Heh, you have it exactly backwards. The blackouts now happening are regional, where you can't stream the games online when you're IN the city in which they're played, or the surrounding area. The theory is that those people should be watching the TV broadcast, or going to the game, and streaming would take away that revenue. As you say, it's outdated....
"It wasn't CMP who said they were breaking the law. They were just saying it's a hideous and immoral act."
So, two things. First, it isn't true that CMP didn't claim PP was breaking the law. In fact, they were in court in Texas arguing that very thing: that this all amounted to the sale of body parts and constituted a violation of the law. Turns out they were indicted for the solicitation of body parts themselves instead, as they attempted to get PP to sell to them (which they didn't, because they only transact in fetal tissue with well-regulated groups, as the law allows). What the law allows is for PP to collect a fee for the tissue to cover processing and shipping. Processing of tissue is quite expensive, because it needs to be handled as biohazard material, it is typically isolated for specific cells, etc.
Second, I'm not certain where exactly the immorality in this transaction is? What PP does is take aborted fetuses and, with the permission of the abortion patient, give them to research groups for the afore mentioned fee. Were they to NOT do this, then the tissue would go to no use and be discarded instead. If we assume that the abortion is going to happen because it is legal, WHY IS DISCARDING THE TISSUE A PREFERENTIAL OUTCOME COMPARED WITH CONDUCTING RESEARCH USING IT?
If your point is the abortion never should have been allowed in the first place, that's a valid stance to take. But, with abortion currently being legal, I'm struggling to see exactly where the immorality is in getting the tissue in the hands of researchers?
"However, that appears to be leading to content being subverted and turned into advertising."
No, no, no, a thousand times no. Content has always been advertising, and advertising has always been content. The reason why the posts about deals and specific product sets on this and other sites, where they are clearly marked, aren't received negatively is because they're both unobtrusive and USEFUL. Useful being the key part.
Ads can be one of two things: useful or entertaining. If they are not one of those two things, they will blocked or ignored. It's always been that way, nothing is breaking anything, and, again, if ad companies would simply make ads people found useful or entertaining, the problem would solve itself....
"So actually, the only one misunderstanding how secular government works is you."
Yeah, not even close. Let me show you the difference.
"Women are allowed to wear a burqa in some instances even though other women in the same position aren't allowed to wear a scarf for non-religious reasons. Muslims are allowed breaks and rooms to pray at the appropriate times. Other employees may not get these breaks."
Neither example has anything to do with a public employee's application of their government duty with regards to a valid citizen of the nation within their purview.
"All Kim Davis was asking is for her assistant to be able to sign these marriage certificates that she does not agree to instead of being forced to sign them herself. Reasonable accommodation is what her lawyer argued and they ended up winning the case on its merits. They ended up doing EXACTLY what she asked for when she was thrown in jail. Her assistant is now allowed to sign the marriage certificate when she cannot in good conscience."
Excuse me, but that kind of revisionist history ain't going to be tolerated around here. What Davis did was REFUSE marriage certificates to citizens whom the government in charge of such things had deemed qualified for them. She directly inhibited the rights of others under the law of the land as part of her pout for her own religious views. As a public employee, she may not allow matters of faith to prevent her from completing her duties as a secular representative.
"My personal feeling is that more and more, gaming companies are going to move to a "razor / razor blade" model of operation, where the game that you buy is basic (complete in it's own way, but not the totality of the gaming experience) and they will continue to offer upgrades, new levels, and other gaming experiences to users who have a full copy and are registered with them. Our almost entirely always on universe makes this more and more of a likely scenario going forward, and one that will make piracy all but moot - they will be essentially selling what is not easily or even possible to be hacked."
....oh my god, we've gotten through to you. "Selling what cannot be hacked" is Techdirt 101. Selling, in other words, what's actually scarce. Miracles never cease....
So, basically, copyright maximalist uses the insane licensing arena duct-taped together because of copyright maximalism to self-aggrandize and self-enrich over claims that new business didn't find the cheese at the end of the insane licensing maze maximalist props up as the solution to everything...and claims THE BUSINESS is the problem?
I have all the love for our community: the supporters, lurkers, trolls, and true dissenters. Love all you guys and wish you the happiest and drunkiest New Years Day possible. I'll be pants-less and sipping IPAs, as per usual, but don't tell my wife and child....