_But how do you get from there to *any* conclusion other than "the loudest, rudest, lowest common denominator gets to rule the world_
To be more precise:
How do you get to any conclusion other than "the person who controls the discourse (even if it is) by mechanisms other than having valid arguments gets to rule the world". As with all these things what it ultimately comes down to is this:
Don't try using anything other than reason and facts to put your case.
Don't use violence or threats. Don't use ad hominem arguments. Don't use name calling. Don't use over-long comments/posts Don't refer out to stuff that is too long for others to reasonably read and respond to. Don't use argument closing tactics like calling people **deniers, **tards, **phobics etc.
IN short - there is no way you can ensure that others are "the loudest rudest...etc" but you can make sure that you don't fall into that category yourself.
_ That's why you'll often see these folks breathlessly proclaim they adore "open markets," yet turn a blind eye when AT&T or Comcast write protectionist state law that hamstrings local communities and keeps competitors at bay. _
As always most capitalists actually dislike capitalism. Their view of capitalism is like Erdogans's view of democracy.
"It is like a bus - you use it to get where you want to go - then you get off."
If you haven't got a list then - when they come asking for it you can do what Mayor Loukás Karrer and Bishop Chrysostomos of Zakynthos did:
"Mayor Loukás Karrer and Bishop Chrysostomos refused Nazi orders to turn in a list of the members of the town's Jewish community for deportation to the death camps. Instead they secreted the town's 275 Jews in various rural villages and turned in a list that included only their own two names."
Not quite - but I think it is clear that, whilst the public domain episodes are derivative works of the earlier episodes, their legitimacy hinges on the question of whether they were legal derivative works at the time they were created.
Since they were all created by CBS at the time then CBS clearly gave permission for their creation and that is the end of the matter. Otherwise , under their own legal theories CBS should sue ITSELF for 94 squared times the maximum amount since all the episodes infringe on each other (there is a slight problem with the timeline here of course!)
Surely once a derivative work has been legally created it is just a work - and its copyright is its own.
Amazing how the US thinks that its sugar coated sporting "products" are somehow important. The rest of the world doesn't understand them and cares even less.
However the use of sports "rights" as a toehold and a lever to bully people into taking up a new service is quite a traditional thing now. It is the way in which satellite and cable got off the ground here in the UK.
Of case the basic model is usually not to "offer something new" but rather to take something familiar away from its traditional venue in an attempt to force people to take up a new service. That is how Rupert Murdoch bullied his way in to the UK TV scene.
So long as the cable companies continue to show the events Amazon's offering will not make a huge impact.
What they need to do is to put up a big enough bribe to the sports associations to get themselves an exclusive deal. If that happens then it really is curtains for the cable providers. If you are simply
Whilst it is true that the NFL doesn't have the control they claim, they do have more leverage, due to their ability to control entry to the ground and impose contract conditions on those who do enter.
However there is no such thing as "sporting rights " legally.