I also find it ironic that many right wing pundits blasted the Pope Francis for daring to speak out against the "idolatry of money" contending that he didn't understand Christianity. It's not that hard to find many places where Jesus said the exact same thing.

Um what? USC clears says "the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright."

No, the statute spells out conditions to be met before a use is considered fair use; however, once it is considered fair use it is also declared as not an infringement.

Or a lawyer reading USC 107 before filing a lawsuit against a defendant. If copyright holder needs a judge to intervene then they have to pay for a lawsuit.

Please explain how a school has fewer rights than an individual or news outlet when showing the same clip.

Really? So no one in this world has any common sense? So Lessig using a small clip of music, talking in an educational lecture about how music in different cultures is classic Fair Use. It doesn't take a super computer to figure this out.

My point again for which you didn't answer is this: The MPAA and the RIAA still have the stance that any use not authorized by them is an infringement. USC 107 clear codifies that Fair Use is authorized use (just not by the copyright holder but by law) and is not an infringement. If it takes a judge to say so for each and every case only if the MPAA and RIAA want to pursue each claim. But that does not change USC 107 or the legal interpretations of many previous cases like Lenz v Universal.

That's a lot of nutjob conspiracy accusations without any evidence there. Dell has green initiatives, and I can without a doubt say Al Gore has nothing to do with them.

Dina Dublon knows nothing about software yet she's on the board of Microsoft. I daresay, most of IBM's board knows nothing about IT services. Having technical knowledge about a company's products isn't a requisite for most boards.

Unless you are present and have firsthand knowledge of the Gore's interaction with Apple, you can't claim this.

A simple Google search and Apple's announcement shows you that she's in charge of Apple's environmental programs. I would think that her job at the Environmental Protection Agency would qualify her for such a position.

But that's if you buy today on the open market. As a high-level executive of Apple since 1998, Cook has had plenty of opportunity to get stock in company through compensation and purchases. In fact he was awarded 1M shares when he became CEO of Apple in 2012. I doubt the NCPPR has more shares than him.

As a head of a company with possibly millions of bosses, I would think that not insulting any of them would be impossible. If you read more about the NCPPR it would appear that this boss has a specific political agenda and the truth is what they say it is. For example, what Tim Cook actually said:

What they claim: "Mr. Cook made it very clear to me that if I, or any other investor, was more concerned with return on investment than reducing carbon dioxide emissions, my investment is no longer welcome at Apple," said Justin Danhof, Esq.

Notice that nowhere do they publish his actual comments but their slant on it. Also if you read further:

But Business Insider reports it differently: "The second, in which the representative asked Cook to commit on the spot to only making moves that were profitable for the company, drew the most intense comeback we've heard from the executive."

So according to a reporter, the NCPPR wanted Apple, right then and there, to commit to do things that only show profit.

Of course, they are not done but insinuate hidden moves by Apple:

I'm not sure what the company the NCPPR is following but a simple google search came up with Apple's very public environmental reports.

Yes, ROI in terms of pure profit is not always in the best interest of a company. Longer term thinking, customer loyalty, good PR, etc are intangibles that may not appear in a balance sheet.

As people have pointed out before: Foxconn is not Apple's factory any more than they are Dell's factory (or any other factory since they make products for many, many other companies in that same factory). Let's not facts get in the way of a smear.

He's allowed to use Casablanca as long as it falls under Fair Use provisions which has already been codified. That's like complaining it's a conspiracy theory that Lessig is baiting the RIAA when he goes around showing people the music on his iPod. The courts have already recognized format shifting as a legal fair use.

I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theory that Lessig baited a copyright holder. Rather, he was doing what was well within what the law allows. A copyright holder not knowing or caring what the law is threatened to sue him. Perhaps they didn't realize who Lessig was or that he actually knew the law better than they did or they hoped they could intimidate him.

Also setting a precedent would have to be about something new in the case that was not previously in law books. There's nothing new about Fair Use exemptions to copyright. Even if it went to a court and Lessig won, all it would signify is that Liberation Music needs better lawyers or legal sense.

No, Fair Use is, by definition, not an infringement. That's what copyright holders like the MPAA and RIAA fail to understand. Any use without permission is not always an infringement; there are clearly established and codified exceptions.

Precedents are about setting new standards or interpretations of existing laws. Lenz v Universal, Capitol v Foster are precedents. Lessig clearly used the music legally as set by previous precedents of Fair Use. I think that you would rather that someone should make an example of Liberation Music for which I agree.

Windows 8 is not fine for most consumers. It also is pain in the ass for power users as well. You like it, good for you; the vast majority do not support your opinion. Vista was not fine. It was buggy and unstable when released. Also MS released for hardware for which it was unsuited. But to your point, Windows 7 is Vista fixed but MS charged full price for it. That's the point.

XP is the last the version that most systems with Core processors will run acceptably. The difference between MS and Apple is that MS always seriously lowballs the hardware requirements. Oh, Vista will "run" on Core processors but most consumers will find the performance unacceptable.

And many Windows programs compatible with XP are not compatible with Vista or newer. But MS has touted backwards compatibility as one of the features of Windows when it's not exactly true.

GM had a choice and they chose to move to Mexico instead of a non-union state all in the name of profit (they were highly profitable at the time of the move). That does not sit well with the generations of loyal workers and customers.