"But the more important question right now is why would Congress be looking to give the Copyright Office more autonomy when it's quite clear that the Office has absolutely no competency when it comes to modernizing its system, and there has been a six-year pattern of throwing away money without a properly managed plan and a longstanding practice of lying about it to Congress itself?"
Sounds like Congress figured out they are perfectly suited to overseeing themselves, saving Congress the trouble of lacking all competency and then lying about it....
but why would an archival storage system for something that can by definition be considered evidence in legal cases allow people to log in and erase or alter that evidence?
Even with an audit trail (which is implied), this just seems like madness. Every frame of footage uploaded should be 100% protected. During any trial that happens, the two sides are of course allowed to pick and choose exactly the frames they want to present to support their case.....
If a worm were spread that permanently bricked every Philips smart light bulb it connected to, the public backlash against Philips would start some "serious" thinking about this stuff. The cost to the "innocent externals" would be a few bucks for a busted lightbulb, the cost to Philips would be a warning shot across their bow.
Maybe something akin to Jury Duty. Have a pool of arbitrators (possibly filled by the courts), and assign one randomly to each case as it is brought. That removes the direct financial incentive of the company being the one "hiring" the arbitrator, and the arbitrator needing to encourage future business.
Doing the math here, assuming each review had only one reviewer paid to do it, that's $750 - $100 = $650 per review. $650 x 920 scored papers = $598,000. Yet the company claims $20,000,000 in revenue last year?
Maybe the $750 is just an application fee, and there are many more demands for money afterward (like a FOIA fee of $5 per page to print the review?).
By the way, I notice that when you go to AT&T's webpage on the 150GB usage caps, there's a helpful link "how much is 150GB?". Instead of a small paragraph of text that takes a few hundred bytes, it's a 2-minute video that takes a couple of MB. So the answer is: "about 7500 of these videos".
To quote the EFF on this: "In other words, if a South Carolina inmate caused a riot, took three hostages, murdered them, stole their clothes, and then escaped, he could still wind up with fewer Level 1 offenses than an inmate who updated Facebook every day for two weeks."
While DRM is certainly responsible for this a lot of the time, sometimes it's good old-fashioned feature creep.
Example in point: iPod Nanos. I love my 5th gen nano, but the newer ones are twice the size and dropped half the useful simple things in an effort to cram more useless "spiffiness" into them. The result: used 5th gens sell for considerably more than new 6th gens on Ebay. When mine finally dies, I will go there to buy one rather than fork out $150 for a new one from Apple.
Technically Verizon wasn't throttling Netflix, they were throttling Level 3, which carries Netflix traffic. And congested peering ports aren't throttling, unless they are deliberately under-provisioned to the point where they cannot carry their designated load.
Link capacity of peering connections (as well as all other Network-with-a-capital-N connections) aren't just pulled out of a hat. Extremely large amounts of throughput analysis is done to understand the requirements of the link. It is extremely important to ISPs to be able to handle the required bandwidth.
This issue would have been spotted in 5 minutes by a junior engineer. Add the fact that it was fixed only after weeks of press shaming and the "payments" from Netflix means it was deliberately designed to extort such payments.
I say the way to combat this stupidity is to give the DHS exactly what they want. Let's see how they handle a few hundred thousand reports a day every day for the next year. Spun this way, every box of nails, every roll of duct tape, every bottle of bleach is a potential terrorist threat.
"When the gods want to punish us, they answer our prayers".
If you can't use basic defenses (like public domain), I wonder if someone could fight back by suing Malibu Media or whoever for defamation/libel? They are accusing you of a crime despite proof that you committed no crime, and doing it in public documents.
Lots of comments about voluntary, but don't forget about the other part of the lie: anonymous.
You are driving your car with license plates on it; chances are that by the time you've rolled your window down the cops know who you are by running your plates. Yes, it's not 100% but it's close enough for most people to think there is nothing anonymous about this at all.
Another silly attempt to micro-manage by specific technology, in an area where technologies change on a monthly basis. The rules against texting for example.... how about my phone which can text hands-free (voice control)? How about sending email? Twitter/Facebook updates? Thumbs up/down on Pandora? Touching the screen to see what time it is?
As for HUDs, my car can have one factory installed? Several makers are experimenting with HUDs to give important information. Will this be banned too? Will we need a lawyer to interpret whatever legal language comes out to tell us?
I'd sigh and say "my tax dollars at work" but it hardly seems like it's working, now does it?
"The biggest obstacle to curbing grand juries (much less eliminating them) is the government itself."
Well, there is that pesky fifth amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"
I am surprised that no one has (yet) suggested "time of ... public danger" as a convenient way around it.