Copyright supports and provides income from creators everywhere
Gee, I sure am glad of that too! With automatic copyright protection for every scribble I place on a napkin, I've been able to slack off in the classroom, secure in the knowledge that even when I sneeze I'm raking in valuable IP.
Are you freaking kidding me!!! If copyrights make all this money, where the hell is all of this fictional money going? You seem to be more specifically stating that copyrights deemed more important by stubborn legacy players are the ones making money. This is a useless straw man and completely ignores that it is the business model used that persuades the public to make a purchase, not the imminent threat of a law suit.
It's called competition, and now we'll have less of it...
But what about all the new lawyers clamoring to represent these tech behemoths when they clash? I've heard they're competing in as members, or "associates," of teams called "firms," and that they even hold contests of skill in "courts." With all the new "associates" and "firms", football and NASCAR could be in trouble. Hell, youthful sponsors like Samsung and Apple from the tech industry should be praised for their entrepreneurial innovation in actively promoting the first sport in decades that involves referees, or "judges," and crowds, or "juries," that actively participate. I'm also impressed that these "judges" are allowed to wield powerful hammers of justice (called "gavels") and that the "juries" get to ultimately determine who wins by who they cheer for.
Oh, right, the article (without grandma)... I think the second selection in the second image has a bit of clever irony. Shouldn't those "edgy" (ouch, reaching for that tore a ligament) artists be compensating those who provide side benefits out of pure (apparent) adulation? This is a moral question.
Right around the last time someone passed a GED and cited MTV as the sole source of their knowledge... so, the mid 90's, when MTV still deemed rebellious sarcasm was the "in" thing for pissing off parents, and pretty much everyone else. Then it shifted to mindless obedience (you know, to be "different," like everyone else) and the intelligence level dropped below keeping even Beavis and Butthead on the air.
This action sounds like that of a manager wanting to "streamline" a database: ie. rearrange the rows to make it look pretty. Decisions in kind typically don't take into account the end user experience as they don't result in a directly related change in cash flows and have the nice side benefit of making it look like you did work to the higher-ups. Most of these kind of annual review fillers are innocuous.
This is part of your attempt to rationalize why you support paywalls for Louis CK and Kevin Smith, but you can't bring yourself to support a major media paywall.
Did you even stop for a moment to think about the exclusivity of delivery? I don't know about you, but I usually find jokes funnier when delivered by the competent comedian. In contrast, I couldn't care less where the news specifically came from since my confidence in such information is less dependent on the individual source and more dependent on my own heuristics and meta-analysis. To sum up, news is more reliable from multiple independent sources (which in text links make easy to quickly determine), whereas comedy is less reliable upon delivery in the same context. As soon as comedians figure out how to tell each others jokes, while citing each other, and remain funny, this will change; the logical conclusion of this is captured well by the present shift in the field of journalism.