"They've grown accustomed to the leaky way that the web handled content"
How is it that the web should be responsible for handling content? And who exactly is the web anyway?
"Then look at the youngsters like Louis CK. They're embracing paywalls and new techniques that help the crowd actually fund new content."
Are you telling me that someone found a way to make money on the internet? They can fund the creation of new content too?? Someone at the MPAA/RIAA should give him a job so he can show them how to do that too!!
If you are somewhere small enough that there are NO big boxes around, I'm not sure you have a big enough population that would support a niche retailer like a record store. The big boxes are pretty much in most towns of any size.
The article is bullshit. EA purchased a license from the NCAA. It isn't their problem after that. I am quite certain that when a player agrees to play for a school they sign an agreement covering this type of thing. If players have an issue they can take it up with the school or choose not to play.
I don't think its all that novel an idea. It seems pretty common sense to me.
Either way it seems like this is an idea. You can't patent ideas. Did Facebook/Zynga copy some invention or even some code of the plaintiff's that made this possible?
These types of patents make no sense to me. It talks about methods of doing this without being specific to what that method is. It seems is all you need to get a patent is a few pictures and some super general descriptions of how you wish something would work.
No to the DRM! I'd like to be able to stream it from my NAS to my Boxee box. Or play it on my mobile phone. Or play it next year on whatever device I decide to buy.
Over-complicating this with DRM, special shops, etc is just going to make illegal measures more appealing. Especially if there is no good reason why making a copy with my pc is illegal. I already own the disc in this scenario so why does it matter?
It is very sad that use of a public speech would ever be a copyright issue like this. The entire idea behind Dr. King's speech's was to spread his message of equality and tolerance to any that would listen.
The lawyers sue who their client asks them to. Mike's point is that Disney/Marvel already won. There was no need to kick him while he's down. That sends the message that they don't give two licks about the artists.
Common sense filter? I doubt it. This kind of thing makes me wonder if these aren't automated arrests- some software picks up certain phrases and issues an order to have someone arrested. Then they bother with details like facts and such AFTER the arrest.
"But at the 11th hour, a flood of e-mails and phone calls to Congress stopped the legislation in its tracks. Was this the result of democracy, or demagoguery?"
So a lot of people learned of this and chose to take the time to tell there Congressman to put a stop to it? And he's not sure if that's democracy? That is EXACTLY what democracy is supposed to be. The people make their wishes know to their representatives in Congress and that Congressman acts on their behalf like he was elected to do!
This is what these folks are really afraid of. The internet gives people the ability to discuss things, get information, and speak out about it if they choose. They can make their voice heard to their elected officials instantly. Instead of seeing this as a boon to democracy they are scared to death.
What are they trying to do here? Are they trying to get some type of favorable court ruling to set future precedent? There is no way that they think this could get them any payment- there's nothing left. This move has to be costing them money in legal fees
"It's still lazy as hell, and the "statement" is not improved by it. It isn't parody, it isn't some sort of grand political statement, it's someone doing a quicky thing in photoshop and pretending to be an artist.
The second work would be much better if the artist took the time to find a similar subject, to locate a suitable location, to dress the person up with perhaps funny cardboard cutout blue glasses, and then taken the image home to "add" the guitar. it would have allowed them to focus on what in fact they were choosing to make a statement about, and focus on it."
All of this is your opinion. The thing about art is that it is very subjective to each person. While you don't see anything more than some jerk playing around with Photoshop, perhaps the artist and others in his audience see some type of meaningful social commentary. This commentary would be possible without using the existing photo.
The whole point of commenting on something in this fashion is that the existing work already has a social or cultural message associated with it. Getting someone to model for a new photo isn't going to work because that photo doesn't have the same meanings associated with it.
Besides, trying to make meaningful social commentary on your own stuff is usually hubris more than it is art.