Wow, does he really do that? That's literally one of the oldest rich-scumbag tricks in the book, (in The Book, even!), seeing as how Isaiah (est. 8th century BC) condemned it.
In a study commissioned by the CTIA, 74% of users said that they would be more likely to watch videos offered by a new provider if the content did not count against their monthly bandwidth caps.
So the ISPs are good guys for exempting attractive, high-demand services from the data caps that the ISPs themselves established.
If Superman used his laser vision to set a building on fire, and then rescued everyone inside from the flames, would people still call him a hero?
Are corporations the only group of like minded people you think shouldn't have First Amendment rights as a group? You aren't arguing that an entity like the NAACP shouldn't get First Amendment rights when they put out a statement from the organization as a whole, are you?
A person--including an officer of or spokesperson for a corporation, the NAACP, or any other organization--has a First Amendment right to free speech. The organization itself is a different matter. Crossing that line opens up a huge can of worms, as we have seen and are currently seeing in our own time.
As far as I can see, all of the problems arising from Citizens could be fixed with campaign finance reform, so I don't really see it as a corporate personhood problem myself.
Most of the legal scholars I've seen who have looked at the problem say exactly the opposite: the only way to fix the campaign finance problems caused by the Citizens United decision (in a way that could not be trivially overturned by the courts under the precedent set by the Citizens United decision, at least) is a constitutional amendment doing away with the concept of corporate personhood.
If you deny corporations *all rights* (for example the right to own property) then corporations could not exist.
I never said they should be denied "all rights". Corporations should be denied human rights, such as a legal recognition of personhood and the right to free speech, because a corporation is not a human being. This in no way interferes with the concept of ownership of property held in trust for the human owners of the corporation (the shareholders).
You might have a point if it wasn't for the simple, easily-observable fact that the fascists are the ones benefiting most from corporate personhood, at the expense of churches, unions and trade guilds, museums, zoos, schools, and ordinary people in general.
BTW look up the word "fascist" sometime. It has a very real, very specific meaning, and it's not "government doing something I personally find objectionable or think is an overreach."
I don't think that the Citizens United did anything more than clarify that one specific right can apply to corporations. It's not this huge boogeyman you seem to think it is.
Then you haven't been paying attention to the real-world consequences that have come about as a direct result of that ruling. But "corporate personhood" was a thing--and a very real, very serious problem--long before the Citizens United decision.
Watch the documentary The Corporation sometime, and bear in mind that the entire thing was made years before the Citizens United v. FEC court case was even filed, much less decided by the Supreme Court.
And thus, it's effectively claiming that the lawsuit seeks to stifle its First Amendment... protected right to play music on the radio? A weak argument, yes, but perhaps on purpose.
Insofar as any argument that a legal-fiction entity that is not a human being has Constitutional rights is inherently wrong and ridiculous, yes, but if we disregard that, as the current legal structure unfortunately does, I don't see why it's a weak argument. It's actually kind of brilliant.
US legal doctrine since pretty much forever has been that the airwaves are owned by the public, and leased to broadcasters. Therefore, sending out a broadcast is the exact radio analogue of public speaking, which absolutely is covered by the First Amendment, which (theoretically at least; in practice we've seen this is not true) trumps copyright law.
It would be very interesting to see a ruling on the merits of this legal theory.
One example is a grandmother on a fixed income who uses email but doesn’t watch online video.
I've never understood that term, "fixed income."
As a professional computer programmer, I'm on a fixed income too: no matter what hours I work, I make the same amount. (When you're not retired, they call it a salary instead.) Except that if I wanted to, I could change my fixed income by finding other employment... exactly as our hypothetical grandma could. In fact, one of the hallmarks of the current generation of grandparents (the Baby Boomers) is that statistically they're working a lot later in life than expected and not retiring when they're "supposed to." (Which is putting a real squeeze on Millennials, but that's a whole other topic.)
So what exactly is this "fixed income" people are always talking about that holds grandparents back financially?
First off, cops aren't being targeted with any more regularity than they've ever been. In fact, the last time cops were "targeted" at a level anyone rational would consider to be a problem was during Prohibition, nearly 100 years ago.
(insert graphic showing anti-police violence near historical lows and in a clear downtrend)
...
Law enforcement officers work in a violent business. They will often find themselves in situations where they may be injured or killed. This is part of the job.
As ugly as this is--and I'm not saying it isn't--it's worth pointing out that this is by no means a new thing, nor unique to Fandango or movie ratings.
Did Karl say we need more government? What we definitely need is more effective government, and you don't have to be a genius to realize that when you elect people who believe government is necessarily, inherently incompetent, you'll end up with an incompetent government.
On the one hand, ugh, obnoxious frivolous lawsuit.
On the other hand... I kinda hope he wins.
No, no, bear with me here. It would be really awesome to see a precedent set in which the use of an automated system to take down legitimate content became an actionable tort punishable by some really serious damages. That is exactly the ruling that we've been needing for several years now, ever since ContentID came out if not longer.
...which is probably why it'll never happen. But hey, we can still dream, right?
Google: Don't be evil. Facebook: Don't even bother pretending we're not evil.
Looks like I was wrong, at least partially. Looks like we've finally found one case in which Facebook wants to pretend as hard as possible that the evil thing they're doing is not evil. That really ought to underscore to everyone just how evil this plan is!
Actually, it was my job, not by choice. (No, seriously. I spent some time as a video game tester. Got to play some really fun games before they ever came out... and a bunch of not so fun ones too.) I never actually owned an XBox, any generation.
Considering that Plato considered slavery to be a natural and necessary part of the ideal republic, it might be a good idea to look at other options...
It would be a lot easier if they could just get around to finally releasing another worthwhile Final Fantasy game. 12 was sort of OK, but really the only truly good one I've seen since the end of the cartridge era was FF9, and most of the rest have utterly sucked.
Oy. I seriously don't get how Halo ever became a thing. I mean, the first was maybe worth playing, simply because it was pretty much the only thing even worth playing at all on the original XBox, and so if you bought one expecting a bunch of awesome content this was the one thing that could justify the purchase, but it was nothing new or groundbreaking or innovative, and 2 and 3 were pretty much bog-standard FPSs. (I didn't even bother with anything after 3...)
On the post: While Most Of The Rest Of The Internet Industry Is Fighting Against CISA, Facebook Accused Of Secretly Lobbying For It
Re: Zucker Dirt
On the post: The EU Prepares To Vote For Awful, Loophole-Filled Net Neutrality Rules
So the ISPs are good guys for exempting attractive, high-demand services from the data caps that the ISPs themselves established.
If Superman used his laser vision to set a building on fire, and then rescued everyone inside from the flames, would people still call him a hero?
On the post: The EU Prepares To Vote For Awful, Loophole-Filled Net Neutrality Rules
I'm gonna have to report you to the Department of Redundancy Department for that one.
On the post: While Most Of The Rest Of The Internet Industry Is Fighting Against CISA, Facebook Accused Of Secretly Lobbying For It
Re: Well... yeah
On the post: CBS Radio Says That It Doesn't Play Pre-1972 Music, Because All Its Old Songs Are Remastered
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A person--including an officer of or spokesperson for a corporation, the NAACP, or any other organization--has a First Amendment right to free speech. The organization itself is a different matter. Crossing that line opens up a huge can of worms, as we have seen and are currently seeing in our own time.
On the post: CBS Radio Says That It Doesn't Play Pre-1972 Music, Because All Its Old Songs Are Remastered
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most of the legal scholars I've seen who have looked at the problem say exactly the opposite: the only way to fix the campaign finance problems caused by the Citizens United decision (in a way that could not be trivially overturned by the courts under the precedent set by the Citizens United decision, at least) is a constitutional amendment doing away with the concept of corporate personhood.
I never said they should be denied "all rights". Corporations should be denied human rights, such as a legal recognition of personhood and the right to free speech, because a corporation is not a human being. This in no way interferes with the concept of ownership of property held in trust for the human owners of the corporation (the shareholders).
On the post: Competitor Steps In To Offer Toxoplasmosis Drug For $749 Less Per Pill Than Martin Shkreli And Turing Pharma
Re: Old price is wrong
On the post: CBS Radio Says That It Doesn't Play Pre-1972 Music, Because All Its Old Songs Are Remastered
Re:
BTW look up the word "fascist" sometime. It has a very real, very specific meaning, and it's not "government doing something I personally find objectionable or think is an overreach."
On the post: CBS Radio Says That It Doesn't Play Pre-1972 Music, Because All Its Old Songs Are Remastered
Re: Re:
Then you haven't been paying attention to the real-world consequences that have come about as a direct result of that ruling. But "corporate personhood" was a thing--and a very real, very serious problem--long before the Citizens United decision.
Watch the documentary The Corporation sometime, and bear in mind that the entire thing was made years before the Citizens United v. FEC court case was even filed, much less decided by the Supreme Court.
On the post: CBS Radio Says That It Doesn't Play Pre-1972 Music, Because All Its Old Songs Are Remastered
Insofar as any argument that a legal-fiction entity that is not a human being has Constitutional rights is inherently wrong and ridiculous, yes, but if we disregard that, as the current legal structure unfortunately does, I don't see why it's a weak argument. It's actually kind of brilliant.
US legal doctrine since pretty much forever has been that the airwaves are owned by the public, and leased to broadcasters. Therefore, sending out a broadcast is the exact radio analogue of public speaking, which absolutely is covered by the First Amendment, which (theoretically at least; in practice we've seen this is not true) trumps copyright law.
It would be very interesting to see a ruling on the merits of this legal theory.
On the post: Slate Informs Its Readers That Confusing, Unnecessary, Anti-Competitive Broadband Usage Caps Are Simply Wonderful
I've never understood that term, "fixed income."
As a professional computer programmer, I'm on a fixed income too: no matter what hours I work, I make the same amount. (When you're not retired, they call it a salary instead.) Except that if I wanted to, I could change my fixed income by finding other employment... exactly as our hypothetical grandma could. In fact, one of the hallmarks of the current generation of grandparents (the Baby Boomers) is that statistically they're working a lot later in life than expected and not retiring when they're "supposed to." (Which is putting a real squeeze on Millennials, but that's a whole other topic.)
So what exactly is this "fixed income" people are always talking about that holds grandparents back financially?
On the post: More Legislators Think Underprivileged Cops Need 'Hate Crime' Law Protections
Say what now?
On the post: Fandango Games Movie Reviews So It's Technically Impossible For A Film To Suck
On the post: Nearly All Tech Hardware And Services Get Cheaper Over Time -- Except For Cable TV
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Musician Demands Google, Major Labels Pay Him $325 Million For Removing Videos He Paid $30 To Upload To Vevo
On the other hand... I kinda hope he wins.
No, no, bear with me here. It would be really awesome to see a precedent set in which the use of an automated system to take down legitimate content became an actionable tort punishable by some really serious damages. That is exactly the ruling that we've been needing for several years now, ever since ContentID came out if not longer.
...which is probably why it'll never happen. But hey, we can still dream, right?
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee: 'Just Say No' To Facebook's Plan To Bastardize The Internet
Looks like I was wrong, at least partially. Looks like we've finally found one case in which Facebook wants to pretend as hard as possible that the evil thing they're doing is not evil. That really ought to underscore to everyone just how evil this plan is!
On the post: Egyptian TV News Uses Video Game Footage As Proof Of Russian Precision Strikes Against ISIL
Re: Re: Re: Re: the US
On the post: Larry Lessig Dumps His Promise To Resign The Presidency In An Attempt To Get People To Take His Campaign Seriously
Re:
On the post: Square Enix Tries Being Cool And Embraces Fan-Conversion Of Original Deus Ex
Re:
On the post: Egyptian TV News Uses Video Game Footage As Proof Of Russian Precision Strikes Against ISIL
Re: Re: the US
So what's the deal with Halo?
Next >>