If Google wants to force full names, they should start by changing LadyGagaVEVO to StefaniGermanottoVEVO, KatyPerryVEVO to KatyHudsonVEVO, and SnoopDoggVEVO to CalvinBroadusVEVO before bullying the rest of us.
One of the most disturbing things about HTML5 is the "living standard" idea. "Living standard" is the same mentality as the DVD-CCA and Region Coding.
There is no way we can trust corporations like Microsoft to act in the interest of "compatibility" for hundreds of years! They already proved themselves crooked after HTML5 - the DRM proposal was an attempt to hard-code DRM into every HTML page on the Internet!
Also note the "rating" meta tag, which is forced to use the proprietary RTA(R) system rather than self-rating by webmasters. If I self-rate my site "general" or "14 years", will I be put on a blacklist just because of a pre-HTML5 industry-decided "relic"?
Why doesn't anyone protest this trust? While fixed standards may be corrupted by Hollywood and special interests, they (like other fixed standards) are optional to use, without subjecting Web sites to the mercy of a trust?
I for one am glad there will continue to be reliable fixed standards, protecting the Internet from the long-term will of Big Government and Big Business.
How is News Corp. a foreign company?
Incorporated in Delaware; headquartered in NYC; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ; the chairman/CEO (Murdoch), president/COO (Carey), CFO (DeVoe), and about 1/2 the rest of the board are US citizens; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ
How much more "American" do you want it to be?
The only thing I'd wish for: keep it there (together with the ex-Ozzie Murdoch) and don't let it outside... but that's not going to happen, is it now?
Sorry, thought News Corp. was an Australian company.
After looking things up:
MPAA: Disney, Viacom, Sony*, News Corp, Vivendi**, Warner (4/6 American companies)
RIAA: Vivendi**, Sony*, EMI**, Warner (1/4 American companies)
Wasn't life + 90 years enough copyright?
"Wasn't life + 90 years enough copyright?"
It's not about copyright term length. It's about increasing the profits of the failing companies behind him, no matter how much any individual, or any other business in the country, has to suffer in any way.
It should also be noted that only one of the Hollywood companies is an American company, all the rest (BMG, News Corp, Sony, etc.) are foreign companies.
I wonder how this would fit in with corporate customers of the participating ISPs and the loss of business hours that could occur, since even if nobody is falsely accused by mistake, a lot of these copyright issues are subjective and are subject to the judicial system.
Could the participating ISPs be held liable if a company's business is disrupted through no fault of their own (or if the company has a case and is willing to take the issue to court)?
The document is loaded with contradictions and seems to call for more Internet regulation, according to their "7 questions" list.
#1 Is this a core function of the federal government?
#2 Does it execute Constitutionally defined duties?
#3 Does it protect Constitutionally defined rights?
#4 Does it protect property rights?
#5 Does it protect individual rights?
#6 If the federal government does not do this, will others?
#7 Will this policy or regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will it distort the market for political ends?
#8 Is this policy or regulation clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations?
In addition, he seems to be hinting at trying to ban voluntary use of copyleft, permissive licensing, and banning public domain status as much as he possibly can. He is calling voluntary contracts like GPL and CC "collectivism" which according to every libertarian figure is the exactopposite of collectivism.
Why regulate the Internet at all?
That should be the only question:
#1 Will it regulate the Internet?
I am extremely disappointed in the Pauls for having abandoning libertarianism in favor of statist regulation.
Recently I saw a TV ad for Internet Explorer. I thought it was kinda strange that Microsoft (or any company) would have to spend that kind of money to promote something that's free and already included on your target market's computer.
Anyone here think this could be the next ShamWow?
"Early this week an independent researcher, reviewing video archives of the BBC's 9/11 coverage, divulged the discovery of an earth shaking incongruence. BBC reporters announced the collapse of the 47 story Salomon Brothers Building 23 minutes BEFORE the actual sudden collapse. This building, also known as WTC 7, is clearly visible, standing tall, as a reporter gestures to the live view through the window behind her.""
"On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.
This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.
9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.