The only possible reason that comes to mind is that someone with a lot of clout and/or money was pushing for the DRM and they're afraid of getting on the wrong side of them by pulling the DRM, and so are trying to keep it quiet.
Still stupid, but it would at least make some sense, as otherwise staying silent isn't doing them any favors for the reasons you mentioned.
Umm, no. That's like someone saying 'Don't make me hit you' and then blaming the one that got hit, rather than the one who actually threw the punch. Paramount is the one who created the absurd 'guidelines', if anyone's to blame it's them as they could have easily done differently, unless you care to argue that they literally had no other choice in their response.
Re: Re: Let's tack on a few 'exceptions' to the law shall we?
This all assumes that budget, length, and presence of professionals skilled in working with large budgets and long form are required to create quality.
Not really, as while a decent budget(and the ability of fans to be able to fund a project past a certain point), skilled people involved and the ability to create a work that's longer than some arbitrary cut-off point isn't necessarily required for a quality piece, they certainly help. Only so much you can do if you don't have the skills and/or experience in the field, you're only allowed so much time to work with and you can only spend so much to make something.
Yes, the length restriction does block direct competition. But why should an IP holder allow direct competition at all?
To which my counter-question would be 'Why should they be allowed to block competition, direct or not?' So long as a work falls under fair use I don't see why the original creator(or in this and many other cases the owner of the rights, rather than the creator of the work) should be allowed any veto power. If someone comes up with something new that's better than their version that may suck for them, but it certainly is a boost to the public who get a new work to enjoy.
The standard of an "expectation of privacy" is also problematic in modern times in that depends of what judges think people should know about the operation of technology.
Oh but it gets worse, because the using the 'expectation of privacy' as a justification means what can be 'expected' to be private is a category that will always shrink.
Before the general public knew that government agencies scooped up everything they could get their hands on the 'expectation of privacy' might have been higher(though trumped of course by National Security: Be Afraid), but once people learned about it now the 'expectation of privacy' is drastically lesser, because look, everyone knows that the government can and will scoop up everything they can get their hands on, therefore there's no 'expectation' of any privacy to violate, it's already gone.
"It was wrong but still justified before you learned they were doing X, and now that it's general knowledge that they are doing X there's no 'reasonable' expectation that they won't be doing X, because everyone knows that they're doing X, and hence no violation of the law."
Only to have the judge involved perform feats of contortion that would make a circus performer proud by claiming that the two things are totally different and just because members of the public are free game for government agencies to hack because computers are hacked all the time, it doesn't follow that government computers are free game as well, as government systems still enjoy protection against hacking attempts.
Didn't you know? It's a well known fact that if you can provide enough incentive even corpses can start creating once more, it's just the law hasn't quite reached that point yet and currently mostly incentivises lawyers to create legal filings. Once the tipping point is finally reached though watch out for the hordes of zombie creators and the absolute explosion of new works that will result from their rise.
"If criminals without badges can do it so can the government."
“Indeed, the opposite holds true: in today's digital world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the Internet can—and eventually will—be hacked,” he writes, and then points to a series of media reports on high profile hacks. He posits that users of Tor cannot expect to be safe from hackers.
Houses get broken into all the time, as such police can break in whenever they want without a warrant.
People are robbed all the time, clearly government agents should be allowed to rob anyone they want with no restraints.
People are assaulted all the time, obviously police and/or government agents should be allowed to beat whoever they want without punishment.
It's really hard to Poe an argument that stupid, because with the kind of 'logic' employed by this judge all of the above makes perfect sense.
So, I take it then that the judge sees absolutely nothing wrong with anyone else hacking a computer or digital device/service? I mean it happens all the time, and if that's all the justification you need to be in the clear then the frequency means it ceases to be a crime, right?
Oh, those rules only apply to those (theoretically) enforcing the laws? Of course, silly me to expect logical and legal consistency from a judge.
Let's tack on a few 'exceptions' to the law shall we?
Declaring that the work can only be so long, and only in certain formats?
Declaring that no-one involved is allowed to be paid for their involvement?
Declaring that no-one with any actual skill in the field is allowed to be involved?
Declaring that the amount raised to create a work can only reach a certain limit(and I guarantee that if someone was able to make an amazing work for less that limit would be shrunk accordingly) before any fundraising must be stopped, essentially telling people they are not allowed to fund work beyond a limit?
The rules handed out by Paramount can basically be summed up in a single line:
Any fan creation is not allowed to be good enough to compete with the 'official' version.
Paramount's 'guidelines' are essentially an attempt to make sure that no fan creation is good enough to compete with the 'official' product, as well as being an attempt to re-write Fair Use by placing limits that flat out aren't there.
Maybe we can come to that type of an agreement, but due process is what’s killing us right now.
So you've got an acting senator publicly saying that due process is a bad thing, something getting in the way of what could be done. If we've reached the point where a politician is willing to be that blunt in an interview, how many of them are thinking that same thing in private, and trying to figure out ways to put that into law?
A quip like that should be a career destroying moment, something that will mean he will never be re-elected again because he clearly doesn't care one bit about the rights of the public, but I can't help but worry how many will cheer him on because 'criminals/accused criminals don't deserve rights'.
More than enough blame to go around, congress for providing incentive to approve as many patent submissions as possible in order to keep the lights on, the patent office for continually approving such boneheaded submissions.
A member of the public? No, mass surveillance creates far more problems than it 'solves'.
A government/government agency that wants to scoop up as much data as possible for any number of reasons('sating a voyeuristic fetish' being one of the more harmless possibilities to give you an idea of how unpleasant the other motivations can be)? For someone like that mass surveillance can solve any number of problems, the first being that pesky 'privacy' thing the peons think they have a right to for some reason.
The FBI investigation that Clinton refuses to call an investigation continues.
In her position I wouldn't care either, between her position(current and future potential) and personal connections she and everyone else knows that she's essentially untouchable, and the FBI is just doing the investigation in order to look like they're doing something and to further the charade that the rules apply equally to everyone.
No charges will be filed, no meaningful punishment will be handed out and everyone involved knows it, so it's no surprise that she might be more than a little dismissive towards the whole thing.
'Got a few barnfuls of hay for that needle hunt you were busy with...'
I rather like the AC's idea above of just flooding the service with 'blasphemous' posts. This would both make it much more difficult to pick out the 'real' ones for those dingleberries trying to hunt them down and dox them for their own amusement at the suffering of others, and serve as a nice little reminder that attempts at censorship have the potential to backfire, hilariously, instead causing an explosion of expression rather than it's silencing.
Tangentially related, but I've always found the idea of 'blasphemy' to be rather... counter-productive, given the message it sends if you really think about it. The idea of 'taboo' words or ideas, Things That Must Not Be Said to me at least has always been an indication of a weakness of position. It's basically saying 'I do not believe that my ideas and/or position could withstand honest scrutiny or criticism, so any speech that would do so is not allowed'.
It can also serve as an indicator of little people with little minds, trying to make themselves seem important by imbuing certain words or phrases with what is essentially 'mystical significance', but that isn't exactly much better with regards to those throwing fits over the 'misuse' of the words.
And of course you can be sure that US and UK politicians will use this as an excuse for why they absolutely must be allowed to expand their mass surveillance and broken encryption programs as well, because we can't let those dirty commies get ahead in their intel gathering abilities.
... lies about it when they get caught, lie again a few more times for good measure, have those (theoretically) involved in 'oversight' breathlessly declare that everything is perfectly legal due to the extensive 'oversight' they (don't) provide, followed by attempts to retroactively legalize their actions while claiming that the changes they're pushing for aren't a big deal and certainly nothing to get worked up over, lie some more...
Techdirt has repeatedly, over a period of years, overtly said they don't mind when people do this. And they walk that talk as well.
I always get a laugh when a commentor tries that particular trick. 'So you're anti-IP in all it's forms huh, well what if I post/use your stuff without permission? Bet you'd be in favor of all things IP then!'
And then what they thought was a nice dig and/or attempt to expose a little bit of imaginary property-related hypocrisy is completely undercut when someone points out that nope, they can do that all they want and the TD people don't care.
It may be nitpicky, but I feel it's important not to let them define the terminology for their own benefit. As such try not to use the 'tame' sounding phrase 'parallel construction', call it what it really is: Evidence laundering.
'Parallel construction' is likely to confuse those unfamiliar with the term, and doesn't convey just what's happening very well, while 'evidence laundering' is much more likely to be understood, and makes it clear just what's going on.