• 3 Posts
  • 48 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle




  • Disagree, without IP laws whoever has the most money can crush all competition. An example of this is how the first pump hand soap softsoap couldn’t patent the hand pump design because it already existed so they just bought all the existing stock to prevent anyone from releasing a competing product.

    If you get rid of IP laws you’ll just further entrench the existing winners.

    Write a good book? Without copyright, Penguin random house publishes an exact copy at a higher quality and sells a million copies while you sell a handful to discerning fans.

    Build a quality product? Without trademark, proctor and gamble flood the market using your brand name and nobody can distinguish their products from yours even though their quality is much worse.

    Invent something revolutionary? Without patents you have to keep your process a secret so you don’t get copied. If you get hit by a bus your invention is now lost to society forever unless someone manages to reverse-engineee it.











  • The Haunted Mansion was decent, it made me want to see LaKeith Stanfield star in more fun adventure movies (something like Brendan Frasier’s The Mummy).

    Wish was a mess, it felt like they wanted to make a Disney multiverse movie but chickened out and just made a bland Disney movie that constantly references better Disney movies (mostly Snow White to the point where you wonder if Wish is intended to be its prequel). A couple songs were decent but the bulk them felt unpolished and forgettable, like they needed a few more edits and re-writes to come together. The anti-establishment themes were weak and made me wish I were re-watching Nimona instead.

    The Marvels was good as a Ms. Marvel TV special but not as a Captain Marvel blockbuster.






  • Sorry, I meant they generally have no authority over the content of cable broadcasts because it would violate the first amendment.

    Example From the link you posted:

    Section 505 states that cable operators or other multichannel video programming distributors who offer sexually explicit programming or other programming that is indecent on any channel(s) primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming must fully scramble or block both the audio and video portions of the channels so that someone who does not subscribe to the channel does not receive it. Until a multichannel video distributor complies with this provision, the distributor cannot provide the programming during hours when a significant number of children are likely to view it In 1996, the Commission adopted interim rules to implement Section 505 of the 1996 Act. The interim rules established the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as those hours when a significant number of children are likely to have access to and view the programming. However, before the rules could take effect, Section 505 was challenged in the courts and a federal court in Delaware issued a decision (Playboy Entertainment Group v. U.S.) which determined that Section 505 is unconstitutional