I've always wondering why the cable transport company (Cable) pays the content "generator" (CG) and not the other way around since the CG gets an audience they wouldn't otherwise have, and they (CG) gets the increased ad revenue.
My Comcast version of the weather channel thinks my "local" area is about 30 miles from me. So my "Local on the 8s" is useless and there is NO WAY to contact anyone who might fix this, NO WAY, not Comcast, not NBC, not weather.com.
Weather.com is slightly more useful but the amount of the page not taken up by ads or other non-weather items is very small. I've switched to weatherunderground.com for my weather.
Best suggestion I've heard on this subject is for Google to submit each and every "forget" request to the court for a ruling on if it meets the court's approval and why. Wonder how long the court will continue this farce then.
I always thought it was strange that the Cable Co. had to pay for carrying content with advertising. In a real world the content provider would pay the Cable Co. for carrying the content, since the advertising should pay for generating the content.
No, not ignorance. Ignorance is the lack of education. This is stupidity plain and simple. This shows the reason the "average" IQ is only 100, and maybe decreasing. Why is it that MPAA, RIAA, USTR, and other media exec jobs draw from the "I've no clue" pool?
... let's select the "weekly box office winners" by counting the number of tickets sold, not the sum of the price of all the tickets. Wonder how some of the oldies would come in.
Getting rid of the Oscars would free about 10,000 hours of TV time and think of the newsprint saved.
But removing movies and music from copyright would sure help. They got it wrong in the early 1900s when they added them. When I was a programmer early in my career, I got paid once for the program, not each time it was executed, which is what happens for movies and music.