In general I would agree with you, but on subjects like law or finance or medicine, there are good reasons that formal advice is restricted to people with sufficient qualifications, and those reasons make just as much sense on-line. I'm not objecting to offering an opinion or sharing personal understanding with good intentions, I'm just objecting to presenting these as if they were statements of fact.
We seem to be having different conversations. I didn't express any opinion about what you just asked. I just said that your statement that "only the owner of a copyright can enforce it" was wrong.
I advise you to not post your "legal advice recommendations" in an online forum meant for people to hold discussions about relevant topics.
This whole discussion is basically about copyright law. How is challenging objectively wrong information about copyright law not relevant to the topic?
You understand the exact same applies to what you just said yourself?
No, it doesn't. Firstly, you are objectively wrong on this. Secondly, my comments here are based on formal legal advice as it applies in my jurisdiction (the UK).
What is not objective legal knowledge but merely my personal opinion is that posting bad legal advice, and in particular posting incorrect information about copyrights to a forum with a tendency to be less than respectful of copyright, could actually get someone who believed you in trouble. And if you don't think anyone reading Slashdot would believe you, please consider that your objectively wrong post is currently at +5, while my warning citing a specific and verifiable counterexample is currently at 0.
Only the owner of a copyright can enforce it.
Please don't post legal advice without appropriate qualifications. The above isn't the whole story in many jurisdictions, as there are other factors such as exclusive licensing to consider.
There's nothing wrong with hearing the news later, but people with mobile devices will hear it earlier and clearly a lot of people value that ability to stay up to date and use their time for something interesting when they're just in a coffee shop for a few minutes or on the train home. If you don't value that, then of course you personally don't need those devices.
The phone really brings nothing to the table.
Perhaps not for you. I know plenty of people who go out a lot for business meetings and don't need to take a full laptop any more, because they can get any urgent messages via their phone or other mobile devices. In our household we often use a phone or tablet to get directions and travel news if one of us is driving but has a passenger with mobile Internet. Sometimes it's just nice to get news that your friends got engaged or someone's baby arrived safely when you're out, and mobile social networking apps can tell you. Sure, you could also do all of these things with a laptop, but only if you left it turned on all the time, and it still wouldn't fit in your pocket.
I'm sorry, my bad. For 99.9% of serious content creation, they are just not the right tool for the job. For the last 0.1%, they are a good enough tool to get the job done by a sufficiently skilled practitioner if efficiency is not a consideration.
I simply cannot accept the proposition that people are -- willingly -- going to accept a future of either creation or consuption on these restricted devices.
If you mean exclusively on small factor touchscreens, sure, I agree. An iPad isn't going to replace a dedicated home cinema room any time soon, or a hardcore gamer's custom rig, or a CAD workstation at the office.
But for routine use, that ship already sailed. Smartphones are ubiquitous when people are out. Tablets are becoming ubiquitous around the house, for the kind of household that used to have multiple PCs or laptops instead. Bazillions of people are quite happy sending e-mails, checking Facebook, or catching up on a missed TV show on these devices, and for many of those people that already meets the majority of their needs.
Not everyone cares about playing AAA games on a PC (they have consoles for that) or running business applications (they go to work for that) or writing software. And to a first approximation, no-one cares about command lines. Real PCs aren't going anywhere for those who do want to do these things, but there's no point pretending that a water-cooled 4th generation i7 is necessary for reading e-mail.
nope, modern laptops are just as good as desktops now. Apart from the small screen (which can be good as a secondary thing to run your email or whatnot on), the laptop has as much power as your desktop.
An average laptop might have as much processing power and RAM and disk space as an average desktop, but the upper bound on a desktop is still far, far higher. To pick an example someone mentioned earlier, you can't get a lot of laptops with dual fast processors and 64+GB of RAM, which is a good but realistic specification for a professional CAD workstation. If you're rendering video or working with high quality audio, you might be thankful for a local RAID array with a few TB of capacity (as well as the large SSD for OS/applications and probably networked storage for larger capacity, obviously).
Also, in terms of peripherals, laptops are stuck in the dark ages. I'll take my two large monitors (try driving 8+ megapixels from any laptop's built-in graphics), my ergonomic keyboard and mouse, my real graphics tablet for sketching and precision work, and my real surround sound speakers over whatever feeble imitation the best laptop you can find has to offer, thanks. Sure, you can plug all of these into a modern laptop (until you run out of USB ports, at least), but if you're going to do that and shove the laptop out of the way, you've just bought an expensive and less reliable/upgradeable desktop anyway.