Certainly agreed. I remember a comment last week by one of the OOTBs that was actually well-stated, intelligent, and while not in agreement with my views valid. It STILL got jumped on purely because it had OOTB on it.
Personally I feel like TechDirt is more "raw" and authentic because of the back and forth.
People are allowed to be utterly wrong, and other people are allowed to rebuttal with citations, logic, what-have-you. I generally have learned more from rebuttals than I have from original comments.
Furthermore, the dissent (both uninformed and informed) prevents the comments section from becoming an endless echo chamber of "I agree with the article" that would negate the entire purpose of a comments section.
The problem with that is that the last time war was declared by the US Congress was WWII. Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, Kosovo, all those other operations were done purely under the auspice of the executive branch without Congress declaring war.
Congress doesn't want to declare war, and the executive branch would prefer to be able to "lead the way" rather than let Congress exercise their check against executive power. Sadly, this is another way that our nation has fallen short of what the Constitution set in place.
I used to subscribe to Pandora in 2010-2011 until I found out I wasn't using the service, and I used it from 2007-2010 before then as a free listener. This debate isn't new, it was center-stage back in 2007 when the original totally retarded rates came into effect. And now they want to make it WORSE? Could we at least try to make the corruption less blatant?
The explosion of creative media in all its forms is more a battle for attention than a battle for money. I personally hate uninteractive media, hence my attraction to forums, books (where my mind creates the visualization), and video games, and aversion to movies and television.
I think that Nick Mason and Ed O'Brien are terrific starting points. As a fan of Pink Floyd sight unseen, I'm happy to see their drummer standing up for the artist's right to have access to their own work.
It means that if the United States government is the litigant (someone educate me if it's possible for the US to be the defendant in patent cases), that the legal costs recoupment clause is null and void. Since the United States typically only prosecutes direct violations of law, it's just a way to keep this law from overriding already-existent law dealing with the US government's role in legal cases.
Why is it even set up like that? Why do we have a system in place where they could functionally monitor everything, even if by the letter of the law they're fine? The spirit of the law is being crapped on in every sense of the word, and somehow that's alright?
Being patentable and actually being patented are two different things. People have explicitly declined to patent inventions, particularly ones related to the internet's structure, and by and large those refusals are the reason the internet has succeeded as well as it has.