DATACOMMANDER

>Much of the streaming work is "security by obscurity" -- the systems only provide security because the end user either: 1) lacks the technical knowledge to save the data or 2) lacks the desire to do so (presuming they do possess the technical knowledge)

That's what I thought. I do think that a streaming video provider can provide added value, especially for live streams--e.g., by providing adaptive bit rates--but the terminology itself has a strong "wishful thinking from the business side" smell to it.

I only watch TV for sporting events. In my area, there’s currently a legal battle going on between the “regional sports network” that has negotiated broadcasting rights with certain major teams and Comcast, to whom the RSN sells the programming. Comcast declined to renew their contract, so games played by those teams are blacked out for Comcast customers. The RSN is arguing that Comcast has a monopsony on the purchase of programming from RSNs, and that their goal is to replace them with a subsidiary of their own. The original complaint and Comcast’s quick motion to dismiss show, if nothing else, that the RSN is legally out-gunned. It’s possible that 5G could provide an economically viable alternative distribution method—i.e., “over the top”—for the RSN.

It isn’t though. If you download someone’s work for your own enjoyment, you can plausibly argue that if you’d had to pay, you wouldn’t have been interested, so there’s no money that you’re taking from them. When you illegally sell someone’s work, there is necessarily money that should go to the artist but doesn’t.

No, it’s really not.

Selling copies of an artist’s work without their consent is categorically different from making copies for your own personal enjoyment.

“ For me, this all raises two questions:

Who’s responsible for this infringement?”

Both the company that wrote the algorithm that submitted the request and the company that responded by creating a listing.

“What responsibility do print-on-demand providers have to prevent infringement on their platforms?”

All of it. The company that submitted the request also has all of the responsibility. It doesn’t have to be split between them. They are both 100% responsible.

(Disclaimer: IANAL)

This is a repost. They can transmit one bit (rotate or don’t rotate) with about 85% accuracy. That’s not nothing, but it’s not that much either.

Also true. See, e.g., Breaking Bad ;)

Okay.

Actually, most fortunes go to zero within a few generations. The “1% squared”—the top 0.01%—is not a monolithic group of people. I’d wager that 90% of the 0.01% had grandparents who were not even part of the 1%.

Real-estate speculation is basically rent-seeking, but inheritance is not. If someone amasses a fortune by creating wealth and leaves his assets to his offspring, they are not parasitic even if they never work. What matters is how the wealth was originally accumulated.

I used to have Georgist/geolibertarian sympathies, but my feelings now are pretty much the opposite (and no, I’m not a homeowner). In general, the rich do not create the poor. Moreover, communities have no obligation to make it easy for newcomers to overrun them.

Edit: Thanks for the downvote! Please remember to leave your shitty, entropic ideology when you flee the city you ruined.