According to FOX, the viewer skipping the commercials results in the "clear goal of violating copyrights." Even if the broadcast program is considered a protected work from start to finish, inclusive of all content broadcast with it. Isn't FOX implying that they also by extension own the copyright of all the commercials broadcast within a program?

I'm sure the producers of the commercials would have a few things to say about that. Also, might the original producers of programming (movies especially), might consider the insertion of content within their product and copyright asserted to the end result as a whole, a violation of THEIR copyrighted material.

With all the earthquakes that happen undersea every year, the is some major ocean fllor remodeling going on. Of course the zero sum model that they are pushing also must mean that the ocean volume change because of tectonic shift is also zero sum.

A few thousand square mles of ocean floor raising a couple inches will have more of effect to sea level increases than all man made activity over the last ten thousand years.

I'm suprised that they haven't blamed hunting beavers in the 1700's for an increase in sea level changes because all the beaver dams that would have been built would have prevented ONE TRILLION (pinky to upper lip) gallons of water from entering the sea.

Let's just call it what it is. The worlds largest Pump and Dump. The company produces nothing, manufactures nothing, and exists only on the perceived goodwill of its users. It exists only as long as it can balance data mining private information of its users, and its users tolerence of it. To grow (financially, not user base) it must become even more intrusive as pressures to satisify investors grow, to the point where users will abandon it for the next social media fad. At that point it will have to rely on lawyers to use patent law suits to quash competition. Users at that point will no longer be considered or treated as members, but property of FB.

It's probobly a group of ex Righthaven lawyers with some free time doing pro bono work to stay sharp.

Forgetting about the argument if the OS being owned or licensed by the phone owner, the actual hardware is owned by the user. And even assuming that the cell providers were complicant in installing the software... Any software installed without the consent or knowledge of the user is using processor resources. Would the use of use of clock cycles without permission be considered theft of services? Before laughing, too hard, imagine what would happen if someone broke into any corporate computer in the world and was running processes without consent. The scale of the hardware isn't relevent. The face that someone bought a piece of hardware with certain advertised specs, but was denied 100% access to them because a third party unknowingly was hijacking a certain percentage of them for it's own uses.

So instead of traditional aging, it time warps it...