Less enjoyable experience? What are you talking about? If I download a film via The Pirate Bay, I don't have to tolerate 15 minutes of trailers, a unskippable propaganda film telling me how I'm probably a criminal (even though I bought the DVD I'm watching), being forced to watch it wherever there's a suitable DVD player (I would like to watch the film I bought in a different country. And on the plane there. And on my mobile while waiting for it. It's a really good movie, ok?), being forced to wait months after I leave the cinema having watched it and enjoyed it (seriously here - why wait months? If I want it enough to buy it in a few months, I want it enough to buy it now)..
I'd go so far as to say pirating a film is way more enjoyable than buying it.
Enforcement has never worked. From the Prohibition to the recent closure of the UKPP proxy, enforcement hasn't done a damn thing with regards to availability of the item in question and there's nothingto suggest that more enforcement will, so we can lose that argument. Sketchy sites? Well, TPB is pretty trustworthy. Loads of stuff there, too. Really low levels of malware (which is identified as such on the comments), AdBlock sorts out any unsavoury popups..
Yes, I have the money to buy it, but if I'm buying it, I want something that is better than what I can get when pirating. I've already outlined the problems with films above, so with regards to music, Amazon gives you 256 mp3s, requires you to install their own downloader and then it automatically adds the music to Windows Media Player, which I don't have. On the other hand, I can go to Pirate Bay and have FLACs playing in VLC in minutes.
I'm not much of a gamer so I can't comment on the newer games, but older PC games are just download, install crack and off you go. Pretty comparable to buying the physical disc and installing it yourself, except you don't have to wait for it to arrive.
copyright incentivizes and encourages the creation, distribution and promotion of new information.
I may not know much, but to say that being able to rely on one invention/creative work/whatever to the extent of not having to create another one actually encourages creation of more is quite hard to parse.
(That sentence might also be quite hard to parse, so TL;DR - life + 70 copyright cannot encourage creation of new stuff because you can rely on that one thing you did forever)
Argos Search? Shit, they better have those patents in stock.. Maybe the job is check on those little machines and see how many there are? If they find one they want, do they get to write it on the little slips of paper with the little pens and take it to the till? Then wait for a few minutes while a staff member gets the patent, a few minutes more while the staff member moves some stuff out the way to get to the patent in that huge storeroom at the back of the shop..
Or wait, maybe they're the staff member? I used to have that job and can remember having to lug heavy flat pack wardrobes down stairs.. No patents though (they must be kept in the office or the secure room - I was never allowed in there).. maybe they're in their new catalogue?
you don't need to travel by plane with a briefcase to make use of it. A plastic case could be good enough for taking the car or subway to work, or just sitting in your home's lobby so you look cool when you have guests over.
"Hmm, I really want some expensive luggage to carry my stuff in, but where to look for it? I know! The fucking DVD section of Amazon"
I'd take some of your own advice and read the article as well if I were you. It mentions this little thing about 'competing in the same market' and 'chance of confusion'. I doubt people buy Samsungs thinking they're iPods, but my crack research department tells me that they're both smartphones.
But then again, patents != trademarks, so this argument is moot.
Hmm.. that argument could be (and is) used as defence for internet snooping and such like so I suggest a better response would be: 'why name them? The answer is so you know who to go to to obtain permission or a license or to watch/listen to it directly from the person the rights belong to. Or are they that unwilling for their works to be made public?'
Bransons explanation ("I Am Not A Pepsi" etc) is weak at best.. If I saw two items and they had a completely different font, typeface, logo, were a different whole damned product, I don't think I'd get confused and buy one, thinking it was a other. It's the case here as well. IANAV is using a standard sentence (questionable in itself.. I don't see how common sentences can be trademarked anyway.. I wonder if I can trademark 'I'm Drinking Tea' and 'I Shower Naked'?) so how can Virgin claim to own some of it?
Of course, lest we forget, Virgin Cola:
"Hey dude, buy me some cola, would you?"
"Sure thing!" *buys Coca Cola*
"No you idiot! I wanted Virgin Cola! This hipster party's ruined!"
I think it's safe to say there was more chance of confusion there...