"The downside of that though is it promotes groupthink. People try too hard to say what they think the hive mind will find funny/insightfull."
I'm not sure who that's more insulting too, the commenters you accuse of pandering for votes or the readers you accuse of being too dumb to make an informed judgement call on a comment. Suffice to say I think you're completely wrong.
"...and they believe that they are allowed to use, without attribution or compensation, any and all content they find anywhere."
Firstly, providing a link to the content is even better than simple attribution, so you're wrong there. Second, you don't explain why they shouldn't be allowed to use, with attribution, any and all content they find freely distributed anywhere, particular when the linked publisher benefits directly from it at no cost to them.
On that last bit, can you explain why publishers shouldn't have to compensate news aggregators for providing a service that collects attentive eyeballs and directs them their way? We know it's a valuable service because they complain when it's taken away.
It's definitely a step to far to call it a basic human right. You can't invent or add those; they're inherent in our species. But at this point it must be agreed that the Internet is a Very Important Thing for everyone, and those that don't have it are at a massive disadvantage to those that do.
"This guy set himself up when he said he had $2K with him."
No, I think he made the least bad choice is a shitty situation. If he'd admitted to having $167k up front he certainly would've lost it. The only chance he had of keeping it was to lie and hope they didn't find it. That didn't pan out, but it didn't leave him worse off either.
"But no, ignoring the regulations and offering a service based on the fact that you can be cheaper because you ignore the law, is NOT an innovation."
Price is not even Uber's most attractive feature to its customers. It's simply a better service that customers like. If you don't believe the service they offer is innovative compared to taxis, either you're completely out of touch with both taxis and Uber, or more likely, you're very familiar with them...
"Every person who ever commited tax fraud ever tried exactly that."
And this is how we know you have a vested interest in the old taxi system. Demonising your opponent by comparisons to crimes that cause actual harm as if they're somehow equivalent is the oldest trick in the book. Can you point to the millions of happy customers of tax fraud?
"Nice to see that real people, not monolithic studios, are the ones who help in the creation of movies. The process is far more than using just a camera to record images and sounds, and then editing with some software tools."
Thank you Captain Obvious.
"Frankly, I rather doubt there is anything the movie industry could do to satisfy the deep seated animus regularly exhibited here..."
That's probably because you're as willfully blind and stuck in the past as the big studios. Just because you don't understand what the public really want, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of smarter and braver people than you who do know.
You sound awfully like a paid shill or someone with a vested interest, so this might be a waste of time, but...
"Sorry, I don't get it. Why does someone defend Uber?"
Why don't you ask Uber's millions of satisfied customers all around the world, who've found them to provide a much better and often cheaper service than taxis. Do you really think they'd be happy to sit around waiting for years for the laws and regulations that are the result of regulatory capture to be overturned just because they ask nicely? Of course not.
Like many law changes, it takes societal pressure on lawmakers, who are being bribed, sorry lobbied by influential industry groups to maintain the status quo for their benefit. That pressure comes from large numbers of voters who want companies like Uber to be able to operate now, not years away, maybe, if you're lucky.
And it is civil disobedience if people are quite happy to use the service even if it's technically illegal. Nobody's forcing people to use Uber, they want to. Taxi system supporters seem to go very quiet when asked to explain this popularity.
"There is a huge body of Canadian works approaching 50 years old and still relevant, still played today. by 1965 artists like Buffy St. Marie, Joni Mitchell and Gord Lightfoot were in full swing. In less than a decade, the cream of 60's and 70's rock would be public domain - and most of those artists are still alive and in some cases, still performing."
All of this is completely irrelevant. No artist needs "protection" for 70 years, or 50 years for that matter. Nothing is preventing them from generating income form their work. They* made a deal to be "protected" for a limited time and then contribute to the public domain. This deal is being reneged on so don't be surprised when this results in the general public losing even more of the shred of respect remaining for copyright.
*Yes I realise this more about record labels than actual artists.
"If you're going to get in a cab, you have to be able to trust that the person behind the wheel is competent (not going to get you killed) and trustworthy (not going to rob, kidnap, murder, or simply swindle you)."
Or overturn cars, or set tires on fire to block major roads, or assault competitors... Lucky we've got taxi certifications to prevent that from ever being able to happen!