No, he's suing because his name is being used along with an inaccurate portrayal of what he wrote. It'd be like a movie set today having a stoner torrenting a movie and going "But Mike Masnick said copyright laws have no standing in D.C.!" when Mike has just been saying how D.C. has copyright law all wrong. I don't see how character development has anything to do with millions of people hearing that line. They didn't have to use his name, and they misrepresented his articles. This is a bit hyperbolic, but you can't just having "crazy people" walking around in movies stating things and saying since they're crazy, anything goes. This might actually be more legal assuming you can pull the satire/parody defense. I do wonder how this one plays out, because he seems to have a more solid case than LiLo, which was properly laughable.
I believe Obama just justified Tit-for-Tat hacking. Does anyone know how Obama likes his eggs? If not, I think anyone is justified in finding out now. After all, he spied on you, so you can spy on him too.
Some stores throw their iPhones. Others handle with care. That doesn't change the fact that if you're not paying, you're being leveraged into getting someone else to pay. Hence you're the product getting sold.
You'd be surprised how immature guys can get. I'm in second year uni, but just 2 years ago I had a hard time learning boundaries of "guy, leave me alone." Looking back, I know it was stupid, but when you're immature and caught up in the moment, you can't expect the best behavior.
They closed down the shops without a business license, they closed down the shops selling fake apple products. They let the store that was selling real apple products with a legal business license keep goin. What's wrong?
Please, patenting DNA (erm, my grandmother's ass's cell's DNA is prior art) or copyrighting what 2 monkeys at typewriters can come up with is pathetic. Normal people aren't excluded from making money, unless it's in a field with a lobby group. Then, your product is bad for the people, is not safe enough, or will cause the world to end.
I'm not necessarily against businesses trying to profit, but basic economics state there is no profit to be made in any field, and companies are screwing the consumer too hard trying to prevent that from happening.
If you're talking about how Japan doesn't require students to go to school past 15 and therefore their system is worse than your US system, Cuba pays for your med school. Does that mean US is worse than Cuba?
It's not a RIGHT to go to school, it's being pushed as mandatory. Japanese kids still have the right, they just choose not to exercise it.
Most other countries also have a world map and students who can pin 25 countries up. You try doing that with American kids.
Thing is, my high and middle school forbade Wikipedia while purchasing subscriptions to sources such as Britannica and telling us to use it. The worst part is that you (and my 12 year old sister) can tell the information there is far inferior to Wikipedia.
Focusing on the Copy part might be bad... but it'd be worse if people focus on the Right part. It isn't a Right by any law of nature. For the same reason people shouldn't not be sued or even penalized in any way for quoting "Four score and seven years ago", there is no RIGHT to copyright. Monkeys at typewriters... monkeys at typewriters.
If it's impossible for your small folk to keep tabs on only your data, then how do you want Google to keep track of EVERYONE's material? If it's so simple, you can always do a google search RSS of the keywords that leads to infringement, but then you need to put in the human labour yourself to filter the results.. Google does not want to be liable for blocking sites because of over-zealous IP owners, because then they'll feel the wrath from site owners.
Unless I'm really mistaken, the publisher misstates Pirate Party's platform in trying to cause his argument. Do I sense a libel case? I mean, he's talking about infringing on rights, which I don't consider being paid for everything you come up with one.
Allow me to correct your dashes:
It seems pretty obvious that a film maker makes money from the thing they produce—films. I really don't think that needs to be spelled out any further.
Since editors usually get paid for their work, I think you should pay me too.
An illegal viewing ≠ a lost sale. Would you pay the $100 (hypothetical) that a filmmaker demands? No. But if you got to watch it free. You watched it. Does it mean the filmmaker lost $100 just because you watched it?