Mike copyright is never used for censorship. Clearly copyright gives the Prime Minister the monopoly right to monetize his phone calls. Someone exercising that natural god given property right should not be accused with such defamatory language. You should be ashamed.
On a related note, I'm really looking forward to buying CDs of Recep Tayyip Erdogan's phone calls at my local Walmart. Good times.
I'm shocked the cable and satellite companies haven't come to their senses and started supporting Aereo's legal argument. If Aereo wins, the cable and satellite companies would have a huge bargaining chip in their negotiations with the broadcasters. Basically, they could threaten to do the exact same thing.
This isn't really new with Microsoft. It took MS a long time to add native support for MP3s into Windows.
And remember back when you could finally rip CDs with Windows Media Player? It "protected" the files by default. And "protected" didn't mean they were protected from deletion. They were protected from being copied. So even if you backed them up on a second computer, they could not be played on the second computer. They could not be played with all digital music players. And if your PC crashed and you had to reinstall Windows, all of your music could be unplayable.
Heck, to this day when I'm playing MP3s in Media Center (ripped from my own CDs or bought from Amazon), it gives me the option to purchase those very same songs. Why the frick would I want to purchase songs I already own?!
I could go on and on, but Microsoft has always placed its customers second when it comes to corporate interests.
That's one of the reasons I stopped watching ABC's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. In addition to being just terrible, the early episodes hammered the point that the government has to covertly spy on citizens, but it's OK, because "we're the good guys."
He keeps hyping the "fact" that the Rock will use patented technology. As a consumer, why would I ever care about that? Whether I'm buying sprockets or cogs, all I care is whether the product meets my needs.
While I agree with you 100%, I'm going to guess that the argument by the Beastie Boy's attorneys (assuming they don't come to their senses) will be the "slippery slope."
In other words, if we allow advertisers to simply mock popular songs in their ads, without paying for the rights to the songs, the lucrative licensing of songs for advertisements will eventually dry up. Why pay for the song you want when you can simply mock the song you want for free?
I think the argument is complete BS, but it will be argued. Attorneys love to argue the slippery slope.