You elected Obama. The first time, because you thought he would fix things.
But the second time AFTER his betrayal.
What makes you think people still want to elect somebody to "fix things"? Because, apparently, now they elect the ones that fight whistleblowers, have people assassinated with drones, snoop on everyone and generally behave like fascist assholes.
This is totally great. Because Rutledge a) doesn't understand what this is all about (business, of course, making money), and b) an honest confession what HE thinks it's about: control (control, control, fuck the money, we're not here to do business, it's about control).
Let me rephrase that: We're going to put people into prison because of civil disobedience, because they've still got the morals to stand up for the state of law and help their fellow citizens and protect their human rights.
historically, as new technologies come along, copyright has a lot of trouble dealing with them.
Not quite true. While the US copyright first indeed ignored compositions, drawings and paintings, there is otherwise nothing new until the advent of the computer that would have made the copyright act of 1790 unworkable.
But other early copyright laws were much more generic. They speak of "work" and not of "printing" but only of "publishing", and they also don't have clauses for "sheets found in possession" and such, making them indeed work with any technology that comes along.
The only reason people are duct-taping around the copyright is because they perceive some new technology as threat. And not because the copyright itself couldn't deal with it.
Ah, no. It doesn't matter how small the pixels are, all it matters is how BIG they are. Because you just don't want to see the pixels.
They can be as small as they want (and, with analogue films, they're really really tiny, they're the film grain), and you don't need to sit any closer because of that.
Of course, there could be more details to be seen if you go to the border where you nearly can see individual pixels, and it makes economical sense not to have pixels so small you can't discern them anyway, no matter the distance.
So for 136cm diagonal at 3m, 1080p is only "optimal" in the sense that you don't "waste" any resolution. Lean forward and you'll see pixels, go backward and the field of view gets smaller.
An d actually, Macauley was right with absolutely all of his predictions:
And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
And, something these "get-rid-of-non-trade-barriers" guys don't seem to factor in, is that these are often the work of democracies. That is, these have sometimes been the work of the actual citizens demanding these barriers, not just some government agency mandating it.
So if the majority of the population is opposed to allowing genetically modified foodstuffs, what do you think the majority of the population will want to eat when the barrier falls?
It is difficult to see how anyone can support such blatant destruction of culture.
Oh yes, I can.
Old works are essentially competition to newly released ones.
So if they can get "Starship Troopers" for free instead of paying for "Ender's Game", that's obviously a situation detrimental to the income of the author of the latter work and fixed by not letting "Starship Troopers" become public domain.
Actually, some Danish police officers already saw this as well, and are putting up resistance against the law.
One guy noted: "I've not become police officer to rob refugees" and that his grandparents had been in the Danish resistance (against the Nazis) and would not have appreciated his grandson "breaking gold teeth out of the mouth or extracting valuables out of the underwear of refugees".