What if there was a law all those years ago hat prevented large chain stores? For example, there could only be one McDonald's in the world. Then nobody would have to pay McDonald's to make the same hamburgers. Anyone could make a Big Mac using the same recipe. But they could not call their burger place McDonald's. In theory the good Big Mac makers will survive and the crap ones will slowly go out of business. Now apply that to not just McDonald's but to every Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc, and imagine what that would be like.
I don't know what that would be like, whether it'd be good or bad. I just think it'd be a good springboard for discussion.
Basically I think the constitution should be re-written from scratch. By the public. Crowdsourced. The current one isn't bad, not in the least, but I think it needs a massive update. The old one would be the basis for the new one. Why do I suggest this? Because times have changed since it was written over 200 years ago.
As a counter-suggestion, maybe not re-write the whole thing but get every point clarified. Again, crowdsourcing it.
After that certain date 13 years ago, there was an anti-terrorism ad campaign on television here in Australia that basically did the whole "see something, say something" along with a list of things that would be suspicious.
Now, one thing on the list was photographing things but the picture accompanying it showed somebody shoving their camera through a fence and taking pictures of some kind of compound. So obviously if you stick a camera through a fence to take a picture of, say, a food distribution plant, because, say, you might be making a blog on food trucks, you might be a terrorist.
EU laws? They sounded like watered down Hollywood laws. Though I guess Europe is fussy about copyright. After all, even our TV networks play French cartoons and many Australia TV shows are co-financed by German companies.
One company owns about 95% of all the lines. Speeds can be abysmal. "New high speed network coming soon!" says the government, then screw it over twofold by creating a new monopoly and then abandoning the whole idea!
What gets me is that 15 years ago or so, most of these huffy puffy editorial writing types didn't know that a troll is called a troll when they say something nasty on the internet. "Trolls usually post on the internet" well, DUH, because before the internet it wasn't called trolling!
As much as I see your point, that's what Naxos CD's tried to do: Find and record as much "obscure" music as possible, ironically locking it up under copyright as they release them. So they're simultaneously released and locked up?
Why, for example, is there copyright on old television shows? Specifically black and white television shows. Not many channels seem to play them. Sure, I see "I Love Lucy" all the time, but not many others.
Take, for example, "The Honemooners", copyrighted to a company that collapsed in 1956, some 58 years ago. What about "Green Acres", yes, in colour, I know, but it is made by Filmways, another company that hasn't existed since 1983, some 31 years.
Now you can't possibly convince me that these shows (and many others) need to be under copyright. They were going to make any money they were going to make many years ago. A vast majority of the cast are dead and the crew long since retired if still alive.
I guess the UN hasn't yet realized that countries have been routing around it for years and years. Decades even. I mean, all these treaties and international agreements that go around the UN, makes the UN seem pretty irellevant nowadays.
It strikes me that taxi owners are upset because they think Lyft and Uber, etc, are competing taxi services. They are not taxi services. They are carpooling services. Now there are a lot of similarities, obviously, but one is a taxi service and the other is not. For example, if you need a taxi now, you can get a taxi sent to you now. You can't do that with Uber or Lyft, etc. Their service can only be pre-arranged, often days in advance, not minutes in advance. They are different things.
Hollywod and Microsoft are two very different things, of course. One is has way more money than sense,is capable of influencing millions, hates piracy, siezes domains, blames Google for the drop in sales, constantly makes new versions of old things that nobody really wants whilst charging way too much for them..... And the other one is Hollywood!
(Why does Microsoft blame Google for a drop in sales? Google Docs vs Office and Android vs Windows Mobile, of course)
This content is not available in your country so you might as well pirate it because then you might actually get it before hell freezes over. Besides, why would we want your money? Crappy little Australian Dollars.
I don't know about America but the situation in Australia is that taxi drivers have to hold a taxi driver's license, the car has to be registered as a taxi (with signage, I assume) and all public liability insurance paid up. When you break it down, with fuel, it can cost $150 per day to run a fully licensed taxi car. That's just one vehicle.
The state government determines the amount that is charged by each taxi car. The amount usually goes up by a fewq cents per year. It is currently around AU$2 per kilometre (roughly AU$3.30 per mile). I do not know how much the state government gets in fees and charges from the taxi's owner but I assume they take some.
So far Uber is ssetting up in Australia and taxi drivers are concerned that they'll loose fares and thus money. They won't loose it all because people often take taxis on a whim and you can't use Uber for that. But so far the government hasn't said a thing. Either that or the Australian media doesn't care. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference. I say give it time.