Not exactly. Apple wants no competition for devices. Their margin on their own devices is huge. They would rather pay Samsung double what they are now and have an iPhone monopoly than pay 1/2 and only have 1/2 the market share.
It's illegal to host I'm sure, and illegal to look at.
However, it's not actively filtered. So you could browse a site hosted in a country where it isn't illegal, and most likely get away with it.
That's the thing about the internet that has lawmakers scratching their heads. It's become so easy to visit other countries, they don't know how to enforce laws any more. That's why so many of these attempts seem amateurish and perplexing (at best).
This is just the kind of punishment needed to make companies think twice about frivolous lawsuits.
Just put a reasonable limit on length of time and that fixes 90% of the problems (even something semi-ridiculous like 50 years would be better than what we have now).
I think you're ignoring a big aspect of Amazon's plan.
They want everyone to sign up for Amazon Prime. That means enticing people to use even more of their services (remember free 2 day shipping on everything). Amazon Prime also has a ton of video on demand available to subscribers.
So, I think the Kindle's plan is more complicated than you posited and you can't summarize in one sentence.
HBO's main business these days is making things people want to see. Not giving access to people trying to see it.
I'm not sure it would be in their interest to get in that business. Partnering with other companies who provide the access and focusing on making content is probably what HBO should do.
Now getting HBO on Hulu or Netflix might be a very wise decision.
One minor point is that slideshows on websites are absolutely designed to get more page view as each picture opens a new page with more ads.
If you're not relying on ads for income it would remove the incentive to make these annoying slideshows, but not the content in them.
So you should get less annoying slideshows.
I scrolled down here to post about this, and found you're post at #1. Well done.
Wouldn't this mean Google would have to pay money to every website on the planet?
It looks like he missed the biggest reason behind Webster's worries.
Someone was profiting from someone else's work. This is definitely unethical and what copyright laws should be written to protect.
It is totally different from sharing work with someone else.
Could a band sue on the grounds that using on of their songs could make the crowd think it was implicitly supporting a candidate?
In other news all the stupid Facebook games are exactly the same.
Plausible deniability
I think the NSA actually wants people to believe they're lying with no way of proving it. That makes them look competent with no recourse to stop them.
I mean afterall, shouldn't an intelligence agency be good at lying?