Even if you never watch the BBC or any TV, you have to pay it. As long as you can receive BBC it is assumed you watch it.
You don't really have a choice to pay it and need to resort to fraud to get around it. It is a tax in everything bu the name.
In principle, requiring a fee to be paid for property you own and operate in your own home is ridiculous.
You're arguing semantics. When the companies name is a phrase or slogan, it had to be changed.
Do you have a source for KFC voluntarily renaming to PFK?
I remember a story about a guy who got fined each day until he put an apostrophe in his name. Ridiculous.
And you didn't address the rest of my post.
I lived in Quebec for a year. Québécois are assholes.
They petitioned the rest of English speaking Canada to be bilingual, meaning all signage is in both languages, but they don't reciprocate.
Go into any store and there is no english signage. Whats more they are anal enough to sue stores because an apostrophe is in the wrong place, and force KFC to rename themselves to PFK (french for kentucky fried chicken). Even the french don't do that.
I think it says it all when people give you dirty looks if you speak english, and that they get insulted by the term peppers. Québécois drink a lot of pepsi stereotypically, and are offended by this being pointed out.
I was glad to get out.
England is a country. The UK is a state/nation.
Always looking for water looking for life, or where the 6 building blocks for life as we know it could form.
That's what we know and it makes sense, but there are surely other types of life that have different building blocks.
My argument is that public transport should not be a source of profit.
Public Transportation should be free or heavily subsidized more than it is.
Pay politicians less, cut out zoning pricing crap and don't pay the unions so much or give them so much leeway.
And if you deny it can you still play the games you previous bought?
It doesn't matter if they are doing business in Finland unless they have an offfice or HQ in Finland.
Serving a Finish language site doesn't equate to doing business in Finland.
Because the living or dead status of the author is an important consideration in what I proposed. If you want to use Shakespeare, then the 'dead' status applies. If you want to postulate a case invoking the 'living' status, choose a living author... its not like they are hard to find.
At least you admit you attacked a strawman. That's something.
I chose Shakespear because the movie Baz Lurhman gave us is a radically different interpretation that the author may have opposed had he been alive. It's hard to choose a living author when copyright law has disallowed concurrent interpretations of an authors work for so long.
Likewise, ACD may not have approved of the comedy interpretation of Sherlock Holmes in the last hollywood interpretation. Doesn't me we shouldn't have it just because the author likes it.
Lots of reasons. The most obvious one is that a highly derivative work is much easier to produce. Just as patents grant monopoly on production for the invention, so too does copyright. Creating a compelling and interesting setting, that catches mass market appeal is hard. Hitching your wagon to it is easy. Copyright should reward the hard part. That is the contribution to our culture. Theres no reason to go out of the way to skew benefit towards the low hanging fruit of highly derivative work.
So, your main argument here is that those who create derivative works profit when most of the work was done by the author of the original work?
That's speculation at best, and even then it's irrelevant. A derivative work still requires a lot of work to be good and allow people to like it and be anywhere near as popular as the original. It may be as popular or even more popular, and that could well be because it is better. In which case, why deny it from our culture?
The only reason is greed, and thankfully it's something that is going to be impossible to enforce in coming decades.
I know Shakespeare is not alive. That's why I said IF he was. Not sure why you felt it necessary to attack a strawman.
a) He really shouldn't have to compete with his own creations.
Why? Competition is good. If people like the original, go with the original. If people like a derivative, let that succeed...maybe he will take ideas from it and work it in.
Its not JUST about the money. Maybe the author doesn't want some shitty Hollywood hack job done to his book directed by McG starring Justin Bieber. Or a no budget straight to DVD release put out by one of those crappy TV movie-mills. I'm willing to give the author the right not to see that done to his work while he's alive, if that's what he wants.
Why? He can still make his official versions/movies how he likes, but why bar versions he won't like?
If Shakespeare were alive he might have hated Baz Lurhmans take on Romeo and Juliet, but I think it's better that we have it, even if not everyone likes it.
Ravens, Magpies, Elephants, Octopuses...all intelligent, perhaps more so than Dolphins.
American. USian is not a fucking term.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
