What the airline industry has done is amazing. Had they fixed the seats in place so they could not move at all people would be directing their ire at the airlines for the cramped conditions. Instead, they let you recline your seat one inch and, incredibly, passengers are angry at each other rather than the airlines. It is stunning, the industry created an issue and then found a way to make passengers blame each other rather than the airline.
I don't know if there is a name for this tactic but there should be if there is not.
What the article doesn't mention, maybe because it's not a global thing yet, is that non-reclining seats have been introduced in the last year. On flights within Europe I haven't had a reclining seat in ages, no matter whether flying on an LCC or flag carrier. I don't think there was any uproar about that change.
I am not an expert in this field by any means but, Planet Money did a piece recently that suggested some people are putting forward a serious theory for how a profit-price spiral would work. Again, not an expert, but the reasoning ng seemed sound. Link here:
I use Feedly Classic which is clocking in at around 37 MB. But I am looking at the other apps on my phone and the majority of them (maybe 90% roughly estimating) are well over 59 MB. Chrome, for example, is almost half a gig. What device are you using that 59 MB is an issue and are you also eschewing all the other apps that are that big or larger?
It's clear that one is a mirror image of the other with minor Photoshop edits. I think it's clear to just about everybody. I don't believe you are arguing in good faith.
IANAPS, but I don’t think these are minor ps edits (or that it’s even ps) after overlaying the two and sliding the opacity. That’s a grey area no doubt, and the source of “inspiration” is clear, but you’re probably overtrivializing it.
I don't think the claim is that it's literally Photoshopped. It's a painting. It could be a painting of a Photoshopped version of the photo, or the changes could have been made while painting. There isn't any legal basis for distinguishing between digital and physical works here -- a copy is a copy, and a physical copy with alterations is as much a derivative work as a digital copy with alterations.
Would you consider an oil painting that exactly duplicated the photograph to be sufficiently different to not be covered by the original artist's copyright?
I think if the painting were perfectly identical than it'd be just a reproduction and it should violate the photo's copyright, but even if such a thing were possible for a very skilled artist to pull off, I don't think that'd be something that happens very often. I'd guess that most artists would have a hard time not making changes.
We want artists to be protected from outright reproductions of their work, so that'd include minor low effort changes in photoshop made just to get around copyright. Artists should be free to create their own versions of existing works though. Copyright is supposed to encourage the creation of art after all.
OK. You should make it clearer that you're arguing for a weaker system of author's rights, not just making claims about the current system. I favor copyright reform but what you're suggesting would destroy the ability for artists to commercially exploit their work.
What? That doesn't even make any sense. Aside from the CLI I can think of almost half a dozen GUIs off the top of my head. All different interfaces for Git.
> Try this - have the lowest ranking engineer announce they’re going to go have drinks and see who follows. Track that number for ten announcements.
Out of curiosity, what outcome do you expect? This thought seems incomplete, I think, maybe, because the outcome seems obvious to you, but it is not obvious to me.
