The one who makes the claim is the one that has the burden of proof on it. You made a claim, I was asking for the evidence supporting it.
Based upon the source, yes, it looks like he does stand to handsomely profit if he manages to get his disastrously stupid idea into law, meaning his motives might not necessarily be 'just' a stupid knee-jerk level response.
Let's see, trust an agency that has a vast history of lying to be telling the truth this time, or assume they're lying or at the very least being misleading in their comments.
The NSA has completely and utterly destroyed any trust or benefit of the doubt they might have enjoyed, the default assumption on anything that might decrease their power should always be that they're lying through their teeth about it.
No discussion about blazing fast theoretical speeds would be complete without bringing up the huge, massive, and industry caused flaw that makes it an entirely moot point:
You could have a 100 gig per second connection and it wouldn't do you any good as you'd almost immediately slam right into the usage caps so many of the companies in the industry love so much, such that you'd either be paying vast sums in 'overage' fees and/or quickly have your connection throttled down to the point where you might as well still be using dial-up.
Beyond the fact that they're hyping something that doesn't exist at this point, even if it did they've ensured that the extra speed is useless as anyone who actually put it to use to any real extent would be swiftly and harshly penalized for doing so.
Yes, of course, because clearly the best response to protests against the government and an increasingly rising sense of anger against said government is to attempt to silence people so that they can't learn about it.
Completely ignoring why those protesting are doing so and merely addressing the what is a surefire way to make things all the worse long-term, even if it might make the problem seem less prevalent in the short-term.
Not so sure about the 25/25, as the data I've seen seems to indicate that most things lose most of their market value in a matter of years rather than decades, making a possible 50 years slightly excessive, but a set duration completely independent of lifespan, with the option to 'renew' early does seem like an interesting idea.
However, there is little it can do to prevent the content from being uploaded initially.
There is one thing that could be done. It would completely and utterly destroy services that revolve around user submitted content, but it is a 'something' that could be done:
Pre-screen all submissions before allowing them to be posted. The only way for user submitted content to be posted is if it's vetting beforehand.
To say this would be disastrous to service that host user submitted content is an understatement of the level of 'The surface of the sun is kinda toasty'. Very few sites would be willing and able to deal with such a requirement, and even those that could would see a massive decrease in use of the services and the content they could show.
The idea he's proposing isn't just stupid, it's dangerously stupid, and would cause massive harm to the spread of ideas and creativity that the internet allows.
Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans, in particular the excuse they used to fine him. This strikes me as a 'You made the rest of us look bad' retaliatory action, where he had the audacity to make public something that makes people in powerful positions look bad, and even worse threatened a lucrative and easy source of money, so they fined him to try to shut him up.
Hopefully the judge sees this as the blatant attempt to silence someone that it is and hands out a hearty benchslap to the board.
I'd say the reason for the rush is nicely summed up with this line:
The current Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, on the other hand, has been reviewing candidates for months now and is likely close to having someone in place.
If Carla Hayden has already filled the position they would then have to justify removing that person to replace them with someone of their own choosing, which would be a harder sell as they'd have to come up with some good reason to do so.
By preempting Hayden though the choice is entirely in their hands, and the delay might actually be a part of the plan, as it keeps the position empty, and therefor unable to do any 'harm' to those that own them, allowing the biddi- ... donatio- ... 'helpful advice' as to who is more 'qualified' to the position to pour in from 'concerned parties'.
Maybe if they were so concerned about protecting the public they would have informed MS about the vulnerabilities immediately, as soon as they found them, so that they could be patched, rather than waiting years to do so, only when they realized that someone else had rooted through their toys.
Spare me the crocodile tears, the NSA doesn't give a damn about the impact on the public here, the only thing it cares about is that some of the toys it has are now less useful for it to exploit.
The funny thing is, whether ripping legally purchased movies or downloading them, Thad would be breaking the law either way so long as the blu-rays had any form of DRM infecting them.
Download a movie without paying for it = Breaking the law.
Ripping a legally purchased movie so that you can watch it how you want and/or make a back-up copy = Also breaking the law.
People that try to operate within the law have to deal with numerous obstacles and annoyances, things that those that go straight to the infringement option don't have to deal with, and if they try to mitigate those obstacles and annoyances they're breaking the law anyway.
I can only imagine how many people facing that sort of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' issue have decided to skip the 'pay for content' step entirely, since if they want it on their terms they'll be breaking the law regardless, and the latter option is cheaper and involves less hassle.
These people can whine about education all they want, but no one is buying their lies.
What makes the 'We must educate the public' mantra extra funny is that they benefit from a lack of an educated public in maintaining what 'respect' for the law people may have.
When people see copyright as focused on 'protecting creators' and difficult to violate such that you have to go out of your way to do so, then they're more likely to respect it and consider it good, and see violations as a serious problem.
Inform people that the ones talking about 'education' tend to be affiliated with if not actually members of groups that screw over artists at every opportunity, that it's absolutely trivial to engage in copyright infringement such that pretty much everyone has done so at some point whether they know it or not, that the possible penalties for doing so are completely and utterly insane, that copyright is for all intents and purposes eternal...
'Education' is a problem, but not as they seem to think it is, as I believe that the less educated people are on the law the more likely they are to support it, whereas if people knew what an absolute mess it really is they'd likely be all the more against it.
It may not be overly different currently, but the law is attempting to change that by essentially removing the 'malice' requirement for libel charges involving a public figure.
As I understand it under normal circumstances the bar to reach for a libel charge to stick is higher for 'public figures', such that it requires a showing that the person making the libelous speech be proven to have done so with actual malice. They knew what they were saying was wrong but said it anyway. This higher bar in in place to avoid the chilling of speech, as people might otherwise be afraid to say something 'unpleasant' about a public figure for fear of being hit with a libel suit to shut them up.
What the law is attempting to do is make it so that unless a public figure is known world-wide(because that's the reach of the 'community' known as the internet), then they don't qualify as a public figure, and as such the bar for a libel lawsuit is lowered such that they don't need to show that the person knew what they were saying was wrong, simply saying it is enough, so long as the statement was made online.
The respondents don’t appear to be particularly bothered by their habit. Only 7% of the people questioned say they feel guilty when they watch a pirated movie, the remaining 93% experience no guilt.
Clearly the only possible response is more education, and by that I mean more threats, harsher laws, and bigger punishments. Obviously the only reason those heinous criminals don't feel guilty is because they don't know about how you can be slapped with fines large enough to buy a house if someone really has it out for you, due to the fact that a single instance of copyright infringement causes demonstrable, measurable harm in the thousands if not more to the economy.
If they knew about the life-ruining consequences and the quadrillions of damages to the economy that copyright infringement causes on a daily basis I'm sure they'd go right back to jumping through the numerous hoops to get all their content the legal way like a good little citizen.
While they've got the attention of hysterical parents, they should take the time to highlight other potential 'criminal gateways'.
Let a kid fiddle with taking stuff apart and putting it back together, and they might end up trashing houses for laughs. Or get a job designing and/or repairing stuff.
Let a kid play around in the dirt and try their hand at gardening and the next thing you know they've got a dozen-acre weed farm. Or go into more legitimate farming.
Let a kid watch shows about automobiles and how they're put together and before you know it they're out stealing cars and stripping them for parts. Or I suppose get a job in the field of automobile repair.
Let a kid get away with blatant lies and misrepresentations of the facts and the next thing you know they go into politics, lying through their teeth in order to further their own careers, or fearmongering for the same reason.
Truly, the threats to the minds and morals of tomorrow's youth are legion.
Oh if you want real humor just check the comment section of an article talking about how a label/studio screwed over an artist using sleazy contracts.
Suddenly the 'piracy is a horrible crime because it takes money away from it's rightful owner, the artist!' types are tripping over themselves to say that there's absolutely nothing wrong with screwing an artist over with a contract that gives them pocket change(if that) while the studio/label rakes in the money, and anyway, if the artist doesn't like the deal it's their fault for buying the lies told to them and not expecting the other party to do everything possible to hose them over.
While I'm sure there are people who defend the law because they really are interested in the artists, with a good many others you don't have to scratch the surface very deep at all to get them to reveal who they're actually interested in 'protecting', and how it's anything but those 'poor, victimized creators'.