I'm pretty sure Randy heard "Stairway to Heaven". He never sued.
When the result of a law is "ghoulish money-grabs by lawyers to benefit people who have created nothing", it's safe to conclude the law is bad. I was kind of looking for a characterization of such law more sophisticated than just "bad", but no, that's about exactly right.
Yeah, it would be good if the members of Led Zep were to come down on the side of the angels regarding copyright law, but as we all know, it's all about the big IP aggregators getting richer, not the artists.
And even that "benefit" is secondary to the apparent primary goal of the law here, which is more litigation, because the lawyers on both sides "win".
Benefit to society, as was actually mentioned in the way long ago??? A very distant third or fourth consideration.
That's very good, and if the case for concern about 'climate change', specifically AGW (I learned it was Anthropogenic Global Warming), were always made in such a manner, you'd see a lot fewer people expressing doubts about the motives of the doomsayers.
BUT. When people make their case with hyperbole and exaggeration, ad hominem attacks and insults, it's noticeable. How can ALL changes in climate be bad? How can more rain, anywhere, always be bad, and less rain, anywhere, also always be bad?? How can all extreme weather be blamed on AGW? People actually remember that we've always had extreme weather, and over-reporting does not make it, in reality, worse. And NAMING every bit of bad weather! What's that supposed to prove?? And noting the increased DOLLAR COST of severe weather events as support for "action to prevent climate change!"? WTF? It's like a damn marketing campaign...and that's how it appears to people who come away skeptical, myself included.
Most amazingly, people are falling all over themselves to trust the good will and competence of the UN and the US government to deal with this poorly-defined problem. W.T.F???
One crisis in the natural world that I do find alarming is the apparent depletion of our national reserves of cynicism. Scary indeed.
Well, it's always good to see a sincere effort to expound on the realistic prospects regarding climate change.
And you were doing very well until you got to the part about "population is booming", which is absolutely not true and appears to be just a very dated piece of received "wisdom". It's an OLD "end of the world" panic scenario, (like Erlich's "absolutely unavoidable, billions of deaths due to starvation" and "The coming Ice Age"), but birth rates are falling in most parts of the world, in many places to below replacement level, except for those areas where women are still treated as property and breeding machines.
If SOME PEOPLE would get their hypocritical heads out of their progressive asses and help the women in said countries achieve equality in education, law and reproductive rights, the population problem would be "solved". There would still be more people than a lot of elitists would like, and I'll admit I have some ideas for dramatic population reduction myself, but we could dump the simplistic "just follow this curve, you'll see we're headed for 100,000,000,000 people! Unsustainable!" hysteria once and for all.
This may be yet another example of facts being subordinated to "The Narrative", but I thought your explanation was more well-intentioned and truth-oriented than that.
Yeah, I stopped listening when you start listing your evil straw men and lumping them all together. Not exactly the sign of someone I can trust to have done a rigorous, skeptical analysis...of anything really.
Also, your last comment is just bullshit. There are lots of people who accept the measured increase in global temperatures, but who are justifiably dubious of predictive models that somehow always have to be adjusted to fit reality, but only after their hysterical overestimations have been blindly accepted and loudly proclaimed. There are lots of people who would just like to point out that the "solution" to warming might be found in human adaptability, rather than greater government control of people's lives. There are people who would like to point out that the climate has always changed, and that a perfect harmonious equilibrium that we are charged with maintaining is a (religious>) myth.
But all these reasonable views are shouted down with ad hominem attacks, lies, threats, and insults. Which, in my experience, are not the rhetorical tactics of people confident they are defending "truth". So, props on being mindless "repeater of the goodthink", but I'm not impressed.
"Even if Mr. Seidman can prove he has been the victim of theft, that may not be enough. Trademarks are meant not to prevent companies from stealing others’ ideas, but to protect consumers from mixing up brands. Mr. Seidman will need to demonstrate that people might be inclined to confuse a yogurt manufacturer with a company that provides consulting services, or mistakenly believe that the two companies were otherwise connected in some way."
But go for it Mr. Seidman. Show us the virtue of "money-grubbing".
People could have used the word "how" regarding the provision of any service. Trademark or service mark, it still depends on confusion (deliberate or accidental) to make the case for violation.
He doesn't own the word "how", and, as was noted above, it wasn't even used in his magically 'transformative', innovative sense as a noun. It's an adverb. Too confusing? Maybe THAT'S why it shouldn't have been granted in the first place, or at least why the scope of protection offered him should be very, very narrow. And it is. Suing his own representation for failing to squeeze every penny out of every situation? Par for the course. Go for it.
If it's people like this giving corporations advice on "virtue"...well, that explains a lot. All your hair-splitting could have been avoided had he sought the services of an advisor on "Not appearing to be a total wanker". Hard to put that genie back in the bottle using the fine points of trademark law...
Sorry, I've just got a patent on "The process of publically diagramming sentences", which you are in violation of-without paying fees per the accompanying 344 page manual/payment schedule. I've made an exception for educational use, out of the goodness of my heart and to declare on my taxes as a 'charitable contribution'.
This latter based on the fact that any theoretical money not captured, that might have been captured, is "lost", "stolen" or "contributed willingly".
Given the 'quality' of some public art and its popularity with the public, that would be acceptable. Elitist art Nazis in positions of authority seem to have an almost vindictive attitude towards actual "popular" art and the benighted yahoos who like it (never mind these are the people who, you know, make up the "public").
And best of all the grant-granting department gets paid to assess proposals, the contract for preparing the public space for the artwork gets handed out to someone on a particular political campaigns' donors list, same with the contracts for moving and warehousing the newly 'protected' art. All working as designed, and everybody gets paid except the artists.
Interesting. It's gotten to be a HUGE world economy out there. There's a LOT of money and it would appear that there's a fuckton of money in herding and hiding services with an emphasis on "No questions" expertise. And MF didn't exactly have a monopoly. No, when MF dropped the sanctioned companies' accounts (Often when, after years of loyal association and service, someone applied the aggressive hacker technique known as "a Google Search" on them, for like, totally no reason.) that money just went somewhere else. Tips, icebergs...
Lot of info on that site, lotta malfeasance, but I found myself particularly unmoved by the plight of the ex-wives trying to get their "fair share" of some ill-gotten billions for no more puttin' out than any trailerpark babymomma. Somehow:
"Offshore law firm jokes in emails as they help husband “protect” assets against “unpleasant” divorce."
...doesn't really generate much outrage with me. On the one side, funds gained or used in all kinds of vile ways, on the other, a mindless system that makes mind-boggling transfers of wealth sans wisdom or even sometimes, much regard for reality...not really a happy-making read, at all.
Not very "punk" at all. More "managed to get rights to the name of a dead band, now how can we milk a few $$$ from the corpse?"-ish.
It's caveat emptor all the way down for bands you loved 30-50 years ago. Starting with the fact that even if the bands have the same personnel and have spent the intervening decades perfecting their craft...you still won't be 19 again. Dammit.
It's easy to be cynical. It's a laborious task to be as widely and darkly cynical as is necessary to accurately model the real world.
TechDirt readership gets top marks for not being surprised that this is going on with the progressive "good guys". Not one single comment on the lines of "This is what I'd expect from the Rethuglicans!" Good. Cynical and informed enough to realize that there are no good guys in that game.
(But that's the value to politicians of emotional-but-irrelevant "wedge issues". To make people feel strong identification with one as opposed to another of two politicians, when both would, if in power, prefer rule and self-interest over "leadership" or "public service".)
Conceded: Windows was, mostly has been (Win2K, 98 eventually and WinXP almost from the get-go, were okay), and currently is, a piece of awful, insecure bloatware; acquired by dubious means and promulgated through pure evil business practices.
Contested: That said, it was OPEN (both bug (security) and feature (user access!)), and, by whatever evile means 'twas done, established a standard OS which accelerated the march of home computing. This was a good thing, even if it was only ever a side-effect of making them filthy rich.
So yeah, the definition of "success" is even more complex than a simple "great product"/"got rich" dichotomy.