the whole point of patenting something is so you can profit from commercializing it. If you aren't going to do that, you should not be able to apply for/keep a patent.
"Besides stupid teens there are blind people, bicyclers, men starring at women, joggers, etc."
Yeah well none of those people fell in this manhole, did they? Only a teen who was not watching where she was going. Sure, the city should have covered it up, no one is question that.
But the blame still belongs squarely on the girl.
And amazingly, I've never heard anyone lament the lack of songs being written by Mr. Rick Carnes. It's almost as if no actually gives a shit. Except Mr. Carnes, or course.
He can stop writing all he wants. Other artists can stop. Who the hell cares if they do? Other (smart) artists will take up the slack, and then some. Despite "piracy" more music and movies are being created that at any other time in history. And it's only going to get better.
"How was it his fault for using a public walkway, and falling into a hole?"
Uhhh... because he fell into the hole. Not like anyone pushed him in or something. Was that supposed to be a trick question.
You can play "what if" games all day. But the facts are that she was not deaf or in a wheelchair. Therefore, while the city may have been negligent, common sense tells you that the girl shoulders the majority of the blame.
"Going slow is not against the rules of the road. They may be a hazard..."
You can stop right there. Nothing else needs to be said.
Well, obviously we need legislation outlawing texting and walking.
It worked for driving. Makes perfect sense here.
Yeah, maybe 30 years ago. It's alright, I'll get off your lawn now.
"How is that any different than just using the original songs to begin with?"
It's different because the DJ cut it up and rearranged it. So the result is a transformative expression of the original. In other words, not the same song.
You know if the ISPs keep fighting like this, pretty soon these collection organizations are going to try and get into the ISP business themselves, starting their own under a shell company or just outright purchasing them. Imagaine if all the ISPs in the globe were run by the RIAA and it's equivalents.
*IF* that was their intent (and we all know it wasn't), that actually makes the situation worse because they are intentionally abusing the intent of desist letters. If they just wanted to make it clear they don't support it, then they should have done a press release. Now it becomes abuse.
"Added to that, many speed traps occur at the most problematic areas."
So this app is making people slow down at the most problematic intersecions 100% of the time (because the app can't tell you *when* a cop is there)... and that's a bad thing?
Wow.
If it'd happened to me I'd have the common sense to know intrinsically that it wasn't the fault of McDonald's, but the employee. I'd probably sue McDonald's though, because they have money and our corrupt justice system will likely allow me to take it.
Face it, this a 100% money grab by this couple. No one should be denying that.
"It's one of those things the rest of the world can not stand about us."
[citation needed]
"If you just type 'pirate bay' into any search engine, the real site comes up."
Funny how this works. The Pirate Bay is an index of torrents. Google indexes the indices of torrents. So really Google indexes torrents, too. If it's logical to say that TPB is guilty of CI, then any site who links to them should be guilty too, no?
Quite the slippery slope, there.
What if the segment in question was longer than 7 seconds? I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule as to how much of a work you can use for it to still be fair use. It'd have to be flexible.
Re:
If "Whether he would have purchased them if free were not an option is impossible to determine" is true as you say, then how can you state with certainty that "The downloader's actions deprived them of potential profits"?
That does not make any sense whatsoever.