Hollywood is missing out on a huge market. Movies such as V for Vendetta should be recut and released from the status quo's perspective.
In other words, there should be a Tyrant's Cut where Adam Sutler wins and single-handedly kills V. A recut of the Matrix trilogy where Neo is killed by Agent Smith. And maybe a recut of Eastwood's The Gauntlet where Clint and Sondra Locke are stopped and killed by the police.
Why is Hollywood ignoring this vast untapped market?
Unfortunately, under the law as it is now, it probably is constitutional. The police can legally stop a vehicle for any valid traffic violation, even if the traffic stop is mere pretext. E.g., Whren v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. 1996 or Arkansas v. Sullivan, U.S. Sup. Ct. 2001
I realize the likely illegally obtained pretext from NSA makes this different, but it's obviously never been tested in court. For a court to find it unconstitutional, it would have to disregard and overturn a ton of contrary caselaw which supports an officer's ability to stop vehicles for any valid traffic violation. I highly doubt the United States Supreme Court would, given its current makeup.
As an attorney and with my unfortunate experience with the criminal justice system, I've noticed two types of lie detector advocates. The first type realize the tests are complete BS but skillfully use then to draw out confessions.
The second type are scary, they're absolute true believers. And like any true believer, they're dogmatic and prone to anger when confronted with actual verifiable evidence.
I'm assuming (based upon my own subjective opinion) that John Schwartz falls into the latter group.
"we used to be making a lot more money, they're making a lot of money now -- therefore, they must have taken "our" money."
I think it's actually worse. I think it's: "We used to be making a lot more money, they're making a lot of money now -- therefore, we must have their money."
As mentioned before, the copyright industry does not work in a free and open market. They don't care about competing or getting customers. They exist solely because the law says particular people have to pay. Because Google has money, the copyright industry has decided it should pay.
Think about it from the copyright industry's perspective. They're old men. They don't really understand the internet. And as far as they're concerned, Google is the internet. If that's true, well, make 'em pay, god damnit!
"In fact, he very clearly blames 9/11 on civil liberties advocates"
Baker's actually absolutely right. If this country had no civil liberties and was the police state he dreams about, Islamic militants never would have attacked us in the first place. They hate us for our freedom, right? Take away the freedom, you get rid of the hate.
So, do you watch yourself or do you have your own watcher? But then who watches him... Is there a never-ending chain of watchers watching other watchers? I suppose having other watchers watch the same other watchers could in theory break the chain...
Can someone explain something to me. How is tracking everyone's phone calls supposed to stop terrorism when anyone can buy a private phone?
Last week I bought a TracFone for my son and got it working without ever having to provide any personal information. I bought it and the card with cash. And signed up for the service with a new email address.
"Any tariff proposal should include provisions to prevent that from happening again."
Actually, that's exactly why there should be no such tariff. Government should not be dictating what foreign and domestic prices should be. Get the government out of it.
If a domestic corporation has its IP infringed, let it work out the matter in court or mediation after presenting evidence on both sides.
The government should never be arbitrarily putting a dollar amount on mere allegations of IP theft and demanding payment from anyone to cover such allegations. That's just an open door to widespread government/corporate corruption.