"Had it simply played by the rules, while its business model would likely been not as lucrative, it very well may have been able to make a go of it and create a profitable business providing a very useful and much appreciated service."
The fact that there's a complete dearth of Aereo-like services despite the clear demand for such a "a very useful and much appreciated service" is solid evidence that this is simply not true, the retransmission fees are an overwhelming hurdle to running a sustainable start-up.
Just because these fees are a long established practice doesn't mean they are morally defensible and should just be brushed off as an ordinary cost of doing business.
IOW, "I disagree with your opinion so you're not allowed to have one!"
How exactly is pointing out that Republican officials' actions are at odds with the position of a large majority of their constituents "taking sides"? Are you claiming Mike wouldn't point out the exact same thing if Democrats were doing it?
"You're only problem is that the use cases are being cherry-picked from the news to make yourselves look good, because the most likely use case is the one I just showed you, and my bet is it never occurred to you."
No, we couldn't possibly have thought of that scenario because we're not cops right? Just dumb citizens...
If this was the "most likely use case" we'd have heard all about it each time, and you'd be able to present news reports to back up your conjecture. In fact the whole backlash against police use of military equipment could easily be diffused by enough stories like that. But that hasn't happened, most likely because your scenario hasn't happened either. And we're all quite happy about the fact that the number of incidents that could actually justify the use of a police MRAP is minuscule.
It's funny how often AC's claim Techdirt is "mocked" and "beat down" by people who supposedly know much better, but I recall seeing very little evidence of such treatment apart from a few extreme types with little exposure or influence. I know they want to think Techdirt is viewed this way but it sounds more like wishful thinking...
On her talent and drive I agree. But I think the business and tech side of things are areas where she's probably quite average, not particularly talented or idiotic. Both will very much be being driven by her label, and her pronouncements about "value of music" sound very stage managed. I'm sure she believes the advice they're giving her, but it'll be advice that benefits them, not necessarily her.
It's amazing that these clowns can't tell the difference between an entity that's powerful, like say a government, and one that's popular. Google is what it is because so many people want to use their services.
" I think there is a legitimate role for the notion. However, I do think that copyright law as it exists now is worse than having no copyright whatsoever."
This can't be stated often enough. The concept of copyright is good and has the potential to be beneficial to society as a whole, but the current form of copyright is practically a polar opposite of that, great for a few in the short term but terrible for most people and the future of culture.
"Making it less convenient to be in a homosexual relationship will encourage many to go with the heterosexual alternative."
There's an astounding level of ignorance in this comment.
Given how trivial you seem to think changing your sexuality is, if the government made it less convenient to be in a heterosexual relationship, would you just shrug your shoulders in resignation and go with the homosexual alternative?
"Obviously, products able to surreptitiously record movies while they are being shown raises substantial concerns."
Even if that were a valid concern (and it really isn't), are you seriously claiming that a movie recorded on Google Glass is an actual threat to movie revenues? I don't think you have a clue about what the result would actually look like. If fact I doubt you even understand why anti-camming efforts are so widely ridiculed.