That actually is why I immediately strip the DRM from ebooks that I buy. That way I can convert it into the format I prefer for my tablet (which is NOT Kindle) and read wiht the peace of mind that it's not going to get yanked the next time I update my software..
Wait. so you're saying we can only complain about laws that have been passed in our edumicated lifetimes? So are YOU old enough to be able to reprimand Mike for finding fault in a law that's only 36 years old?
Which, of course, means there is no reason to bitch about laws passed in the early years of our country that have to practical purpose, right. I mean, I wasn't around when they passed the laws against sodomy and homosexuality. Most people alive now weren't, so we have no right to try to fix them?
This means the perfect way to have an incredibly bad law passed is to hide it within another less bad law that can hang around until the people who it is most likely to affect can't have 'standing' because they weren't old enough to oppose the law originally?
If that's what you truly believe, you should be living in a country with Sharia laws (or maybe you already do, but sure as shit not in one where the populace is actually supposed to have voice about the legislative process.. especially the right to REPEAL laws..
"Yeah, pretty crazy considering nothing made before 1800 would still be under copyright. There is no way that would be possible. Even a VERY generous life +70 would put the artists dead by 1900 and the copyright expired by 1970."
Actually it wouldn't have even lasted that long. If we're talking about art up to the year 1800, that means the last of that group (late 18th century) would have lived into maybe 1850. But that's only the LAST part of that group, the 20,000 or so years of art prior to that would all be in the public domain.
And as pretty much all printed material published prior to 1923 is in the public domain, even after all of the wacky extensions, all of that artwork should be in the public domain. This is insane!
"Piracy is the same product, without the hassle of going to the store, or ordering online, or waiting for UPS guy to deliver. It's now, it's here, and it's free."
First off, I love how you equate digital and physical products, that was genius and it actually highlights my thought. A pirated product and the legitimate product are usually not the same product. If they were the same product, there probably wouldn't be a market for the pirated one. The product is not just the end result of what the customer receives, it's the entire package. Customers now are used to convenience, and if they can't get it they will move on by finding the more convenient product. That may mean pirating, or it may mean doing without the original product completely and finding an alternative.
"Also, I have to wonder: What are the qualifications for this guy to detail the consumer's mind. Was it an empirical study, or just something he pulled out of his ass? He doesn't appear to have any more qualifications except perhaps as a consumer himself.
So, because he's a consumer, he's not qualified to speak to how consumers' thought processes might work in regards to purchases? Who the hell should speak to that, Martians?
Re: Re: Re: Bah. Innovation as defined around here is pretty meh
"It doesn't have to be 100% effective. Apple iTunes built itself with DRM and they succeeded at pushing people to making the legit decision to actually pay. They've since claimed that they're not adding DRM to everything, but I think it's because the complexity of the file system is good enough to deter most people from copying. "
Apple didn't build itself with DRM. They had to have DRM laced music files in order to get the catalogs from the music publishers. They succeeded in spit of DRM not because of it. They were vehemently opposed to DRM and pushed back against the RIAA idiots to get it removed from the entire library.
You should at least get your facts straight if you're going to argue them.
"Of course, rather than separating out online and in-person speech, what's wrong with just looking at the details of the situation, and making a reasonable assessment as to whether the threat is legitimate or just someone saying something stupid?"
Well, what's wrong is that this would actually force the authorities to, you know, work. That's way too hard for them, but if they just criminalize this, they can arrest more people to make sure they're making their quotas...
I'm starting to think that living with penguins on Antarctica might be the way to go...
The actual voting demographic (people who ACTUALLY vote) are older than the demographic of most social media sites. This study respondents will almost certainly fall into the very group of people these political ads should WANT to get into the polling places.
They might think they're being all fancy and hip by using social media to target the political ads, but in reality they're completely disenfranchising an entire generation of voters.