^ THIS. Many times over, this. Q: Why is this happening? A: Lawyers wanna get paid.
The explanation here of "simple, first-level self-interest" satisfies both Occam's and Hanlon's Razors and has considerable explanatory and predictive power.The layer of legalistic complexities found in such filings is just for show. The more counterintuitive the case, the more byzantine the filigree of legalese it will be coated with.
(This explanation suffices in many other circumstances with much more subtle cause/effect linkages.)
Haaahah!! Yeah, copyright apologists frequently resort to that last refuge of a scoundrel: The Rules. Rules to be obeyed, because, "whatever slippery piratey arguments pirates make, they are the law."
It makes the shills really uncomfortable to have to face the reality that the law is not a permanent monolith. Their voices get really high when someone suggests that copyright, especially as now constituted/distorted, is clearly NOT a law of nature.
On the fine day when changes to copyright that benefit both artists and consumers are implemented (now, how does anybody lose in that situation?), I'm sure the people employed as "copyright advocates" will just graciously accept the "Whatever you think, that's the law." argument. Right??
Fake news is fake. Untrue. Non-facts and non-events reported as actual facts and actual events. People need to put some effort towards determining the truth, rather than just jumping to believe or dismiss reports (as in a Snopes contributor writing an automatically skeptical article dismissing the Emory U Trump Chalk Hysteria.)
Whereas claims of harassment often have a subjective element. By their assessment of what constitutes abusive, violent or "damaging" speech some people demonstrate such a rare delicacy and finely-honed moral sensibility that I (or others) have to insist they need to own their own emotional reactions. This subjectivity can also be weaponized for internet arguments and utilized in bad faith ("Only a white male cis shitlord would deliberately cause pain to member of an abused, excluded disenfranchised group! You nust want all Xs to die!")
FB may have their responses a little backwards. Then again their response prioritization may reflect the degree or likelihood of legal responsibility (and the potential cost thereof)
Yes, we'll lead the world in labor-saving technology for the citizen surveillance and national oppression industries!!
We're number 1!!! We're number 1!!! We're...wait...won't this lead to massive unemployment among the "jackbooted thug", "enhanced coercive interrogation expert" and "truncheon-wielding pedestrian guide" demographics??
Hmmm...with a minimum of retraining, we can expect to see some strict adherence to mall littering regulations, eh? And a serious upgrade in the enforcement competence of theater ushers. The Invisible Hand resolves such problems, only now it'll grab you by the throat and ask if you've expressed any anti-government sentiments recently.
Amen. This is why I always oppose granting the government more powers, or greater regulatory scope: it just gives them more shit to sell off. (then when the FCC does good, it throws my whole model off!)
Then again, this is also why, much as I hate so-called 'progressives' (not sorry, they hated me first), the Republican party presents a wholly unacceptable alternative.
The parties, along with a gutless, cooperative press, allow the plutocratic class to filter "acceptable" candidates. In some countries, ones we routinely mock, the military acts as such a filter. I don't see our situation as much better.
Therefore Trump. And, to a certain extent, Bernie. Because people who want to improve the country, people who just want to preserve what's good about the country, people who just don't want to get screwed over any more...all feel totally betrayed by the parties. And the parties, aided by the press, respond to these expressions of outrage and betrayal with "wedge issues" and "culture war".
I'm pretty sure Randy heard "Stairway to Heaven". He never sued.
When the result of a law is "ghoulish money-grabs by lawyers to benefit people who have created nothing", it's safe to conclude the law is bad. I was kind of looking for a characterization of such law more sophisticated than just "bad", but no, that's about exactly right.
Yeah, it would be good if the members of Led Zep were to come down on the side of the angels regarding copyright law, but as we all know, it's all about the big IP aggregators getting richer, not the artists.
And even that "benefit" is secondary to the apparent primary goal of the law here, which is more litigation, because the lawyers on both sides "win".
Benefit to society, as was actually mentioned in the way long ago??? A very distant third or fourth consideration.
That's very good, and if the case for concern about 'climate change', specifically AGW (I learned it was Anthropogenic Global Warming), were always made in such a manner, you'd see a lot fewer people expressing doubts about the motives of the doomsayers.
BUT. When people make their case with hyperbole and exaggeration, ad hominem attacks and insults, it's noticeable. How can ALL changes in climate be bad? How can more rain, anywhere, always be bad, and less rain, anywhere, also always be bad?? How can all extreme weather be blamed on AGW? People actually remember that we've always had extreme weather, and over-reporting does not make it, in reality, worse. And NAMING every bit of bad weather! What's that supposed to prove?? And noting the increased DOLLAR COST of severe weather events as support for "action to prevent climate change!"? WTF? It's like a damn marketing campaign...and that's how it appears to people who come away skeptical, myself included.
Most amazingly, people are falling all over themselves to trust the good will and competence of the UN and the US government to deal with this poorly-defined problem. W.T.F???
One crisis in the natural world that I do find alarming is the apparent depletion of our national reserves of cynicism. Scary indeed.
Well, it's always good to see a sincere effort to expound on the realistic prospects regarding climate change.
And you were doing very well until you got to the part about "population is booming", which is absolutely not true and appears to be just a very dated piece of received "wisdom". It's an OLD "end of the world" panic scenario, (like Erlich's "absolutely unavoidable, billions of deaths due to starvation" and "The coming Ice Age"), but birth rates are falling in most parts of the world, in many places to below replacement level, except for those areas where women are still treated as property and breeding machines.
If SOME PEOPLE would get their hypocritical heads out of their progressive asses and help the women in said countries achieve equality in education, law and reproductive rights, the population problem would be "solved". There would still be more people than a lot of elitists would like, and I'll admit I have some ideas for dramatic population reduction myself, but we could dump the simplistic "just follow this curve, you'll see we're headed for 100,000,000,000 people! Unsustainable!" hysteria once and for all.
This may be yet another example of facts being subordinated to "The Narrative", but I thought your explanation was more well-intentioned and truth-oriented than that.
Yeah, I stopped listening when you start listing your evil straw men and lumping them all together. Not exactly the sign of someone I can trust to have done a rigorous, skeptical analysis...of anything really.
Also, your last comment is just bullshit. There are lots of people who accept the measured increase in global temperatures, but who are justifiably dubious of predictive models that somehow always have to be adjusted to fit reality, but only after their hysterical overestimations have been blindly accepted and loudly proclaimed. There are lots of people who would just like to point out that the "solution" to warming might be found in human adaptability, rather than greater government control of people's lives. There are people who would like to point out that the climate has always changed, and that a perfect harmonious equilibrium that we are charged with maintaining is a (religious>) myth.
But all these reasonable views are shouted down with ad hominem attacks, lies, threats, and insults. Which, in my experience, are not the rhetorical tactics of people confident they are defending "truth". So, props on being mindless "repeater of the goodthink", but I'm not impressed.
"Even if Mr. Seidman can prove he has been the victim of theft, that may not be enough. Trademarks are meant not to prevent companies from stealing others’ ideas, but to protect consumers from mixing up brands. Mr. Seidman will need to demonstrate that people might be inclined to confuse a yogurt manufacturer with a company that provides consulting services, or mistakenly believe that the two companies were otherwise connected in some way."
But go for it Mr. Seidman. Show us the virtue of "money-grubbing".
People could have used the word "how" regarding the provision of any service. Trademark or service mark, it still depends on confusion (deliberate or accidental) to make the case for violation.
He doesn't own the word "how", and, as was noted above, it wasn't even used in his magically 'transformative', innovative sense as a noun. It's an adverb. Too confusing? Maybe THAT'S why it shouldn't have been granted in the first place, or at least why the scope of protection offered him should be very, very narrow. And it is. Suing his own representation for failing to squeeze every penny out of every situation? Par for the course. Go for it.
If it's people like this giving corporations advice on "virtue"...well, that explains a lot. All your hair-splitting could have been avoided had he sought the services of an advisor on "Not appearing to be a total wanker". Hard to put that genie back in the bottle using the fine points of trademark law...
Sorry, I've just got a patent on "The process of publically diagramming sentences", which you are in violation of-without paying fees per the accompanying 344 page manual/payment schedule. I've made an exception for educational use, out of the goodness of my heart and to declare on my taxes as a 'charitable contribution'.
This latter based on the fact that any theoretical money not captured, that might have been captured, is "lost", "stolen" or "contributed willingly".
Given the 'quality' of some public art and its popularity with the public, that would be acceptable. Elitist art Nazis in positions of authority seem to have an almost vindictive attitude towards actual "popular" art and the benighted yahoos who like it (never mind these are the people who, you know, make up the "public").
And best of all the grant-granting department gets paid to assess proposals, the contract for preparing the public space for the artwork gets handed out to someone on a particular political campaigns' donors list, same with the contracts for moving and warehousing the newly 'protected' art. All working as designed, and everybody gets paid except the artists.