Media firms should be able to protect their copyrights. And without any copyright protection of digital content, they may be correct that new high quality content is likely to dry up (along with much of their business). Yet tech and electronics firms are also correct that holding back new technology, merely because it interferes with media firms’ established business models, stifles innovation and is an unjustified restraint of commerce. The music industry is only now embracing online sales (and even experimenting itself with P2P) because rampant piracy has demonstrated what consumers really want, and forced these firms to respond.
The Supreme Court tried to steer a middle path between these claims, and did a reasonable job. But the outcome of the case is nevertheless unsatisfactory. —Rip. Mix. Burn. (The Economist)
Rip. Mix. Burn.
How to Disagree Academically: Using Graham's "Disagreement Hierarchy" to organize a colleg...
A.I. 'Completes' Keith Haring's Intentionally Unfinished Painting
Seton Hill students Emily Vohs, Elizabeth Burns, Jake Carnahan-Curcio and Carolyn Jerz in ...
“The Cowherd Who Became a Poet,” by James Baldwin. (Read by Dennis Jerz)
Dr. David von Schlichten honors the spectrum of motivations (not always financial) feature...
Journalist flexes in story about Trump Media accountant who has spelled his own name 14 di...