... how about the amount of time juggling and tracking license numbers and staring numbly at "progress bars?" Microsoft software takes painfully long periods of time to update, compared to Linux, which also doesn't have the licensing administration problems.
After reading day after day of Techdirt, I'm a pessimist because these issues are both clearly wrong and little progress is being made to correct them. However, I'm ever grateful that you highlight them accurately and faithfully.
I couldn't do it. After weeks and months, at some point, I'd just have to give up disgustedly. I'm happy that it doesn't get to you and that it doesn't really bend you, either.
“We’ve been in contact with the Nashua police, and they confirmed that they while they have an ongoing investigation and have already made a number of arrests, the only Facebook link was that one of those arrested had a Facebook friend who posted about leaving town in the near future (which is why they believe that home was targeted) and it had nothing to do with Facebook Places. The police confirmed that the other burglaries had nothing to do with Facebook altogether.” (emphasis mine)
Overstepping copyright and patent limits doesn't harm anyone? I sing barbershop quartet music. Right now, I have to figure out if someone's old arrangement of yet another older tune (with sometimes even older lyrics) is valid or not. I can guarantee that if I ask all three parties (or their relatives), they'll tell me that I owe them money even if I legally don't.
Making that illegal with a real penalty would be a real disincentive to collecting royalties where none are due. Right now the disincentive is to the asker for asking -- it's tempting just to proceed without asking and hope you don't get caught (a situation which is not desired long term -- you do want to make sure those that make the art you love can get fairly rewarded).
I really like this law in the patent system. I think it would do positive things for copyright. (But ultimately both need wholesale changes.)
Mr. "Jackalope" deleted his original thread. It would be easier to research if the guy would make it easier. It would also be easier to research if we had more than one side to this story, but Jackalope is providing both sides.
In his new thread, the modifications that he mentions are all changes from chrome to black. From that, one cannot conclude that he deserved the ticket. In fact, by covering the chrome and preventing a white reflection from being shown from the rear, it might be argued that his modification was more in spirit of the law than the original design.
...they clutter up the place and the prices are too high for something that I only watch once or twice.
This weekend I rented "Up!" for $5 via On-Demand CATV. It was good for 72 hours. I've also sometimes bought a used DVD via Amazon. Either choice sure beats going out in 0-degree wind-chill and buying a DVD.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5485313n&tag=related;photovideo is a clip from that story. It shows this MPAA representative participating in a BitTorrent swarm as a demo to CBS. But he's not just downloading, he's uploading content as well. Note the graphic showing chunks flowing FROM the center to the red connected peers on the edge. That's uploading content TO the swarm.
When my group started gigging, we found that "free" was terrible for marketing and gigging. To put it bluntly, when we did free gigs, we were treated like we were doing free gigs. When we charged as little as $50 ($12.50 for each four singers and the gas to get there), we had just as many gigs but they were better attended, the performance was better appreciated, and we were less jerked-around in our schedule.
We weren't awesome, and we knew that. We felt bad for charging anything (and often donated it back if the gig was a non-profit and if it was appropriate). All we wanted was an audience. The idea to charge was a suggestion by another group who had realized the same frustrations, it worked for them. It worked for us. It was a lesson learned, and if I were gigging today, there would be a fee.
Consumers like free, but they may not value it.
I'm not sure any of this translates to newspapers, FWIW.
The studios have been winning the piracy wars lately as evidenced by year over year improvements of the proportion of streamed content versus peer-to-peer content (for the past 3 years). This isn't just the on-demand stuff, there's a real hoarding mentality that is satisfied by the knowledge that permanent legal online distribution is now available.
Does Hollywood really want to reverse that trend?
It's suicide to take something available and make it unavailable. It just drives people back to those "other" services. You know the ones, "just right over there..."