As long as we're speculating, it may be worth pointing out that Virginia has open primaries. Here in the South, we have a long tradition of "crossing over" to vote against incumbents in a primary. this is particularly true in districts/races where one side has no real chance of winning the general election. Someone like Cantor could conceivably draw that sort "anyone would be better" crossover turnout. A textbook example of this would be Cynthia McKinney's defeat by Denise Majette in 2002 for a House seat from Georgia. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em (then beat 'em from inside).
Oh, man. I thought I was the only one in the world that uses a Zune. I actually once thought about getting Windows Phone because of how much I liked my Zune. Fortunately, Microsoft came at me so hard and fast with their unique brand of putting uninviting things into unwelcoming places of unsuspecting customers that I was ultimately able to withstand the temptation.
I'll never buy another piece of hardware from Microsoft. Not even Sony can F you in the A as bad as Microsoft, and Sony's been perfecting the science for decades. Microsoft has simply transcended the science of user abuse, and turned it into a form of performance art that is both captivating and terrible to witness. The graceful savagery of the XBone rollout has been so entertaining that only a Marlin Perkins voiceover could make it better.
If ProQuest maintains digital rights/control only over the copy that they made, I see no real problem here. As long as someone else has the ability to create and distribute their own digital version of the public domain works in question. If, on the other hand, ProQuest has managed to get some kind of contract with the government that these works are no longer in the public domain, then that could be a real problem.
For those familiar with the FRBR Group 1 entities, this strikes me as a question of work vs. expression. If ProQuest owns the "expression", no problem. If they own the "work", then problem.
Do not forget that the people involved, Ortiz especially, are lawyers. One must assume that in a lawyer's mind, any admission, implication, or acknowledgement of perceived culpability will be met with the necessary abundance of lawsuits. I am NOT trying to defend her, just suggesting that she might not believe what she says, but is simply afraid of the likely consequences of saying anything different. She may feel absolutely dreadful (I doubt it), but understands very well that her life will be completely ruined (as she does to others) if she concedes even an inch of ground. Lawyers love the smell of blood in the water, especially the blood of their own.
This does not count as an apology. An actual apology goes like this: "We're sorry."
Its' a step in the right direction perhaps, but without an admission of guilt, it is, ultimately, meaningless.
All they're saying is "Please buy the expensive new game(s) we have coming soon. We may or may not treat you like a criminal this time." I am expecting a very incomplete game, packaged with a one-time-use code to download/unlock "bonus content" that is really just the other 50% of the game that should've been included in the first place. Without a very public and very consumer friendly 180 turn-around, this "apology" does not even scratch the surface of my hard-hearted loathing for this company.
Since we're talking about EA, I can only assume that they will find a way to make it suck horribly. I can see it now:
Battlefield 4: free to play, but:
$0.10 per bullet
$1.00 per gallon of gas for a jeep/tank/plane,etc.
$2.00 per grenade
$3.00 per health pack
$5.00 per body armor upgrade (destructible)
$50.00/month for Premium account = all prices cut in half, and cut to the front of the queue.
"call your Senator and tell them that any attempt to weaken privacy protections is unacceptable"
If you think that anything I could ever say or do would carry any weight at all with my senator, you obviously haven't met the sonofabitch. Unless I show up at his office with a suitcase full of unmarked bills and a Chinese tire factory stapled to my tits, he has no reason to care that I exist, and quite probably wishes that I didn't.
So, if internet sites are not public, then writers for internet sites are not journalists. Therefore, people who post things online are not afforded the traditional protections that journalists receive under the law of most free states. How perfectly brilliant. One ignorant/crooked judge with one ignorant/crooked ruling can undermine the very foundation of western journalism. I'm a bit surprised that this idea did not originate in the USA.
Knowing what little I do about companies like Wiley, I can't help but wonder if they are not so much afraid of being sued, but rather they are fearful that any active support of fair use on their part would weaken Wiley's own position when they choose to be the copyright aggressor.
That misses the point. If a scalper were to stand out in front of a venue and buy back extra tickets from fans who for some reason can no longer attend, and then resell the tickets to folks such as yourself who happen to need an extra pair, then fine. That might be something that could be considered a service. However, that is NOT what they do. If the scalpers had not bought out the show, then you could have simply scored from the box office and saved the extra 15%.
Louis C.K. is not stopping people from selling the tickets for 15% of face value at a pawn shop. He is stopping a disinterested 3rd party from deliberately distorting the market by creating an artificial shortage, and thus erecting an unintended barrier to entry for the fans. All of which is done strictly for a profit, none of which is shared or returned in the form of good will or future consideration.
You say that what C.K. is doing is simply the same as EA creating first-purchaser codes, but I would submit that a scalper is akin to my ISP charging me an extra $100 to buy a $50 game from Steam.
Frankly, this document is a joke from two people who should know better
The elder Paul, perhaps. The younger Paul, no frakkin' way. I don't live in Rand Paul country, but my television news broadcast comes from there, and he seems to me to be nothing like his father when it comes to "libertarian" vs. "republican." Everything he does revolves around more of our money for him and his, or more of his religion for us. If he puts his name on something, it's quite probably poisonous.
Doesn't the RIAA claim something like $13 billion a year in lost productivity due to piracy? At $29 billion, this appears to be a problem that's twice as bad as piracy. Armed with that knowledge, I am confident the we can just sit back, relax, and wait patiently for our beloved congress to take heed of the situation and then ceaselessly ram through bill after bill until something finally sticks. I'll be holding my breath in the corner...
For all the perceived threats that the Obama administration allegedly poses to the good people of 'Murrka (homosexual indoctrination, free dope, dead babies, no borders, muslim conspiracy, etc.), it seems strange that the right wing in congress is deafeningly silent on matters such as this. This case involves individual rights, property rights, government overreach, activist courts, and, of course, the Hollywood Agenda. Seems that this would be right up the old conservative wheelhouse. It's even an election year. Yet, all I hear is crickets and tumbleweeds.
So, if communism is when the people who control the government also control the means of production, what do you call it when the people who control the means of production also control the government?