Yeah, Disney is easily one of if not the worst offender given how much money they've made off of public domain works, only to turn around and spend large amounts of it making sure that nothing of theirs ever enters the public domain.
Hey, you just watch, any day now Zombie Presley will rise from his grave, hands covered in dirt and clutching a guitar, and immediately start creating masterpieces the likes of which the music world has never heard.
Sure most of them will be on the topic of the taste of brains and how he could really do with some, but still, utter musical masterpieces, works that would never be created if copyright didn't last decades past the point of death, meaning even post-mortem creators still have incentive to create and/or rise and instigate a zombie apocalypse with stirring music playing to drown out the screams.
Re: Vaccination Isn’t To Protect The Individual, It’s To Protect Society
The phrase you're looking for is 'herd immunity', where the number of people that can be infected by a given strain is drastically cut down, making it less likely that those that can't(or are too stupid to do so) get vaccinated don't get ill.
Herd immunity also has an equally, if not more important function besides making it more difficult for disease to spread in that it makes it less likely for a disease to mutate, possibly into a form that the previous vaccinations don't work against.
If a disease never manages to get a foothold in a host then it has no time to mutate and spread as it's killed off too quick, whereas if it can then there's a chance for it mutate into a strain different enough that a previously protected person is now vulnerable.
This is one of the reasons anti-vaxxers are one of the few groups that I am honestly disgusted by and hold in contempt, because they're not just putting their lives and the lives of their children(if they have them) at risk, but everyone else as well by their actions.
Copyright in a nutshell more often than not, especially when it comes to the retroactive expansions: 'I should be able to build upon what came before, but if anyone dares to do the same to what I create they're criminal commie thieves and deserve the harshest punishment.'
Given the target audience for such a film it's entirely possible that they did this deliberately just to drum up some PR for their film, because when you're dealing with people willing to forgo life-saving medicine just because it might possibly at some point in the future cause something that's still better than what it prevents... well, you're not exactly dealing with people with a full deck to put it mildly, so the only thing they're likely to pay attention to is the fact that someone was critical of the movie, reminding them of it's exists, or informing them that it's coming out if they didn't already know.
Nah, that would actually be somewhat productive. Any money they get will just end up being funneled right back to the lawyers and/or lobbyists, with not so much as a cent going to the actual artists being 'protected' by lawsuits like this.
Legally you don't need to contact the musicians, no, but yeah, unless you know for a fact that the band who's music you are using supports you and/or your position not asking ahead of time is just begging for a PR black-eye, giving them a perfect opportunity to note that they do not in fact support you, whether or not you are using their music.
Perhaps, but I think a more likely reason is that the ones talking haven't done enough research on the matter, and are unaware of how mandatory licencing works.
To be sure with copyright constantly trumpeted as being 'To protect the artists(the public can get bent)', the idea that an artist could have no say in who uses their music, even if it's someone or some group that they vehemently disagree with or flat out loathe does seem rather contradictory, but such is music licencing, and if certain individuals, musician or otherwise have a problem with that they they need to address mandatory music licencing, not the people they don't like using their music after they pay for it.
If they're going to go nuts with the 'winnings', demanding amounts that they know full well will not, and can not be paid, they really should go all the way. $66 million? Please, they should have asked for $66 billion, or perhaps $66 x googol.
I mean really, if one number that's impossibly high is good for PR purposes, clearly if they make the number even more insanely high that can only help, right? Demand more money than has ever existed, that'll really drive home the point of just how bad copyright infringement is right?
Nice try, but no. The point is that whether it was a nefarious plot by those dirty commies or just some bored hackers the contents of the emails remain the same, and as such remain just as newsworthy no matter who got them.
It has nothing to do with 'Ends justify the means' thinking and everything to do with 'the source doesn't really matter so long as the contents are legitimate'.
And yet, because this is the peak of political silly season, some are freaking out and claiming that anyone reporting on these emails "has been played" by Putin and Russia.
Leaving out of course the fact that those that don't cover the leak because it supposedly came from those dirty commies is being played by the DNC. As the article and numerous others have noted, content matters, who it came from not so much. It's a laughable attempt to try and deflect attention away from said contents, and disappointing that anyone bought it, but I suppose politics are politics...
As always, nice idea, rather difficult to do in practice given both judge and prosecutor would strike a potential juror from the jury pool in a second if they so much as admitting to knowing about the concept of jury nullification.
Judges and prosecutors hate the very idea that they can go through their whole song and dance and have the jury decide that nope, laws or not the accused doesn't deserve what they want to do to them, as it makes the jury more powerful than them, and for people used to being the most powerful in the room that really burns.
When the law has absolutely no real penalty for false accusations when it comes to copyright, and making sure that you have the right target takes time and money, it's not surprising that those out 'enforcing copyright' would range from slightly to extremely sloppy in picking targets.
Why spend a bunch of resources narrowing down the potential guilty suspect(s) from a group of ten when you can just accuse all ten in the hopes that the guilty party is in the group?
When it comes to copyright trolling especially there is a very high incentive not to care about accuracy, as the aim is not to stop infringement it's to profit off of accusations of it. Innocent or guilty, all that matters is how many people they can get to settle and avoid a costly court battle defending themselves, which means the more names they can get the better.
Yeah, these days a good rule of thumb is never cross a US border carrying anything you're not willing to lose. Electronics, money... if it looks valuable it's just one claim of 'suspicious activity' away from being stolen from you.
Course it doesn't exactly get much better once you're past the borders either, so a better rule of thumb would probably be to avoid the US if at all possible should you have anything of value.
For all the talk through history about equal treatment under the law and justice being blind, it has always been the case that the scales of 'justice' are influenced by station and/or wealth, the only difference is the extent that the influence applies and that at times it's hidden better.
These days, not so much. The facade is paper-thin at best, to the point that only the naive or insanely optimistic expect equal treatment under the law.
Clearly this only happened because they weren't using encryption/security with a built in unicorn gate, as everyone knows that with those in place the only people who can access something are 'good guys', of which the hackers almost certainly wouldn't have counted.
Had they been using unicorn gate encryption this would never have happened, making for yet another perfect example of the kinds of dangers trying to use secure encryption can cause, and one that I can only hope the tech companies take note of for their own future good.
If an even playing field, or even one slightly more even is enough to undercut the prosecution's case then they're essentially admitting that they could not win the case without underhanded tricks. If they're doing things properly then it shouldn't matter if the defense knows everything they're going to do and present, because the evidence should still be on their side.
That they feel the need for trickery and obfuscation positively reeks of weak cases that could not be won on the evidence alone and requires sleazy legal(-ish) tricks.
The new guidelines were supposed to make things better.
As for the idea that the new guidelines are supposedly better than the old ones? The fact that they're doing everything they can to prevent the exposure of those new guidelines demonstrates without a doubt that that's a lie. At best they're no worse, but I'd put good odds on them being either the same thing packaged in different language, or even more dishonest and underhanded than the previous guidelines.