"the Rolling Stone University of Virginia rape story debacle, Newsweek getting the inventor of bitcoin wrong, and the traditional print media's complete failure to report on the known rape accusations against Bill Cosby, are the internet's fault too"
My forehead is gonna hurt so much after reading this.
First, I'm responding to a very specific point raised by Tim, "If there's any entity that can keep cops from being held accountable for their actions, it's police unions." My argument is that it's not the union's fault, it's our fault for letting it happen.
Second, there are such laws, but they're not enforced against cops as compared to the general population because politicians aren't willing to stand up against cops. No politician is willing to stand up against cops because s/he would likely not get elected unless s/he's strongly in support of law an order.
Once again, this is not the union's fault or the lack of laws, it's our fault.
It's easy to blame the unions, but the reason police unions have power is because we, through our politicians, give them power.
Factory workers used to have strong unions, but not anymore. Teachers used to have strong unions, but not anymore. The police still have strong unions because politicians will bend over backwards to protect cops. Because they feel they have to be "law and order" in order to get elected.
We could weaken police unions just like we did every other union, but no one is willing to take that first step.
"If an actor did not add sufficient originality to a performance, which actor a studio hired simply would not matter."
But it appears that the opposite is true. In other words, if an actor did add sufficient originally to a performance, it would matter which actor a studio hired.
My point is, does the actor hold a copyright on that sufficient originality? In other words, if an actor is replaced in a role, can that first actor collect a licensing fee from the replacement actor based upon his "originality"? Would each new actor be forced to act differently than the previous actors to avoid infringing the first actor's sufficient originality?
Let's take it further, could Bruce Willis copyright his "cool under pressure/everyman" persona? Does Jason Statham violate Willis' copyright?
You're over-thinking this. Right now there is no copyright protection on an actor's performance. There is a copyright on the recording of the performance, but the performance itself has no protection in the US.
So there is no point talking about whether it was a work for hire, as that erroneously assumes there is copyright protection.
It's been said before, bad facts create bad law. I hate to say it, but I hope the studios fight strongly against this. To think that an actor should have a separate copyright in his or her performance is disturbing.
Keurig should have the right to lock down it's products anyway it likes. Neither the government nor competitors should be able to tell it how to build its products (other than for safety reasons, of course.)
However, the DMCA should not act as a shield to bar competitors from reverse engineering Keurig's designs.
Technology companies tend to over-promise and under-deliver. You'll read complaints from customers concerning soft/hardware where certain promised features were never included. My answer to that problem is to only buy what's sold, not what is promised to be sold.
And here's Keith proving my point. He wants to be paid a million a month, for a total of 18 million dollars for a product he promises to patent in 18 months.
I don't think customers would be getting much value for their money. Can you imagine if Nvidia sold a graphics card with the promise of patented technology a year and a half from now? Good luck with that.
The problem with the "moral rights" argument is that it's used to defend real "artists", but unfortunately is applied to everything.
For example, the RIAA claims that remixing an album for release on CD constitutes an entirely new copyright. Seriously, just messing with the bass, treble, and volume, and then putting it in a fixed state, is an entirely new copyright. Does that deserve a moral right to you? Do you feel the need for such a right every time you adjust the tone when you're listening to music?
And if I set up a camera to randomly take pictures, where does the lifelong "moral" right come from? Randomness, for some bizarre reason, is given a copyright. But seriously, where is the morality?!
And what about using software, or interns, to collect facts and push out newspaper articles? A collection of facts deserves copyright protection, unfortunately, but do you honestly think there's a moral component to that?
The purpose of copyright in the US was not to enforce some standard of morality. It was originally to compensate artists and writers to incentivize the continued creation of such works. Nothing more.
Well, we've learned one thing. The pharmaceutical industry has more clout with the feds than the shipping Industry. FedEx might want to consider giving some cushy jobs to outgoing Washington insiders. Among other things.