We should always keep in mind that copyright regimes may under-protect authors because producers/publishers/distributors and other “subsequent right-holders” typically exercise more influence over law-making than individual creators, and may have divergent and possibly opposing interests to those of the creators.
Yes, and it's about time that people start realizing that.
Go back and look at the original copyright law--Britain's "Statute of Anne"--and you will see that it was written with one explicit, very specific purpose in mind: to rein in the abuse of publishers, acting to the detriment of authors.
Gutenberg's printing press was developed approximately in 1450, and by 1709, publishing interests had made such an abusive, exploitative mess of it that it was necessary to create an entirely new legal framework--copyright law--to deal with it. That's approximately 260 years.
260 years later, we reach the 1970s, which is when copyright law really began to be perverted into the horrendous, inside-out mess we see today, where instead of preventing publishers from exploiting people, it enables them to do so and protects them in their evil. So it seems to me we're about 45 years overdue for another entirely new legal framework.
As I've said before, oversight without authority is meaningless. If inspectors, Accountability Offices and the like do not have, at the very minimum, the ability to summarily fire someone who persist in stonewalling them, they are worthless. What sort of accountability do you have when you *can't hold anyone accountable?!?*
As any computer programmer can tell you, there are two ways to do something wrong. There's an inherently bad idea, and a good idea implemented in a bad way. Uber is a shining example of the latter; please don't go making strawman arguments casting criticism of Uber in the former context.
What Franks views as problematic is actually a practical safeguard. If you give removal power to everyone, it becomes a plaything for abusers.
On the other hand, it's problematic for a second reason as well: this policy means that in order for a victim to get something taken down, they're required to out themselves. What's worse? Having to say "This humiliating image of a naked person posted by their ex should not be there; please remove it." or "This humiliating image of a naked person posted by there ex is me and it should not be there; please remove it."
If Uber is forced to suddenly take thousands of employees on board, along with the added expenses and liabilities such a move would entail, it's going to have a much harder time maintaining -- much less expanding -- a service that many people find preferable to the taxicab strangleholds present in many cities.
And that's good. Remember, popularity <> quality.
Lots of people "prefer" to shop at Wal-Mart, but that doesn't make them not a thoroughly evil, corrupt company that exploits and harms everyone they come into contact with. Uber is the same way.
Of course, once it was discovered that AT&T was breaking the law, the government decided to just change the law, ignore Klein's testimony, and give all phone companies retroactive immunity.
Which, just like retroactive copyright term extension, is blatantly illegal under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, which says in perfect plainness that Congress shall not pass any ex post facto (retroactive) law.
Re: Re: If they don't want to have to send a technician out to install that often...
As much as people like to apply the term "sociopath" to corporate executives, I don't think it's an unusual human trait to be a lot more interested in one's own financial success than that of others.
It's not an unusual human trait to be angry with someone who causes problems for you and wish harm upon them, either. It's perfectly natural. That doesn't mean we see nothing wrong with acting upon such feelings.
In fact, "to desire your own well-being over that of others, to such a degree that you will intentionally cause harm to them to further your own interests" is the most fundamental definition of "evil" that I can think of, and would cover pretty much every act called evil by every major belief system. (Except Objectivism, of course, which calls that "rational self-interest." Which is why civilized people call Objectivism evil.)
Just so we're clear: letting AT&T and Comcast write awful state law that strips away "states' rights" to the sole benefit of their monopoly revenues is perfectly fine. But the FCC using its legal authority to restore those same rights -- is a frontal assault on states' rights? Blackburn and Tillis are actually trying to dress up duopoly protectionism as some form of noble ethos in a particularly blistering wave of nonsensical hubris.
What? Our noble States Rights proponent--born and raised in Mississippi, currently serving as a Senator for the state of Tennessee--is simply carrying on a proud tradition that's most likely been in her family for 150 years or more!
Agreed. How is it that people are thinking of having her run for President?!? She displays the characteristic Clinton pettiness and outright congempt for the law that those of us who lived through the 90s remember all too well.
Ask the average person today about Bill Clinton's troubles as President, and they'll talk about him getting impeached for getting a blowjob. They might know Monica Lewinsky's name, or (depending on their political persuasion) remember that the actual reason he was impeached was lying under oath.
But how many remember the rest of his presidency? How many remember how it was one long string of scandals from beginning to end? How many remember Hillary being in the thick of most of it because they involved shady business deals the Clintons (both of them) were mixed up in?
How many remember how weary the American people were after 8 years of that, to the point where, when a moron with a criminal record came by and campaigned on a promise to "restore dignity to the White House," we voted him in just for a change of scenery?
Yeah. And how did that work out for us? Anyone really want to go back to that? I know I don't!
Are we ready for a woman President? Sure, but please, for the love of all that is good, not THAT woman!
Here's another good question: how much of "your" labor would be impossible, or impractical enough as to be useless, without the contributions of everyone around you, which you are entitled to as a civilized member of society?
But there's a much bigger question: will the FTC actually bother? The fact that Lenovo reacted pretty quickly to this mess probably suggests that the FTC may not bother. Yes, Lenovo's initial reaction wasn't great, but it did change its tune within less than 48 hours, and has been pretty vocal and active in apologizing and fixing things since then.
It chaged its tune within less than 48 hours after getting caught and being publicly tarred and feathered in the media over it. But how long did this continue happening, unnoticed, before then?
No, that's really not a good metric. If someone has to be exposed as doing something nefarious before they apologize, it really doesn't matter how quickly they apologize after being exposed, since it's reasonable to assume, extrapolating from past behavior, that had they not been exposed, they would never have apologized.