I don't think the grouping (IP-intensive and non-IP-intensive was arbitrary. That grouping is based on per employee R&D expenditure (pp 13).
With that definition in mind (i.e. IP-intensive = High R&D spending, and not placing too much emphasis on "Property" part of IP), I would agree with the author on all 7 numbered points he/she makes in the abstract. But the conclusion seems unsupported ("As such, protecting the intellectual
property derived from innovation is essential to the future of a wide range of American industries").
Are you against applying shield law only to journalists (against applying to general public)?
If no (you want shield law for only journalists), then should bloggers be automatically considered journalists (i.e. what if somebody blogs just for the purpose of qualifying as a journalist and to have ability to hide information).
If you scroll down all the way to the bottom (to movies part):
“After the commencement of the Copyright Amendment Act, 2010, the producer and the principal director shall be treated jointly as the first owner of copyright,” according to the draft.
That is huge!
The Bill also seeks to introduce statutory licensing to broadcasting organizations to access literary and musical works and sound recordings. A statutory licence or compulsory licence is a copyright licence to use content under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. For example, radio companies don’t need to obtain permission from the copyright holders to play a song, but must pay usage fees to the copyright holders based on how often a particular song is played. Intellectual property rights lawyer Saikrishna Rajagopal said the provision of licensing was welcome from the point of view of the broadcasting industry.
FYI, the music industry is pretty weak in India and has little clout. Most of the popular songs are from movies and movie industry has a lot of say.
First, if you are opposed to sales tax then you should advocate removing it (You live in CA. Protest there to repeal one of the highest sales taxes in the country). Not just oppose it on internet purchases.
The next issue is who should receive it (if it right to tax at all). Is it the state of the seller or the buyer? If infrastructure is considered then I think the tax should go to the seller's state. I am not yet convinced though. Any arguments for or against? Note that states do tax out-of-state purchases. Is that right? Same principle should be applied to internet purchases also.
Unless these issues are settled I think it is premature to talk about NC Amazon issue. Let us assume NC deserves to collect taxes how can it get it back without Amazon's help? Or how does it deal with any out-of-state in-person purchases?
Although only a tenth of a film's revenue comes from theaters I think there is definitely a strong correlation between theater earnings and total earning of a movie (it would be interesting to validate disvalidate this claim through hard data though).
Earning 1/10th of a money in a few weeks is not bad thoughh especially since recovering the other 90% might take years.
You are confused between yoga and ayurveda. Ayurveda system has drugs and surgery (one example is use of turmeric which was traditionally known for its antiseptic and anti-inflammatory properties. Go search USPTO for turmeric and you will find about 800 patents which are basically hashes of these basic properties. See http://www.goodnewsindia.com/Pages/content/traditions/turmeric.html for more info.)
Many musicians with full knowledge surrender their music to such for a few (thousand? million?) bucks. Once they they become famous they suddenly start acting saintly as if they don't care about he money and how much they love the art.
CSM's name comes from a donor. It is NOT a christian newspaper. Given your ignorance I don't think you are capable of finding the relevant wikipedia article. So: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Christian_Science_Monitor .
"So rather than taking them down, shouldn't police use them in court as a proof of the said uploaders breaking the copyright law?"
Without the help of youtube it would be impossible to find the real "culprits". The greater threat is youtube releasing the info of ppl who uploaded those videos. IMHO it is worse that making youtube remove those videos.
I agree with your first point though. Just demonstrating the fraility of the software should not be a offense.