Of course I don't believe the ISPs can't handle the traffic, but it's what they consistently use as an excuse to justify their extortion schemes.
About the ISP backbone and handling Netflix traffic: x user paid for a y bandwidth line. The equation is this simple: backbone minimum bandwidth = x*y (omitting overhead and the like). If at any point they can't produce this, then they oversold their bandwidth. They don't sell their packages by saying something like "Oh, you can access our router with a blazing 50Mbps! The rest of the internet.. well.. 10kbps"
The usual excuse of ISPs is that certain services are 'congesting' the net with their high bandwidth content (let's call it Youtube for now), and they should pay more.
But! I as a subscriber paid for a certain bandwidth, as did Youtube for a certain upload bandwidth. In theory, they can't send more traffic than they already paid for, so what's the problem?
The problem is the ISPs are selling more bandwidth than they can really provide, trusting in that their subscribers together won't use more than the real capacity at any given time. Let's call this actual capacity usage.
High bandwidth services raise the actual capacity usage, because more and more subscribers use their line to full capacity by watching Youtube.
So, the ISP comes to a decision: 1. Either fix their current maximal capacity to the sold value (and spend money on expanding the infrastructure) 2. OR charge Youtube for "premium lines" and dissuade other services from 'clogging up the lines' (not spending but earning more $)
First, you contradict yourself: "I never said anything about fan art. Nor that commercial spin offs were themselves bad. I said that making a spin-off without permission was not a desirable thing. "
"It's all one law. "
Then you don't address my answer, which were about spin-offs AND fan art.
". If you're trying to argue that it's unnecessary, then you're arguing that the whole of Japan's copyright law is unnecessary and should be removed. If that is not your intent, you need to be more precise. "
No, you simply need to look up the interpretation of "/", which is "OR", and voila! Everything make sense.
You're being difficult on purpose, dim or trolling. In either case, F U.
The question is still: why is it bad? Most of today's movies, books etc are based on already existing works, and I find it distasteful to grant privileges on who can make things out of them.
Control which Anonymous Howard proposes removing because the authors don't crack down on fans being fans.
Again dat strawman. I said if authors don't crack down on fans, then the law should reflect this attitude toward fans. If laws would reflect the socially acceptable behavior, then there would be no need to selectively enforce it (formal complaint/no complaint).
I don't think any fan art creator like the gun at his head that this maybe-maybenot copyright bullshit presents. They should know when they break a law, and it should not depend on someone else making a complaint about it.
This is like arguing "the falling tree is only makes sound if someone hears it"
The big concern which Mike's article fails to convey is that under current copyright law in Japan, the owner of a work has to make a formal complaint before any prosecution for a violation of their copyright can take place.
This is what exactly would change if TPP in its current form would came to be.
Also, you argued - imho mistakenly - that commercial spin-offs are bad. You seem to think that building on someones work (spin-off and fan art) and *gasp* making money off your _own_work_ is somehow takes out money of the original artist's pocket, which is in many case the opposite.
That's not what Anonymous Howard is suggestion. He's suggesting that the authors not exercising their rights in this one subset of circumstances justifies wholesale abolishment of all of the author's rights.
You're erecting strawmans. Let me quote myself Isn't this the prime indicator of an outdated/unnecessary law?
As I see, the real issue is not spyware being accessible to domestic audience.
The real problem is the mess what smartphones call "security". My wife got a smartphone, and honestly, I couldn't tell what programs are running (actually, instead of a short list of "maybe"-s), with what rights, which program has access to certain features of the phone, incoming and outgoing traffic etc etc.
You have less then little control over what you allow your phone and apps to do. Smart devices need decent process explorer like tools, firewall, antivirus and management tools, like any decent operating system.
This is the main reason I'll never buy a smartphone.