Hardly. She didn't pick out and install Windows, did she?
Personally, I've installed three different versions of GNU/Linux on computers I own (Ubuntu, Mint, and Fedora) but I've never been able to install Windows. I did try; I removed my Linux installation, stuck in my Windows install CD, and did my best, but I failed. I've stayed with FOSS OSes ever since.
You may not search me in my house You may not search my kids or spouse You may not search me in my car You may not search me at the bar You may not search me on a train You may not search me on a plane You may not search me here or there You may not search me anywhere I do not like this searching scam I do not like it, Uncle Sam
"The decision held that authors, according to common law, had the exclusive right to the first publication for perpetuity, but the right was annulled once the work was published." From this site: http://www.copyrighthistory.com/donaldson.html
In other words, artists can choose, at their own discretion, to publish or to not publish, but once they do publish, they have no right, or at least no common-law right, to prevent others from republishing.
So we truly have a worst-of-both-worlds situation: Aereo's business model is something that only cable companies are allowed to do (because it feels so much like cable), but Aereo is not allowed to be a cable company (because it's on the internet instead of cable).
Taken together, the Aereo and ivi rulings create an environment where competition is treated as theft. This is very bad news.
A hopeful prospect... and wouldn't that be weird, to see the ruling against Aereo transformed into a mechanism for rescuing net neutrality! I'd love to see that.
But I worry about the prospect of giving the FCC more power to decide who gets to transmit. How easy is it for the FCC to not grant a license to anyone they don't like? How much pressure could legacy industries put on the FCC to deny licenses? If the incumbents can control the licenses, then they're still in charge and this has all been for nothing.
I know what the law is, Whatever. And I know that it is wrong. Just as official state religion could not coexist with freedom of religion, copyright cannot coexist with free speech. Our collective failure to acknowledge that is becoming our collective undoing.
The "safety valves" are failing. "Fair use" has nearly been defined out of existence and negated by DRM, the "idea/expression dichotomy" is impossible to define (leaving it open to massive abuse), the public domain has been continuously shrunk (sometimes retroactively!) and the penalties for disobeying have grown. Meanwhile, the resources used to police copyright have massively expanded. The more we need safety valves, the less they work.
The only principled exceptions to free expression are against threats and against lies. Exceptions for the sake of profit are only good for protectionism.
My argument is that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision, both against Aereo and in Eldred & Golan. I call myself a "Free Culture fanatic" because I don't see any way to reconcile copyright with free expression. The law, as it is written and interpreted, is not to my liking, so I'm trying to change the law by publicly pointing out the injustice in it.
Get serious, Michael. Grocery stores relying on IP? Now, if you were talking about trademark, I could see where you were coming from, but this isn't a trademark-like situation. Since we're talking about downloading, this clearly has to do with copyright, and most grocery stores don't rely on copyright at all.
Until the day comes when I can get my bread and cheese off of Bittorrent, Winco can count on my continued patronage, and the retailers will do just fine.
It sounds like the FAA consulted Creative Commons on this one: "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."