I think the last two paragraphs need to be emphasized more. The article on the whole seems like a happy ending because Universal was smacked down for its hypocrisy and the people and Nintendo were able to get what they wanted, while in reality, Nintendo can now use the same tactics to get what it wants.
Being of Indian descent and having been there to visit a few times now, here is what I can add to this:
1. Air conditioning (AC) is expensive to have in the home, and it gets really hot there. Most movie theaters have AC. Therefore, people will go to the movie theater to watch movies but also to be able to escape the heat and stay for a while in an AC place; this is also why Bollywood movies are really long and elaborate, and why people go multiple times to watch the same movie in the theater much more so than in the US.
2. The police are easy to bribe. It's probably pretty easy to make sure that you don't get in trouble if you're caught possessing a pirated copy of a movie.
I remember the hubbub about Obama vouching for Sotomayor's capability for empathy during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Maybe that's something that needs to be applied to federal prosecutors as well.
I have this issue too, so it's not just you (and it's ironically appropriate).
Anyway, I'm confused: the TSA is dumping the scanners because the manufacturer couldn't make them less obviously like a naked scanner, and yet the TSA is also saying that this has nothing to do with the manufacturer's misleading information about how the scanners will affect travelers' privacy? How does that work?
The attacks remind me of what happened after Steve Irwin tragically died from a stingray strike. A lot of people in their anger started killing stingrays. It was needlessly destructive, wasn't helping anyone, was totally misplaced, and was exactly what Steve Irwin would not have done.
I have an idea: if a movie takes some amount of taxpayer money (either any, or above some threshold value or percentage) to be made, why not call it a government work and declare its copyright null and void, just like other government works?
I don't think it's really appropriate to compare this homeless guy's attitude to the ownership mentality pervading culture now. He has bigger issues regarding drug abuse, and he has basically said that he chooses to live out on the streets, not try to help himself, and mooch off of people. I think this is a simple case of greed, and I don't think it's proper to tie this in with the ownership mentality as it relates to copyright and TechDirt coverage of it.
"Free": copyright restricts other people's freedoms to produce and compete.
"Market": copyright severely curtails production in the market to just one supplying entity.
"Capitalism": copyright only allows one person to capitalize on a particular product, often in an arbitrary manner.
So no, copyright is not a part of free market capitalism. In fact, copyright is in every way disjoint from free market capitalism. Granted, we have a mixed-capitalist economy in the US, and it could be argued that nothing in the definition of mixed-capitalism precludes the existence of copyright, but empirically of course, it doesn't need to exist in as large of a scope as it does now.
I think the best example I have seen in mainstream culture of the Streisand effect (i.e. in a fictional work, not in real life), is in the Seinfeld episode "The Cartoon". Jerry Seinfeld's character tells guest star Kathy Griffin's character that she's terrible at acting, but later convinces her to get back into showbusiness. She does by starting a one-woman stand-up comedy show called "Jerry Seinfeld, the devil". Every time Jerry tries to confront her about her material and asks her to make it a little more fair, she hilariously exaggerates his actions further to make him look more like the devil. Finally, he sends her a cease-and-desist letter through his attorney...which she reads aloud on her show to further prove her own point.
Usually it seems like whenever draconian anti-piracy laws go into effect, music sales drop mostly because people can no longer listen to a bit of the music before they buy, so a lot of the customers who would pay for the music are turned away. I find it interesting that there is the added effect that these laws have cast doubt on the validity of any download; that alone should show just how much more backwards this law is.
in the opposite way. Weren't there a whole bunch of amazing, poignant photographs by ordinary citizens of New York City immediately after the attacks? I don't think those would have happened with these police officers there.
The only companies and organizations responsible for comments on websites like their Facebook pages are the ones who see so many negative reviews that they close down comments and/or astroturf the comments like crazy. You know...like the ASB.
Could it be possible then to structure a progressive corporate income tax then? I'm (very naively, mind you) thinking of a system where small businesses which anyway would be more likely to actively grow by investing rather than putting corporate income into executives' paychecks would pay very little to no tax, while larger corporations would pay more taxes for the opposite reason.