Yeeeeeup. Welcome to the dog & pony show of "here, have the choice we give you" illusion of our government at work.
Anyone else notice that the 'other option' of the current administration seems to be a constant train-wreck of a contest to see who can be bat-shit crazier, thereby getting more people to vote Obama back in again? Almost like someone out there wants to keep the status-quo as long as possible?
"hey everyone... look how craaaazy your other options are! A bunch of nutty bible-beating scary's! Those would be much worse than a Kenyan Socialist Commie!"
Now go cast that vote which has never mattered because your election isn't based on the general popular majority and is instead based on the Electoral College and this whole Primary Party Vote and one candidate-per-party thing is not listed anywhere in the constitution. But never mind that! vote vote vote!!! You're an American hating TERRORIST who not only doesn't support our troops, but actively causes them to DIE if you don't vote. And you hate puppies.
hurr hurr sounds like Hed is drinking Maznik's kool-aid.
Sorry... feeling plucky today. I like the fact that there's yet another example (because, you know, it won't work for everyone) of how you can turn piracy into a boon. And make a great success at it as well.
My example: Shared my copy w/ my two girls... Cost Rovio what? $20? $30? Now they both snatch up Angry Birds Merch wherever they can. Already paid Rovio over $100 last year alone.
Considering the "we know what's best for you" and "it's for your own good" attitudes of the corporations and the general disparity in wealth and (subsequent) power... your analogy is, sadly, rather accurate.
Compared to Twilight: a by-the-book "clumsy heroin must work to be with the one she loves... oh and there are vampires and werewolves in it" story? One that describes the main character so vaguely that it magically is a perfect match for EVERY girl age 12 to 25 who is insecure with themselves (read: practically all of them)?
I think they're both crap... each for different but equally vapid reasons.
I've got an image of a caveman in a Flintstones 3-piece suit paining a ICE Seizure notice over a caveman's painting that too closely resembles the stick-figure-and-smudging representation of a wooly mammoth hunt that Grug painted over on that cave wall.
Wait... Was I asleep at some point in this last decade where a new movie was actually made? All I saw was remakes, adaptations and horrible abominations that should remain nameless (hint: some include giant robots that change into cars and surviving nuclear detonations in a fridge).
Re: Hit it on the head, possibly not like they thought
I think they meant that they are the group that is fighting the established monopoly to create a distribution system that the people want, whereas the established monopoly is exactly that (a monopoly) and holds a belief in a moral stand.
I don't think TPB meant that they were making the movies.
But if you continue their line of reasoning, what they're wanting to do is turn the whole world into Hollywood... where anyone can not only make a movie, but get it distributed without being mired down under the legal muscle of a vastly over-inflated beast.
The problem with that is, for the most part, they're not wrong. Look at the lines of people to get in to the latest orgy of idiocy in the Twilight saga[sic]. They keep churning out the same crap year after year, and/or repackaging (read: raping) the classics we grew up with... and people. keep. going.
Sounds to me like they know a winning thing when they see it.
Me? I haven't been to the theater in a while. Haven't bought a DVD in a while either. I do, however, love my "goofy movies from the 80's" list and the like on NetFlix.
Kinda like making a relationship with the girl who cheated on her boyfriend to be with you... it happened before, you know it'll happen again. But hey, she's cute, so you'll just pretend that somehow this time is special and history won't repeat itself.
That would be because a comedian can look at the situation and make his observations... Congress has spent this time tying to analize it and find further interpretations of the situation to justify thier working on the behalf of big business instead of the people they're supposed to work for... you know, us
Nice creatively-selective definition of "enable"... Or, as you put it, tap-dancing weasel wording. Not all 'enabling' is simple 'allowing it to happen'.
For example: I work for a major insurance company who was, and still is, a major player in the Agent business model. When the Great Big Interweb came along and our competitors started trying to say "see, you can buy it here, no need for agents!", we shifted what our agents do. Now, they enable the purchase of insurance by providing additional value to the purchase. By answering questions and offering guidance on what and how much to purchase, these enablers are able to make the purchase a better experience for the customer.
In this sense, 'enabler' isn't necessarily the dry, dictionary definition, but the 'marketing power word' that means "the people who assist in getting prospects to become customers by giving value to the experience"... which is exactly what the article is talking about.
"Mike also tends to argue that copyright and patents don't "promote the progress", but in fact hinder it. Too bad the judge just doesn't agree with that." (emph added by me)
From what I'm reading, the judge is arguing the same thing as Mike... that the original purpose of copyright was to promote progress. The judge doesn't say anything about whether this is still applicable.