They decided that because VCRs have "substantial non-infringing uses," it was OK to make them.
I think a product or service having substantial non-infringing uses is not the same thing as finding that a particular feature is integral to the (already determined as fair use) service, and is therefore OK. It would be more like the VCR being found as fair use, and deciding that a play button is integral to its use and is OK but a pause button is not, so the pause button may or may not be OK.
To elaborate a bit - Mike's statement really boils down to an argument that businesses should not be subject to oversight by courts. Courts shouldn't get to decide which features of your service are OK? Actually that's pretty much the core of what a court is for: deciding what is and what is not OK. If a business is sued for fraudulent practices, would you complain that we don't want courts deciding what parts of their service are OK, and we should leave it to the market to decide? Assuming you would not take that position, how is this any different just because this case is about copyright?
There is no four factors test being done in any of these.
Can't you access public tweets on the web without a login? What stops Politwhoops from just doing that without using any Twitter account? Or is it that they really want to be able to retweet those deleted tweets, not just publish them somewhere?
Re: Re: Honest mistakes happen too -- just like on "file sharing" sites -- and Youtube is not about to attempt judging!
It helps legitimate content producers. So you should be in favor of it.
He doesn't really care about content producers, but about content middlemen and gatekeepers. Your proposal doesn't really help them so it wouldn't interest him, as you can see from his lack of response.
There is erroneous reporting... while the idea is sound, the execution isn't, because it doesn't require you to prove that it is false information.
I don't think that's a matter of poor execution. The whole purpose of the law is flawed - in other words, it's a bad idea. The goal was never to protect people from inaccurate reporting, and they just worded it wrong. The goal was to allow citizens to remove information about themselves that they find embarrassing or unpleasant. That's not something government should even be trying to do, the problem is not that they didn't do a good job of it. Maybe I'm just quibbling I don't know.
And the dirty little secret that the people pushing this agenda never want to acknowledge is that stereotypes--both negative and positive--exist for a reason: they arise because they are generally consistent with most outsiders' observations of the group in question.
In other words, they're based mostly in ignorance.
I was thinking of Wii Sports, Wii Sports Resort (which does include a couple of violent sports), and soccer and basketball games. The fact that the first games you thought of are football does not invalidate my point.
Violence is spread across the gaming industry because it is very hard to create meaningful and engaging conflict without violence. Without some conflict there isn't much to resolve over the course of a game
There are interesting puzzle games that do not contain any violence. Any sports game modeled after a non-violent sport will be non-violent. There are probably other areas I haven't thought of too.