There's this bizarre mindset that copyright is the default and not an exception to the natural world. Which is utterly ridiculous. Copyright and patents are not a natural right. They exist solely at the discretion government. In other words, if there is no law prohibiting it, it's not infringement or piracy.
That erroneous mindset can be seen in a recent Cracked article about how plays written in England in the 1800s received no copyright protection in the United States.
The article specifically states that it was not illegal to perform those plays in the US, because they were not covered by any copyright law in the US. However, despite it being perfectly legal to perform those plays, the Cracked article goes on to claim as fact that it was piracy to perform those plays in the US. It's simply bizarre. There was no piracy going on!
Can you imagine if you need permission to perform covers of songs?! Of course, someone is making a ton of money (and paying out only a small portion) on licensing fees, so it's all good.
A system should exist for movies and TV shows after 3 or 10 years. Anyone can stream them if they pay a reasonable license fee. Of course the reasonable part of the equation will be the most difficult.
Let's assume Obama publicly kills the collection of bulk phone records. Would anyone actually believe that?
Here's the rub: Let's assume they don't stop. And let's assume they get caught again. What consequences would anyone face (other than the whistleblower)? None. Nada. Zip. So there's no actual downside to continuing in secret.
This is merely a ruse to make the collection secret again.
I assume if confronted, the great representative would argue that he's only talking about copyright. And merely because you license a limited right to use a copy of a copyrighted work, does not necessarily mean you have an automatic right to transfer that license. That sounds so reasonable, right?
The problem with that explanation is that nearly everything sold nowadays has IP issues. Your car is filled with copyrighted software and patented technology. Your house was designed from a copyrighted blue print. Heck, according to the Nadler, even the shirt on your back should be copyrighted!
So under Nadler's view, we don't own hardly anything we buy. And that, at least to me, is an extremest position.
Some of the quotes from U.S. District Court Judge Otis Wright are pretty good: "Society does not win when the Government stoops to the same level as the defendants it seeks to prosecute — especially when the Government has acted solely to achieve a conviction for a made-up crime."
"The time has come to remind the Executive Branch that the Constitution charges it with law enforcement — not crime creation. A reverse-sting operation like this one transcends the bounds of due process and makes the Government the oppressor of its people."
"Zero. That's the amount of drugs that the Government has taken off the streets as the result of this case and the hundreds of other fake stash-house cases around the country. That's the problem with creating crime: the Government is not making the country any safer or reducing the actual flow of drugs."
Heck, why stop with just the 4th amendment? By publishing our criminal statutes we're telling terrorists and criminals exactly what facts and circumstances the police and prosecutors are investigating. By publishing court rules, we're telling terrorists and criminals the inner machinations of our judicial system.
Clearly all laws should be hidden. And our judicial process should be kept entirely secret.
"Putting bankers destroying the economy in jail? Not hot"
Threatening the wealthy with crimes can have huge consequences. Compare spending your time tilting at windmills to arresting a highly connected billionaire. In which one do you have to stick your neck out? Which one is going to ruin your career if something goes wrong?
Mike copyright is never used for censorship. Clearly copyright gives the Prime Minister the monopoly right to monetize his phone calls. Someone exercising that natural god given property right should not be accused with such defamatory language. You should be ashamed.
On a related note, I'm really looking forward to buying CDs of Recep Tayyip Erdogan's phone calls at my local Walmart. Good times.
I'm shocked the cable and satellite companies haven't come to their senses and started supporting Aereo's legal argument. If Aereo wins, the cable and satellite companies would have a huge bargaining chip in their negotiations with the broadcasters. Basically, they could threaten to do the exact same thing.
This isn't really new with Microsoft. It took MS a long time to add native support for MP3s into Windows.
And remember back when you could finally rip CDs with Windows Media Player? It "protected" the files by default. And "protected" didn't mean they were protected from deletion. They were protected from being copied. So even if you backed them up on a second computer, they could not be played on the second computer. They could not be played with all digital music players. And if your PC crashed and you had to reinstall Windows, all of your music could be unplayable.
Heck, to this day when I'm playing MP3s in Media Center (ripped from my own CDs or bought from Amazon), it gives me the option to purchase those very same songs. Why the frick would I want to purchase songs I already own?!
I could go on and on, but Microsoft has always placed its customers second when it comes to corporate interests.