Add to that a fear of collectivism on principle and their idea of the tragedy of the commons, and you may as well admit it's a lost cause.
Not to say that you're wrong, but can it successfully be framed (correctly IMO) as copyright taking rights away from everyone rather than public domain being a collectivist idea? And as for tragedy of the commons, there is no such concern with copyright because expression is not a scarce resource.
All you idiots who support the government getting involved in day to day activities like gay marriage just need to shut up. You asked for more government involvement, you got it.
So to you, the government letting all couples get married is "more government involvement"? And when the government is deciding who is and who is not allowed to get married, that's less government involvement? Just want to make sure I have it straight.
This tax is right in line with the kinds recomended by those five economists because it's a consumption tax.
It doesn't really say all consumption taxes are good, it suggests replacing income tax with a (general) consumption tax*. Levying additional consumption taxes on specific things that you don't want to discourage is not generally a good idea.
* what's interesting is that consumption isn't a bad thing we want to discourage, it's overall a good thing we want to encourage - after all if people didn't spend money, the economy would crumble. It's just that discouraging consumption is less bad than discouraging income (according to these economists at least).
Well, if my target audience both pays for and "pirates" movies, does it make sense to sour the paying for movies to them? As well as to those who do not "pirate" movies?
Take a group of people you know is willing and able to access the content without paying, as well as by paying, and then make the paid content a less pleasant experience without affecting the free content. What could go wrong?
Four of my closest friends living in close proximity to cell towers and electric power supply stations and who relied heavily on wireless communications have died from brain tumors in North Canton, Ohio, USA.
That is way too small and non-random a sample to conclude anything.
Might as well give GEMA what they want. Notice and stay down means everything gets taken down - even the stuff GEMA wants up.
That could be dangerous though. If they agree to notice and stay down, they're basically saying they will keep that content down, and so if it slips through and gets back up somewhere, they could be extra super duper liable. If I were Google I would fight this to the end and then if I lost, consider whether I could afford to continue doing business in Germany. I wouldn't agree to notice and stay down except as a last resort.
If everyone is a defacto member of GEMA whether they like it or not (as you later claim), then how is this not GEMA's fault?
I think the point is that GEMA offered to license the music (on completely unrealistic terms), so it's not just GEMA's fault, it's a matter of both parties not having agreed on terms. Technically this is true.