Re: Just treat it like booze during prohibition, because that worked great
Isn't this pretty much what happened in Washington and Colorado when they legalized marijuana? Government revenue is up due to drug taxes and incarceration rates are down since people with single doses of marijuana aren't getting thrown in jail.
Or did those states collapse into Mad Max-style wastelands now that everyone was free to smoke pot, the "gateway drug", that led to the entire population getting hooked on hardcore drugs?
Wait, you have to call them to find out that you're over the limit? Isn't this open for abuse when you can't check the usage yourself or have a running total every day or every week? What's to stop them from pulling a number out of their butt and charge you overage fees? It's not like the average customer will argue it... and we're back to the first point about how customers can't prove their own usage.
Thankfully, the Guardian quotes a lawyer who agrees that Mitchell has no legal basis to complain. Unthankfully, there's always a lawyer who will take a case like this to make a name for himself. Sure, they can't win, but look at all the people that will talk about him.
I think the bigger question is: since when is a R or TM required when doing a news story on a company? Isn't that the very definition of fair use? Or am I getting my copyright and trademark defenses mixed up? ;)
In any case, everyone knows that the word "Oscar" is referring to the Academy Awards, so why would that registration need "defending"? And I'm sure CNN used "Oscar" instead of "Academy Awards Ceremony" because it was less characters. Or would CNN need to put an R after "Academy Awards Ceremony"?
The other reason the traditional networks should be scared of Netflix is the scheduling aspect: On Netflix, I can watch all the episodes of a season over a weekend if I want.
On traditional networks, we (still) have to wait until September for new episodes. Then we get to see maybe 8 episodes, then a "mid season finale", then another 4 or 5 episodes in March, then the rest of the episodes in May and June.
Maybe after almost 60 years of watching TV like this, people want to watch episodes back-to-back.
Re: Re: Live by the DMCA notice, get de-listed by the DMCA notice
And how would this work? Would Google argue with the MPAA's lawyers that the MPAA itself asked that the sites be whitelisted? The problem still remains: the MPAA uses external companies and tools to issue takedowns and those companies are paid to find "bad links". If these companies cared about whether links are good or bad, they wouldn't issue takedowns to the MPAA's sites in the first place.
This is just like the music industry: Oh, don't worry that a few people download their music. They're outliers and tech nerds. People will always buy CD's. Oh, don't worry that Apple's iTunes is becoming popular. People will always buy CD's.
Hey, how come no one's buying CD's? We totally didn't see that coming.
Follow me for a minute: If Mike isn't a lawyer and he knows Twitter is protected under Section 230 of the CDA, then what about lawyers who DO know the law? Even if we assume they don't "know better" and they're going after Twitter for the money, they should be slapped down and sanctioned by the judge.
The only way to stop lawsuits like this is to start sanctioning the lawyers who think they can wring money out of large corporations.
It really makes you wonder about the thought process of the folks who run VG Media. The thought process is: Google is showing a snippet of my story so they must be making off of it somehow. I don't know how, but somehow. Therefore, I want a cut of that income because it's mine. I don't care if people are coming to my site and it's my webmaster's job to monetize that traffic- I want a cut of whatever Google is making.
And what's Bing and Yahoo? Google is the Internet.
Sorry for the generalization, but it seems like these kinds of stories happen all the time with Republicans. * "We need to have better family values in this country, but ignore the fact that I'm texting underage boys." * "Unwed teenage girls are bad and they're a drain on our society. Oh, look, Bristol Palin had her second child from a second father and she's not married. How brave." * "Drug users are bad and should go to jail for life. Except me. I don't abuse Oxycontin- I can stop anytime I want." * "Obama wasn't born in this country [though he was] so he can't be president. Cruz was born in Canada but he can be president." * "Obama is a Muslim even though he attended church with a controversial Christian pastor."
I think the real issue is that CBS or Paramount is seeing that good quality Star Trek projects can be made for $1 million, and which fans will love. Compare this to the beating CBS and Paramount took from fans over the Fast and Furious style trailer for "Star Trek Beyond". Even Simon Pegg (the writer) and Justin Lin (the director) complained that the "Beyond" trailer wasn't what didn't reflect the movie they made, yet it's what the Paramount marketing people released.
So if Paramount can't win over fans with a new Star Trek movie, then they'll do the next best thing: make sure no one else can make Star Trek movies.
It's all well and good that Tim can write a scathing essay like this, but the fact still stands that Publisher's Weekly thought this guy's article was so good that they published it, without any regard to the facts or how printing something like this could damage their reputation. Wasn't there an editor (or 2 or 3) that said "wait a second, that's not how Google works" and told the guy to re-write his paper?
If this guy's article is the type of quality articles published in Publisher's Weekly, I doubt the validity of anything else.
I say to let the EU apply their Right to be Forgotten law all over the world, on the one condition that they honor other countries' takedown notices under the same law. I don't think it'll take very long until the US and Europe are buried under requests from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran to take down "imperialistic and capitalist" sites.
Here's a quick hypothetical: suppose the bin Laden family doesn't want their business tarnished by Osama bin Laden and they file Right to be Forgotten notices. How soon until the entire history of 9/11, Seal Team Six, and "Zero Dark Thirty" are erased. Do the bin Ladens even have the political power to "forget" an Academy Award-winning Hollywood movie?