Completely unlike the cable companies of course, who demand huge tax breaks and other financial incentives to lay out networks, fail utterly, and then basically bribe their way out of fulfilling their half of the bargain by getting them pet politicians to nullify the deal after the fact.
No, you're completely right, municipal broadband always fails, and taxpayer funded private broadband always delivers, so clearly people should be blocked from being able to decide where their taxes are being spent. /s
Nah, setting it at 0 works fine, because if it changes at all, then that means they've received at least one order for a given category, even if they can only list the range as 0-999.
The usual government trick won't work here, where a company can only give a range including 0, therefor making it impossible to tell if a company has received 0 orders or several, because they've already set the baseline, and any deviation will indicate a change.
The rights of non-authors and artists? Violated. AC's concern about it? None.
Such a douche.
Be careful what insults you fling, lest they be easily thrown right back in your face. 'Authors and artists' aren't the only ones with 'rights' to be violated, and while you may not care about the rights of the public, some of us most certainly do, and don't see 'Protect imaginary property rights at all costs' as an acceptable idea.
Oh that's not just a GEMA trick, the US collection agencies pull that stunt too, where they'll 'collect' for everyone's music, but only pay out to the top acts, leaving everyone else screwed.
Hopefully a separate collection agency will help, but given past actions in the courts in Germany, which seem to bend over backwards to give GEMA anything and everything they ask for, i can't help but think the 'competition' will be hamstrung somehow, and/or GEMA will still demand to be paid for everything regardless.
Your second and third points seem to directly contradict each other. First you say that artists don't have to sign with GEMA, and then you say that even if artists don't, GEMA still treats them(and their music) as though they did.
In a situation like that, I imagine most who sign with them, assuming they're smart enough to do their research on the matter, do so not because they want to join GEMA, but because they feel they have no option not too. Either join and maybe get the 'benefits' of doing so, along with the downsides, or don't join, and only have the downsides.
Yes and no. The frog will hop out, because the increase in heat is immediately noticeable, and has an immediate effect on said frog.
If you slowly ratchet up the rights and power of the government and/or private companies, while you slowly wear away the rights of the public though, assuming you do it right most won't even notice. Does this make people dumber than a frog? Well, sorta. The loss of rights, if handled 'properly', does not cause an immediate change to the majority, so most people don't realize that the 'water' is heating up until it reaches the 'boiling' point, at which it's basically too late.
The stats are two years old, so they might have shifted some, but according so Smashwords, the 'ideal' price-point for an ebook is in the $3-3.99 range, which sells at a rate of 4.3x compared to a $10 ebook.
In response, the USTR falls back on its standard lame reply, about how draft texts are not "final."
Whether they get want they are demanding or not in the 'final' version, the fact remains that the positions listed are the ones they are arguing for.
As a hypothetical, if someone is arguing in favor of burning down every third house in a town to 'stimulate the economy by increasing demand for home builders and the purchase of home furnishings', even if the idea is shot down as being completely insane, that was the position they were in favor of. That the idea was ultimately rejected does not stop this from being the case, so it doesn't matter if the texts aren't final, they are still the positions being argued by the various parties, and an indication of what they are in favor of.
No, it's ensuring job security and justifying their current budget.
Only watching actual suspects takes a lot less 'wiggle room' in the law, which would remove the excuses for why they need to grab Everything, and it would also require a lot less money, which means their budget would take a hit next year.
By insisting that they need to spy on everyone, all the time, they maintain their power(if not expand it), and keep their budget nice and insanely large.
"Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy,"
Now there's an absurd name if I've ever seen one, given who it's coming from. As far as they're concerned, the 'balance' is completely one sided, with 'Privacy' always being tossed out the window as soon as they claim that what they're doing is related to 'public safety'.
They have no interest, at all, in preserving a 'balance' between privacy and public safety, all they care about is access to all the data they want, whenever they want it, with the minimum of hoops like warrants to jump through, all in the name of 'public safety'.
Perhaps, but coming from a member of the 'traditional media', which absolutely loves to blow things out of proportion when they're not flat out making stuff up, the accusation against the internet of 'overreacting' is more than a little funny and hypocritical.
Less 'what was said', and more 'who is saying it' as it were.
Good thing none of those involved other than the low ranked grunts have any interest in actually decreasing substance abuse then, otherwise they might have to consider re-evaluating their tactics and actions for being completely ineffective at decreasing drug use.
What are you talking about, the politicians involved don't face any personal risk at all. Any lawsuits brought about by corporate sovereignty clauses won't be targeting their money, and with the attention span of most people, probably no-one will remember that they sold out their countries should a lawsuit be brought.
On the other hand, you can be sure that those writing the agreements are being less-than-subtle about the rewards and punishments for those that help or hinder their desires, and that the politicians are very much paying attention to, as that does affect them.