You may have missed my point; it's very apparent as to what the intention is, but the consequences are either an afterthought or ill-understood.
If one can follow the trail of irrational logic from, "Terrorists use encryption", to "Terrorists use the Internet", to "Terrorists shop at Amazon", then it becomes apparent that the next move is to pressure Amazon, eBay and any number of online vendors to use this weakened encryption to help fight terrorism, or risk some form of retribution from the US government.
In that event, online vendors becomes extremely vulnerable and the nation is no safer from terrorism, but a noticeable uptick in credit card related fraud suddenly appears.
My example was intended more for the less tech savvy person who does use online services like Amazon, but believes that somehow backdoored encryption wouldn't be susceptible to an attack, or doesn't quite realize the magnitude of the aftermath.
Since the far-reaching consequences of weakening security seem to be slightly out of Mr. Bloomberg's grasp, let me offer this simpler version.
Suppose that you buy something from Amazon, and because the encryption used has been intentionally weakened to help fight terrorism, someone other than you and Amazon's payment processor now know your full credit card number...
Strictly speaking, you'd want to head out for the walk too right about now. No sense in spending time complaining about takedowns; there's beautiful, beautiful sunshine to soak in!
As for Al Green signing with the label: That's kind of how it was back then. There wasn't really another way to get your music out there. I can't fault the guy for signing with the group...but I can fault the group for their abuse of the DMCA and copyright law.
I'm not sure why I was initially OK with Romney's video being taken down, but instantly angered over Obama's video being taken down. It may have to do with the fact that it's literally nine seconds of playback, or it's due to the fact that I don't watch Romney campaign videos...hmm.
I hope this becomes a major election issue. It's pretty obvious that copyright is being straight-up abused, and nothing really will change until it inconveniences people in power. Well, here's the inconvenience - let's see the change.
This isn't a good move at all. I mean, I enjoy the Colbert Report and watching it online is my only real way of accessing the content. If I can't enjoy content on my terms and time, then the content just doesn't exist.
A move like this could make these channels fade into irrelevance, as other options of entertainment are starting to become commonplace.
According to family and friends, this was the one commercial that was really good, too...
Seriously, NFL - you already GOT your paycheck for the runtime of this ad, so what the hell do you have to gain by issuing a takedown notice? The whole point of putting ads in the Super Bowl is so the product makers get more exposure!
Well, I could look it like this: Maybe Chrysler will rethink its relationship with the NFL.
99% of the ads I'll be able to watch on Youtube either the same day or a week later, and most of the notable football action I'll be able to see about two weeks later. No harm, no foul; advertisers get their publicity, and the NFL doesn't overreact to their copyright being infringed.
You shot your own legislation in the foot by not deciding to live up to your own words.I would like to believe, though, that your content creators would love to be present at the meeting, and be able to discuss their stance freely without having you breathing over their contracts and livelihoods.
1) The manga/anime business makes $2 billion dollars annually.
2) Fan subbers do well to gauge the popularity of manga. The larger a group, the more likely you have people here in the US that are fans.
Reasons #1 and #2 tie in together rather well. More popular content => more profit. I'm not certain of any recent numbers regarding the industry in this day and age, but I'd say, give or take half a million, that's pretty close.
3) The industry has a hard time translating, and doesn't always get the cultural references.
I've experienced that before, but it's becoming less of an issue nowadays.
4)Not sure if it was this February. Seems it was in 2009. Link
This is why I said it was "easiest". I have stimulating conversations with my friends and close family regarding religion and politics all the time. We're all mature enough to respect one another's opinions, and keep things egoless in those debates.
With people you don't know, and/or can't gauge how they would react to such discussion, it's easiest to avoid it, in my experience. Facebook, or any service where public posting is permitted, makes these kinds of things worse.
TL;DR: Yes, you can have high levels of conversation with total strangers, even with controversial topics. Avoiding them is best so you get less crap for bringing it up in the first place.
If you want a high level of conversation, be it with someone using their real name or a pseudonym, it's easiest to avoid conversations where emotions run high and sense runs low (e.g. religion, politics, family values, etc.).
I just find it ironic [and quite pathetic, really] that this particular example shows Christians flaming Atheists. I'm Christian too, and I have Atheist friends. Does this make me a bad Christian? Wait a minute - Matthew 7:1, right??
Seriously though, rejecting broad and vague patents is a good thing. The less crappy patents going through the system, the better for innovation (and we can all avoid these horribly pointless patent litigation issues).