First, if the court decisions are not under copyright, then they should be. Otherwise, what incentive would judges have to make decisions?
Second, putting these decisions online for free makes it difficult for other bottom feeders to monetize access to those decisions by erecting troll gates.
If judges don't receive income from the parties that benefit from their decisions, then what incentive will judges have to make more decisions favorable to particular parties if there is nothing in it for them?
Even though negative statements cannot be erased, we can make them almost impossible to find, buried under glowing positivity and reviews that will bring customers flocking to you. We’ll push those negative results straight from the first page of search results into places that no one will ever look.
It seems that about a decade ago this was similar to what "SEO" companies were promising. To game Google's algorithm to make your web site go to the top of the search results.
Naturally Google altered their algorithms to compensate for this nonsense and make such gaming go to the very bottom of their search results.
SEO companies sued Google. "How dare Google make its search engine return useful results, instead of my client's site!"
Similarly, how dare Google return negative posts instead of the positive posts this clown is flooding the net with.
Neither will ever have any effect on the bottom line of the securely entrenched, large ("bloated"), careful ("inefficient") ISPs.
People will know it is in their best interests to stick with the safe ISPs which protect you by carefully exercising Editorial Control over the Internet that you see (unlike Google which does not seem to exercise editorial discretion of any kind).
People will realize how valuable a service their existing ISPs perform by exercising 'network management' to throttle or outright block things which use excessive network bandwidth. That is, anything using more than three or four times dial up speeds, which is necessary for fantastic email and interactive chat response times.
Another valuable service many ISPs offer you (for free, built into the cost of your basic monthly bill), is that they will recognize non-existing domain names, make the assumption that your traffic is to port 80 for a web browser (after all, what other internet application would anyone use?), and conveniently direct you to a page loaded with advertisements related to what they think the domain name might be related to.
And if that is not enough, your existing ISPs perform another basic 'service' for you (again, that's what you're paying for when you ask why your monthly bill is so high!), is that they find craptacular special offers for you and automatically inject them into web pages you visit! Now that's convenience! Now some people might complain that those injected ads could interfere with the scripts of other ad networks used by the website you visited. Or that the injected scripts interfere with the scripts that implement the very functionality of the website you visited. But those complainers just don't understand business and nothing will make those few troublemakers happy.
And, your existing ISP probably offers you a small number of free email accounts (included in your basic bill), and additional email accounts for a 'small' fee. That way your email history can be scanned by your ISP to understand your interests better. But if Google does this, it is evil. And those email accounts will keep you tied to your ISP forever, it's called loyalty.
And your ISP understands that EVERYONE runs Microsoft Windows and that an EXE which installs unspecified software onto your computer can be a basic requirement to install your internet connection. Google just doesn't get this.
Finally, unlike the Hollywood loving ISP you probably already have, big Evil Google is the source of all evil that exists on the internet.
So it seems that ISPs have nothing to fear.
After all toy microcomputers weren't a threat to IBM's big, beautiful mainframes.
Carry on. Nothing to see here. Just a bunch of hype by Google to create confusion.
So the DOJ is going to tell Apple how to design its OS?
This is a clear admission that the DOJ is telling Apple that it should deliberately design its OS to be insecure.
Maybe cars should be designed to do law enforcement's bidding? Homes should be designed to be easy for government snoops to enter without leaving a trace.
Maybe all brands of cell phones, not just Apple should have to be designed to be insecure?
The government could promote this with a marketing / advertising campaign "Insecure By Design" to educate the sheeple how this is good for us.
Microsoft could consult on Insecure By Design. After all, Jim Allchin testified in the DOJ vs Microsoft trial that Windows 98 is "inherently insecure". (not necessarily the same as by design, but why didn't they tell everyone that before they bought it.)
It can also be some self-appointed guardians who protect other people from the potential of being offended.
Don't let the first amendment stand in your way.
As a further observation, aren't institutions of higher learning supposed to be open to ideas which might not be the same as what you grew up with? And people different, including stupid, offensive and obnoxious people you might not have grown up with. Welcome to real life 101.
If you remaster, aren't you doing it from a recording that was made pre-1972?
No matter how you slice it, mp3 format, digital format, other modern tech not yet invented, isn't it coming from an existing recording that was made pre-1972? Even if that recording was the original studio tape direct from the microphones? It doesn't change the TIME when it was recorded.
There is a reason electricity isn't priced flat rate. What you pay is primarily two components: 1. cost to build and maintain the connection to your house 2. cost to generate electricity
There is a reason why internet SHOULD be priced flat rate. What you psy is primarily one component: 1. cost to build and maintain the connection to your house (2. is there some substantial cost to route packets I am unaware of?)
The cost of packets traversing the network is a very minor cost. There is no huge 'generation' cost. Just cost to keep all the equipment working and upgraded. Routers. Wiring. Powering that equipment (unaffected by how many packets).
As for my question above, I am unaware that there is any major cost (like electricity generation) for merely routing packets to/from a backbone. There may be a cost. But I suspect it is vastly less than the cost of keeping the local connection to everyone's home built and maintained.