This is the thing. It seems to work particularly well in a last will and testament. (Because the dead have more legal power or something.) There are sometimes ways around it, given the language, but it already sounds like the artist does not, indeed, have a leg to stand on.
Oh, I don't know. The overlay station IDs and show promos (and i think some actual ads) became so annoying they were toned down a bit.
People still complained any time the advertising per hour increased.
But remotes and DVRs and a trip to the fridge or loo are great for commercial breaks in a passive viewing scenario too. You are absolutely right about the internet, i just don't know that what they did with the tv model really always worked for tv so well, either.
They are saying that a government body that regulates how ads can behave is censorship and taking away choice of the corporations and consumers.
Just like net neutrality and privacy rules do, somehow. Remember how television was destroyed by limiting the amount of ad time? Or the inability to advertise cigarettes? Remember how much better TV became when they were allowed to start advertising prescription drugs? Yeah, me too!
I can't help but think of this in terms of literature, but it happens in every art form: Sometimes a work is entirely a commentary on another work. Books, they may not be next to each other in a library, given the filing system, but in a bookstore they may. But physical proximity is not terribly relevant. The fact that a thing exists and people know about it is enough.
So Joe Haldeman should never have been allowed to publish The Forever War, right?
As to advertising, well omg you got advertising in my propaganda. Fainting couches for everyone!
Absolutely! We need access and the ability to collect and compel production of even greater amounts of potential "evidence", and remove all obstacles which make it slightly more difficult for us. We also need to continue manufacturing crimes wholesale. But heaven forbid we actually process, examine, and test any such potential evidence properly, keeping in mind what evidence is actually for, and trying to reach the closest approximation of the truth and serve justice by stopping guilty persons from further bad acts. And just what would you have us do about parallel construction, lying to the courts, exceeding our investigative authorities, and withholding evidence (of any quality) from the defense?
You would so hamstring law enfarcement? Look, you are at risk. Either from criminals, or us (and the actual criminals we don't catch because we put someone else away for the crimes.) Take your pick. Choose wisely, citizen. Choose. Wisely...
This means that the three websites will soon be rendered unavailable by Eircom, Sky Ireland, Vodafone Ireland, Virgin Media Ireland, Three Ireland, Digiweb, Imagine Telecommunications, and Magnet Networks.
It is rather besides the point, but there are how many ISPs in Ireland?!
I am sure the lesson taken here by DiGiovanni and his ilk is to learn a small modicum of self-control and immediately and fatally shoot the person they decide to molest instead of enjoying a little of the old ultraviolence. They won't talk back after that. Not in court or anywhere else.
You realize the the whole system was lock-in. It's like trying to get more than a small percentage of people and corporations to walk away from Microsoft.
They _have_ to publish _somewhere well-known_ and be _cited_ in order to get anywhere at all. To get or keep a job, to get research funded, for anything. Critical mass had to be reached and the publishers had to keep increasing their egregious behavior until the _organizations_ back the academics, or at least don't punish them for not publishing in the major outlets (which restrict the rights to open publishing).
Never mind the fact that government agencies fully allowed this behavior to occur with publicly-funded research for ages when these public institutions could have simply been publishing openly themselves (especially anything funded by federal agencies) since long before the internet.
You want the organizations that perpetuate that system to show the the door to the last few generations of people who fought for better or open access and better communication with the public? Good plan there.
The lower court -- realizing it was being asked to step in and act as a proxy parent for the teen's internet use -- handed down a lengthy list of restrictions supposedly aimed at keeping the teen from committing further criminal acts. This included several restrictions on the teen's internet use, for reasons only apparent to the lower court.