Did we ever consider that what happened to his lost luggage experience might actually be related to the case? That is what he keeps claiming in his statements, but I don't see anything in the article to suggest either way.
Yes, it's just that one sentence that isn't right, there is nothing wrong with calling him a lobbyist, that is what he is, but it's not correct to say comcast is skirting anything by changing his title. They are simply hiding behind a legal term and pretending they don't know good and well we aren't in court and are not using legal terminology so obviously the common dictionary definition is what would apply.
it doesn't help that the legislation setting the legal definition of bribery and lobbyist is being manipulated by the bribers and lobbyists for the purpose of hiding the fact that they are bribing and lobbying.
Re: Oh, but you want to be called a "writer" instead of "Google flack"
it's not a label, it's certainly a known fact and not opinion at all that he is a lobbyist, since.. you know, he is one who lobbies... Just because the legal definition has been twisted from it's normal definition doesn't mean people can't use regular definition anymore. Lots of words have twisted legal meanings, just throw this one on the pile.
Don't give them too much credit now.. Just because pirates are also paying customers doesn't mean it actually makes sense. You have still got to take into account that they are antagonizing their paying customers and simultaneously making the experience less enjoyable for them after they have already paid through the nose to be there to watch the film.
I think the article is somewhat off base. Not that trying to stop piracy by advertising isn't stupid in general, but the idea that people who pirate movies and people who pay for movies are two separate groups is incorrect in my experience. Everyone I've ever known who pirates movies also pays to go see movies, particularly in the theater where you are paying for the experience and not the movie
More likely it's because of pressure on one side to implement the TPP and from the other side that the public hates it. The countries in the TPP are all making their copyright legislation worse (ie: closer to what the TPP requires) ahead of time to match what will be required so they can say the TPP doesn't require much changes.