Well the MPAA is just terrified that the blind might demand to pay less when they are missing out on half of the experience.
One has to hope that eventually giving into everything the cartels want will finally destroy the industries. Billions wasted on court cases as the 3rd cousin twice removed ends up with rights and sues for billions and control of a performance demanding to be paid for prior use & the image to be removed form the content moving forward.
Remember back when they actually cared about pleasing consumers, because thats how you stayed in business? Can we go back to that?
I look forward to Mr. Woods winning, simply because while the bad law exists he'd going to get his own ass sued off. While trying to undo this courts bizarre finding the door will be open for lots of people to sue Mr Woods for lots of money. Most of his statements seem to be made with malice, so he can reap what his thin skin helped create.
They are willing to spy on citizens in violation of the letter & spirit of the law. Watching the abuses of power in this country, it isn't that great of a leap to think that those with access to unlimited data on targets would put it to use for their own ends.
It would explain why sometimes we see laws passed that no rational person would agree to. Sometimes its money, but sometimes one is left to wonder who has what evidence.
So what news story is going to make the cycle about Senator Wyden? Or do you think they will just go right for the traffic accident? Though he did piss him off alot so I'm guessing found with a deal male hooker.
This is what happens when those charged with oversight fail to do their job. Those they are supposed to oversee no longer fear them because they have been given free reign because terrorism for far to long. They no longer can be reigned in because of the political spin machine to protect the narratives. To dare question the CIA is unAmerican and disloyal, even if what they are doing violates the letter & intent of the law.
The problem lies in the faith placed in officers and their actions. They assume cops are perfect machines who never lie to protect their own asses, and are given huge amounts of leeway.
Take the cop who jumped up on the hood of a car and executed 2 people when the original hail of bullets didn't kill them... no charges. They did nothing wrong but run from a massive overreaction from cops who were unable to tell a gunshot from a backfire, who were bent on getting those they thought shot at them. They caused havoc, destruction of property and murdered 2 innocent people.
In Chicago we have cops who actively destroyed evidence of one of their brothers murdering someone who presented no real threat. They ran a black site denying people their rights, using torture to get confessions. Now they are actively destroying systems that might hold them accountable for wrongdoing. Even when there is video the system colludes to protect them.
When we can break past that barrier then there is a chance of the presumption being innocent until proven guilty, but when they scale is unfairly weighted to one side often to bring the balance back you have to make changes.
So if they still manage to pass this BS, how long before he jumps ship to take the lucrative reward job? I mean its not like his government work will be paying him any more as he's worked on limiting economic growth and set the stage for huge losses as corporations line up to sue for expected profits.
By the Judge deciding he got to decide the journalistic nature or lack there of of the content, he inserted himself into a slippery point.
He could have worked around that issue, there was more than enough to draw from, but by making the decision of if it was journalism or not...
Would like like to only see news stories approved by a Judge? Looking at the makeup of the supreme court, I don't think I would get as much value from only the news Scalia approves as journalism.
It is just a piece of a highly charged case, but allowing 1 person to decide what is or is not journalism when they exercise their power to keep the material from review is troubling.
If this wasn't an abortion case but a case where there is a state law banning filming of abuses in the AgriIndustry and the Judge decides the video doesn't look good for his political allies and suppresses it... would you feel differently? Can a single Judge be trusted with the power to decide what is or is not journalism?
This issue isn't ever going to work out for anyone.
The Judge has gone overboard, though one can make arguments about the rise in violence tied to these videos getting out there.
We live in an age where a lie can run around the world 5 times before the truth can even begin to get up to speed and even when it gets up to speed there are those who refuse to accept it. Normally this isn't a problem until there is a bodycount (ohai antivaxxers).
The system has no way to deal with this new cycle, and trying to bolt old ideas into something to stem the flow is going to end poorly.
People have an absolute right to be lying bastards, the law offers remedies but nothing to deal with the toxic cloud left long after the bastard loses on court.
This is the sort of bad things that happen when we have to "do something!". The "journalists" are going to appeal and most likely sue for damages that they will win. Their rights to be lying bastards were abridged.
The concern is that more lies told will lead to more bad things and the thought we can just nip it in the bid by doing this and ignore everything being trampled "for the greater good".
Not as spoliation, as in the DA has to assume what the target or bystanders say happened is factual and absent them the DA must assume the worst possible actions on the part of the officer.
If you drive and hit someone from behind it is assumed that you are at fault, same sort of idea. Assume that any complaint is true as the officer has nothing to back his side of the story. Cameras are neutral observers and lacking those rather than providing the benefit of the doubt to the officer provide it to the citizen. Courts like to believe that officers would never lie, despite the evidence to the contrary (and the recent leaked contracts showing clauses getting rid of evidence that would support those claims).
Can QA be written off? Can DRM be written off? (at least get a handout because copyright)
Have we created incentives to protect over produce?
We've seen movies/tv taking all sorts of state handouts, sometimes for utter crap. Well the movie was written taking place on a beach but we changed it to take advantage of the landlocked states handouts... so what if its a surfing movie.
Ahhh but the optics!! The optics matter to our leaders.
Feeling up little kids & cute people in TSA lines hasn't made air travel safer. Hell it added more criminal interactions to our lives and the TSA put protecting the image over admitting there were criminal rings of TSA agents robbing passengers. TSA agents violated citizens rights, TSA sides with the agents even in the face of evidence proving the agent lied.
The optics - we are stopping terrorists online!!! The reality - we are removing accounts & interactions where all of those 'moderate' Muslims, we demand show up and denounce ever act committed by people they have no connection with, mock them.
We create the optics that the terrorists are so successful recruiting online, and run their game unopposed. We have a few people 'radicalized' online but no one looks at what that means.
A teenager living in a city where there are attacks on people because of skin color or perceived faith, authorities who don't care that much about those attacks but watch those Muslims with extreme caution because they are all secret terrorists. He talks about his frustrations online and hears a voice who cares.
So did the teen get radical because someone was nice to them, or because they felt targeted by a world that judges them by skin color/religion?
Its real easy to blame the tech for the much deeper problems we don't want to admit to.