What the 'hunters' do is they have jars they put bait in attached to something, with openings just large enough for a monkey to stick their empty hand inside, but too small for them to remove it once they have hold of the bait. Despite the fact that the monkey could easily escape by simply letting go of the bait, they refuse to do so, and as a result are captured when the hunter goes to check the trap.
The execs of Time Warner and similar companies are acting exactly the same way. They could easily escape the 'trap' that they've found themselves in by letting go of the 'bait', in this case the lucrative profits and control they've become accustomed to, but instead they remain trapped, locked in place until the hunter named 'competition' comes by to kill them.
One judge, two judges... even if every single judge in the US told them to hand over the documents and/or stop stonewalling FOIA requests, so long as that order doesn't carry a penalty for non-compliance, they have no reason to care. When refusal to comply carries an actual penalty, then and only then will they consider changing their response to FOIA requests, and not a minute before.
Which has the problem of making paying off officials at the time even more tempting for large companies. Find a large enough bribe and suddenly a company is completely off the hook for any fines or damages they would otherwise have to pay, even if future administrations can demonstrate corruption.
There's also this not so minor issue:
Ecuador had explained to the panel that compliance with any order to suspend enforcement of the ruling would violate the separation of powers enshrined in the country’s Constitution -- as in the United States, Ecuador's executive branch is constitutionally prohibited from interfering with the independent judiciary. Undeterred, the tribunal proceeded to order Ecuador "to take all measures at its disposal to suspend or cause to be suspended the enforcement or recognition within and without Ecuador of any judgment [against Chevron]."
Wherein the tribunal is ordering the government to do something that is not legal according to Ecuadorian law. Having a third party order a government to do something that violated their laws is a huge problem, as it's basically putting the tribunal's orders above the country's laws.
You might be willing to pay that much to listen to a song once, but I really doubt that YT gets even close to that per stream from ad revenue, which means if they had to pay out that much they'd quickly go broke or(more likely) have to shut down service entirely in that country so they didn't have to keep paying(kinda like what they're currently doing, except even more so).
Oh by all means, let's teach schoolkids more about copyright.
Let's teach them that nothing made during their lifetime will enter the public domain, if it ever does, because the laws keep getting retroactively expanded anytime it looks like something might do so. Teach them that because of this, any remixes or rehashes, fanfics or fan made films exist only at the 'generous' whims of the copyright holder, and can be crushed at any time.
Let's teach them that sharing a song, or ripping a copy for a friend to listen to, something I imagine most of them would do or have done without a thought, is not only illegal, it carries a potential fine large enough to purchase a decent car or even house, despite the fact that said songs can be bought for a buck each.
Let's teach them that the likes of the *AA's are constantly pushing the idea that it's everyone else's job to act as unpaid copyright cops, making it risky for online services like youtube to host user created content without bending over backwards to try and 'appease' copyright owners, and that if the *AA's and their like had their ways, services like youtube, VCR's, MP3 players, and anything like them, would not exist.
Let's teach them about how completely and utterly one-sided the law is, where there is no penalty for making a bogus claim that gets something taken down wrongly, and the only risk is if a site or service doesn't do so immediately.
Let's teach them that simply having a radio where anyone else can hear it is considered a 'public performance', and collection agencies will try to shake down anyone who does so, that those same collection agencies will demand payment even from businesses that don't play their music just in case they do, and that in at least one instance this has led to a collection agency demanding payment for library workers reading to children.
Indeed, let's educate schoolkids about copyright, and remove any vestiges of respect they may have otherwise had for it due to ignorance on the subject.
If you're dealing with someone that's just going around shooting people, then yes, the sooner they can be dealt with the better everyone is going to be. If you're dealing with a hostage situation, where the one with holding the hostages is armed and jumpy(most of them I'd think), then unless you are dead sure that you can disable them almost immediately upon entry, startling them with a forced entry is likely to cause problem and/or bodies.
If someone is holding hostages, odds are they're feeling pretty desperate, and you don't want to back them into a corner even more at that point, you want to de-escalate the situation if at all possible, and a guns blazing entrance is not going to do that. If anything it's likely to make the situation even worse.
There's also the matter of odds and numbers. How many potential lives are they saving with the 'guns blazing' approach, versus how many lives are they risking. I can't help but think that more lives are risked with their eagerness to put all that gear to use than are protected by that same eagerness.
Well of course no-one was disciplined, everyone makes mistakes after all, and it's not like gunning down an innocent person is an action that causes serious harm to anyone that matters. If they didn't want to be executed on the spot, they shouldn't have been holding anything that remotely could have been seen to be dangerous with cops around. /poe
Seems it could be seen as a chicken and egg situation, though I'd also lean on the side laying the majority of the blame on the over the top tactics and gear.
The person who makes the call gives the police the assumption that a serious threat is in play, yet if the police were less likely to go in guns blazing at the first sign of even potential trouble, I imagine the 'fad' would have faded away by now.
Causing someone to have to answer the door and explain to an officer or two that no, in fact there is no-one shooting up the place would be annoying, but as far as pranks for sociopaths go, it's pretty tame. However, if they know that a single call is all it takes to have an armed group of cops kick in a door or two, threaten some people at gun-point, and potentially shoot a few holes in pets or what have you, that is much more likely to motivate them to make that call in the first place.
If the police were willing and able to show restraint, rather than bouncing about like children itching to give their toys a 'real world' test at the first opportunity, attempted swatting would be annoying, but not much else. Because they have no restraint however, it's an easy way for a sociopath to cause a lot of damage with minimal work and risk on their end.
The cable companies are absolutely innovative when it comes to new and exciting ways to squeeze a few extra bucks out of people, or charge people more for the same product as before.
As such I don't think it's fair to say that they're not innovative, the issue is that they're only innovative in a very specialized way, that of 'How can we get more money from our customers without having to actually do anything to earn it?'
Funnily enough, #1 is pretty much exactly what would happen if this were made law. No search engine is going to want to jump through the hoops needed to get permission for every link, assuming they even reasonably could, so instead they'll just shut down service in france.
While terrorism and child porn are both serious problems, when it comes to affecting the public the numbers tend to be small. They're serious issues, make no mistake, but for the majority of people they'll never impact their lives.
Corruption in public offices on the other hand...
As such I propose that all public servants, from the simple cop on the street, to government agency attaches, all the way up to the US president be required to make available to the public all of their data, from phone calls to emails, browsing history to data on any service they use, so that the public will be able to pour through it and spot corruption before it is allowed to affect the public.
All of those with access to the data(that being everyone) will of course promise to never misuse the data, and will of course only use it in the name of spotting and preventing corruption, with no other use allowed, under penalty of a really stern finger wagging and talking to by a judge.
As I'm sure that no public servant is in favor of corruption among their ranks, I have no doubt that they will greet this proposal with their full support, and pass it into law with all due expediency.
If Youtube can be forced to pay the insane fees they're demanding, then GEMA gets massive amounts of money.
So long as the matter is tied up in court however, Youtube is essentially useless as a music platform for anyone in germany, and without that the options for non-GEMA members to get their music out and be heard is all but non-existent. Want to even think about making money with music in germany? While your odds are poor with GEMA, they've ensured that they're non-existent without them.
As Andrew above notes, Slater's story has changed over time, from 'I had nothing to do with it, it was entirely accidental' to trying to claim that he set the shot up when he realized that if he didn't do anything then he had no copyright over the photo.
Given he has a vested financial interest(can't demand fees from people using a public domain pic) in making it seem like he deliberately(rather than accidentally) created the situation that resulted in the photo being taken, I'm going to assume that the original story, when he hadn't yet realized that it meant no copyright for him, is the true one.
A rich person pirates a song, they could be looking at a huge cost. A poor person does the same, and they maybe have to pay $1. Is that really justice?
Whereas currently the situation is:
A rich person pirates a song, and assuming they go to court at all they could be looking at a fine that's barely pocket change to them. A poor person does the same, and they are faced with a fine large enough to bankrupt them ten times over.
Graciously creating an option that allows customers to bypass some of the artificial restrictions that T-Mobile implemented is no more 'customer friendly' than punching someone and offering them a hand up afterwards.
NSA - Mass indiscriminate spying on the american public, lying about it constantly, repeated attempts to undermine security simply to make their job/voyeuristic fetish easier.
CIA - Kidnaps, tortures, kills prisoners.
FBI - Cooks up 'terrorist' plots, roping in the dumbest and/or most mentally challenged people they can find to point to as the 'terrorists' they 'heroically' managed to save the american public from.
Given the above, and the fact that the government hates nothing more than a whistleblower exposing it's activities to the public, yeah, I'm sure they'd much rather that anyone with a working moral compass find work elsewhere. They want people who follow orders, not people who think about them.
No, in that case there would be a clear eligible copyright owner, the human who attached the camera(s), and by that act deliberately set up the situation where the resulting filming would follow.
In this case, Slater's own description of the event, and what made the photo of note, made it clear that it was purely by accident that it happened, and he had no creative input regarding it at all, hence no copyright.
Re: Re: "Well you see, 'Not Guilty' doesn't look as good on a prosecutor's resume..."
They're willing to throw $18.6 million at the prosecution side of it, so clearly that's a priority they consider worth spending money on, it's just the defense side that they don't consider important enough to actually spend a cent on.