According to the letter of the law, it is almost certainly covered, but let's take a step back here.
Copyright does not cover ideas or facts, only the artistic contributions of the author/photographer/etc for the express purpose of encouraging more art.
But one has to ask, in this scenario, what artistic choices did Santana contribute? This was a spontaneous event. He didn't set up the camera angles, the lighting, or direct the participants. He was just in the right place at the wrong time.
Why does any spontaneous recording of a factual event, with no contribution from the recorder (other than the ability to push 'start') qualify for a purely economic right?
[Hell, if you want to get really anal about it, NC is a one-party consent state. If he didn't have consent to record people in public, maybe the recording itself is in a gray area. I think we could all agree that it shouldn't be, but if he wants to go legal with this, that opens up more potential liabilities than just for news stations.]
I don't see this as the same as a photographer getting just the right angle, or waiting for just the right framing or lighting conditions for their subject. If he had even done more narrating of the events than "Oh shit, oh shit" I'd be more sympathetic to his contributions.
Everything you see on that video is a practical necessity of making any recording of that factual event.
Fifth: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The biggest problem with that "tradeoff" is that it implies that one will be increased with the decrease of the other. When it comes to encryption, Privacy == Security, and any harm to one necessarily harms the other.
But you can at least shine a light on it. Making it "illegal" only drive it underground where it becomes more entrenched and harder to educate.
I've long been in favor of letting any business serve any people they want, but with one important regulation: Any restrictions they want to implement have to be posted prominently on the front door. After all, if this is about business owners' beliefs, and they are proud enough of them to turn people away, they should be proud enough of them to show them to the world.
It may not change many minds, but forcing them to do something they don't believe in won't either. At least this way people can make informed decisions.
I've got an analog TV, and with a cheap converter box, I get some 30+ channels OTA. Most are not the type I'd watch on a daily (or even monthly) basis, but I'd say the same thing about cable.
Even on top of that, most broadcast networks have their current shows available online the day after they air (for a few weeks, at least), and all the options above include internet.
The whole analysis seems like a setup to make the marginal cost for cable seem smaller than it really is. With OTA + internet + Netflix, I pay about $50/month. No ESPN or HBO, which they seem to think is important, but if I really wanted them, I could add SlingTV and HBO Now for another $35 and get basically everything mentioned above for the lowest price.
Those other crimes certainly can cause fear as a result of the action, but the intent is usually personal gain.
Terrorism, as indicated by the word itself, is about the feelings of others (terror) more than the perp.
As an aside, there's not a reputable sports show on Earth who will intentionally show streakers or other trespassers in the field of play during a sporting event. They rightfully recognize that this would only encourage more of the same.
Murder is certainly more newsworthy, but isn't it about time the media starts asking itself if granting too much attention to those seeking attention is simply encouraging more of the same?
This sums up the thoughts I've been having lately, but couldn't put into words.
The proper response to "they hate our freedoms" is NOT to simply give up those same freedoms. They won.
Somebody was shot in Chicago every three hours last year. How many of those became international news for a week? The WHOLE POINT of terrorism is to spread fear, but it would be impossible without a willing media to help them at every step. Not only did they win, they used the western media and politics as their two most potent weapons.
Has the MPAA started a war with the Yellow Pages for publishing the addresses of pawn shops that might sell counterfeit movies?
It's no wonder the entertainment industry is decades behind in terms of innovation. They're still viewing the web through the paradigm of the 80's and 90's when CompuServe or AOL was the gateway, directory, ISP and one-stop shop of connected computing for the majority of people online. Only now, they've put Google in that role.
Cuba, stuck in the past, may actually be more up-to-date than Hollywood, AND have a better chance now of building on that lead.
OK, so the bar for trademark is even lower than copyright. It doesn't have to be unique or copyrightable. Just uniquely used in commerce to differentiate the brand. I'm generally very against the expansion of IP, but I'm not seeing how this particular image shouldn't be eligible.
And yes, there's the issue of trademark vs copyright, but a copyrighted image used in commerce is the basis of trademark, so in some cases, they can be closely related. If this image is eligible for copyright, then it probably should be eligible for trademark.
For the famous Obama 'Change' poster, many here agreed that it was a transformative work (the original photographer didn't even recognize it at first). So heavy photoshopping can over-ride the original copyright as fair use.
Does that mean the photoshopper gets the copyright on the new, heavily edited, work? Does it go into the public domain? Does the original artist retain some rights over it, if the uses of the edited version fail the fair use standards?
And in this case, does the original work being in the public domain change any of those answers? The source material for most of Disney's older works are in the public domain, but their specific expressions are protected. Would that not apply here as well? If the changes were deemed to be transformative, then this specific expression could be re-copyrighted, no?
You can either have targeted ads, semi-targeted ads, or generic ads.
Nobody uses generic ads, since they're useless. There's really not even an offline equivalent. You always know something about your audience, even if it's as little as where they are when they see the ad.
Semi-targeted ads are like a billboard, when you know the location it's being seen, or a TV spot where you have a good idea about the demographics of the viewing audience.
Targeted ads are usually thought of as online, but any mailers you get from retailers you frequent are basically the same thing. Or coupons that print on your receipt at checkout. They know what you bought previously and will push similar products.
Injecting identifiers, for the purpose of delivering advertising, is INHERENTLY targeting. Any attempt to claim it's not is a flat-out lie. And not even a good one. It's a three-year-old with ice cream all over his face telling you the dog did it.
Both companies proclaimed that the characters in their headers are rotated on a weekly and daily basis to protect user information.
W. T. F.
If a profile expired every day, or even every week, it would be WORTHLESS. The entire point of doing this is that it's trackable.
Claiming otherwise doesn't take big brass balls, it takes a small withered brain.
Making everybody look like a suspect isn't about being able to pull people out of line based on those criteria, it's about being able to use OTHER evidence (possibly illegally collected, or at least the type you wouldn't want to have to defend in court) such as phone records, racial profiling, etc.
That way you can use all the tools at your disposal, then just say, "well, he looked suspicious, and we were right to be suspicious, so you can't really argue it was unreasonable to be suspicious."
This is just another brick in the Parallel Construction wall.