Just my.02: My big complaint is that Binge On is all-or-nothing, where I would want at least per-app, but ideally per-video, granularity, which T-Mobile seems disinclined to offer. Instead, they seem to want to turn it on for everyone and count on everyone being lazy enough to leave it on.
For example: 480p may be fine, especially given the screen size, for fooling around on YouTube on my phone. But if I'm watching a movie on Netflix... maybe even streaming it to a full-sized TV via ChromeCast... I want the whole 1080p. Or maybe, sticking within YouTube, 480p is still mostly fine; but when a new Star Wars trailer comes out, damn straight I want it in full resolution. That's the level of control I'd want; not: "Leave the app you're using. Login to the T-Mobile website. Turn Binge On off for the whole account. Go back to my video app. Watch the movie I want to see in HiDef. Then go back and turn it back on."
Binge On is not a bad idea. But it's really half-baked right now, both functionally and with obvious use cases not being considered; and I'm surprised it was allowed to be released as-is.
The thing with buffering is that... well... it's not 1999 anymore. Buffering is a massive step backwards and, in the here and now, is a sign of a severely deficient network, a very poorly run video service, or an incompetently written app.
I suppose your next bit of advice will be to go back to using Real Player again?
Somebody should tell Zuckerberg that if he wants to channel Tony Stark, then he really needs to come up with an ARC reactor and some powered armor. Without them, he's just another douchey asshole*, whether he has JARVIS at home or not.
*As a point of fact, Stan Lee made Stark a raging asshole quite intentionally. It was a challenge to himself as to whether he could get readers to like the character nonetheless.
There are already a ton of localities making up their own patchwork of rules concerning "drones" because the word is scary and unpopular and doing so is a good way for lawmakers and DAs to make a name for themselves. This needs to stop now that the FAA is doing its job wrt/ the airspace as used by quadcoptors and such. The FARs, AIMs, and NOTAMs, for example, are federal and universally applied. And so long as a regular pilot is in compliance with them, it doesn't much matter what J. Random cop, DA, or mayor thinks. The same needs to be true for model aircraft operators, traditional or "drone" or whatever.
I saw it first at a generic AMC theater. That one was the only place my friends and I were able to get tickets on opening night. It was fairly standard-issue chain-theater awfulness. We went out later and saw it again at the new location of the Alamo Drafthouse that just opened up in town. It was fantastic, and I highly recommend giving them a try if there's one in your area. Pretty much every theater in town besides the Alamo has now lost my business.
I don't think that's too unbelievable if you acknowledge the expanded universe. The YT-1300 was supposed to be a standard, very common, and easily customizable, model of freighter. Setting aside Endor, where it was turned into basically a giant fighter, I always took it as the in-universe equivalent of the DC-3. They're everywhere, if a bit dated; and operated by everyone from private to commercial to civil service to military. And could you tell one of those from another on sight from the outside? Also, the Falcon itself was stated on multiple occasions to not look its part. All of that is exactly what you want for a smuggler's ship. At the same time, the flight controls are pretty standard. In fact, they're fairly similar across most aircraft. Now, as to why Rey, with her age and apparent background, is a crack pilot *at all*, non-specific to the Falcon, that's another (good) question.
As to the fact that the Falcon was unique on-screen; well... we only ever saw a single Firefly-class freighter too, didn't we?
And that's really all it had to do. Arguably, that's exactly and *only* what it had to do. Were it not for the prequels, episode 7 could probably have trod new ground, left out Han Solo, or been given to a director without quite the reputation as Ahrams. After the prequels, The Force Awakens really needed to be what it was simply to wash off the stink. Otherwise... well... look at Michael Bay and the Transformers movies.
In fact, that't exactly the argument that that the US government used in Wickard vs. Filburn to make the interstate commerce clause apply to pretty much any thing that like.
Though in this case, I do agree that airspace should be a uniform federal thing. J. Random local-yokel DA should not get to make a name for himself by prosecuting model aircraft hobbyists for made-up offenses because the word "drone" is unpopular these days. Nor should they be allowed to give jimmy-bob the OK to fire on them with shotguns. Can you imagine the national chaos is every state, county, city, property owner, or whatever, were able to make up its own rules over the airspace? Good luck catching a flight, operating an airline, or doing anything anywhere that has to do with aviation. In fact, the FAA has better than a thirty-five year history regulating model aircraft (And a healthy, productive, and reciprocal relationship with the Academy of Model Aeronautics) under advisory circular 91-57.
Yes, but with appropriate enforcement, the number and availability of guns, legal or otherwise, can be driven down to numbers such that gun crime is negligible. See for example: Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan.
There's no magic to it on their part, just a lack of political will on our part. All we need is for politicians to grow a pair and tell the NRA to go fuck itself.
Hell... I'm not interested in having kids in general. But if I ever change my mind on that one, I'll bloody well wait until I can be assured of having the money to put them through all the way in private schools.
I can't speak to what actual voodoo goes into insurance calculations. And I'm sure it varies state-to-state. So YMMV. But I've been rear-ended twice in my driving lifetime, filed a claim for the damage both times, and in neither case did my premium go up. I actually asked my insurance agent once if my rate would go up if I filed the claim because I was considering just paying out-of-pocket in order to avoid said increase. But she told me that when you're rear-ended it's pretty much a slam-dunk that the guy who hit you is always 100% at-fault. She told me the only exception is that if you're under the influence, on a suspended license, whatever when you're rear-ended; in which case you had no business being on the road in the first place, and then it flips, making you 100% always at fault.
I don't know about Spain or Ireland in particular; but the standards for attaining and maintaining a driver's license are much more rigorous and strictly enforced in much of Europe.
Whereas here, we pretty much hand them out at 16 as a matter of course. And it's all but impossible to lose it once you have it. When I got mine, the only instruction that was required was a 1-hour "Don't drive drunk." class (ie. no instruction in driving skills). And the driving test was done in about 10 minutes in a parking lot.
In North America, driving is pretty much a necessity.
This wasn't always the case though. Before the fetishization of McMansions out in the suburban sprawl, combined with GM buying out and shutting down many rail and streetcar lines in the cities; most people could get on just fine without owning a car. The trend over the last decade and a half or so seems to be for people to move back into the cities (To the point that San Francisco, for example, is practically bursting at the seams.). Aside from LA, the country's major cities are already fairly transit-oriented. And more are working toward that goal. Depending on the neighborhood, it is quite reasonable to live in SF without a car already.
I'm sure it'll be a while if it does happen. But I don't think it's unreasonable to hold out hope that the migration will continue, the McMansion fetish will end, and we can reverse the last few decades of bloody awful urban planning and clean out the sprawl.
Yeah. Almost all taxis I see these days are Praises too; about half of the UberXs as well. It's also pretty much the go-to if you'd otherwise buy a Camery, but you prefer the flexibility wrt/ cargo of a hatchback vs. a sedan. And they're manufacturing them now in numbers that the price premium for the hybrid drivetrain is minimal vs. said Camery.
There's pretty much no novelty left to them. They're just a good, reliable, mid-sized Toyota; but with better than usual mileage.
The bizarre thing about New York is not that it was damaged by a hurricane. They can be pretty devastating. The bizarre... and very troubling... thing is that Sandy, the hurricane that wrecked New York so badly, was only a category 1 hurricane. While no hurricane is exactly trivial, a cat 1 really is fairly weak sauce. For it do do as much damage as it did speaks to a vast lack of adherence to building codes and a very decrepit and sub-standard infrastructure. That's quite a concern considering the social and economic importance of New York.
When I lived on the east coast, a cat 1 was mostly an opportunity to get together with friends and use up our supplies of rum and fruit juice; and this was in Florida, which has neither the level of developed infrastructure nor the advantages of elevation and drainage that New York enjoys.
Brazil's government is fairly notorious for using onerous regulation, taxes, and tarrifs to prop up their local corporations, at the expense of international competition. This isn't even the first time they've gone after WhatsApp. Over the years, they've also tried to double-tax out-of-country internet services such as Netflix, Google, and Facebook, or to extort them into opening local subsidiaries; with varying degrees of success. Amazon eventually wound up having to give them their own AWS region because they were going after international data transfer. And it's bad enough that Foxconn, even, eventually set up a local factory to do manufacturing in Brazil instead of Asia because they'd jacked up tariffs on iPhones, iPads, and the like, to astronomical levels (higher than 30%, in come cases).
No doubt this is more of the same: Just another shake-down for cold, hard, cash. TFA even mentions that the local telecoms are upset that competition from WhatsApp is eating into their profits.
Not so much. You can guess an age range from plenty of data other than the birthdate (How many thirty-somethings will like or follow Diplo, Justin Bieber, or Meghan Trainor on Facebook, and pepper their posts with words like "ratchet", "yolo", and "bae"?). A margin of a few years either way is close enough for targeted advertising. And it's not hard to guess what birthdays will be the bogus ones chosen. Birthday listed as January 23rd, 1945, June 9th, 1969, or April 20th of any year, and the user's profile has the right likes and language? Advertise the hell out of that next Selena Gomez track, and you likely can't go wrong.
... if you didn't use a headset, and and you contorted your hand uncomfortably to bridge that gap while holding the iPhone to your ear, after licking or otherwise intentionally wetting said hand to make it more conductive, whilst placing a call in an area that already had sub-par reception.
Sure, Apple could have handled it better from a public relations perspective. But, when not in intentionally contrived circumstances, it was a very difficult issue to replicate. I had an iPhone 4 and never had the issue except when I did go through the rigamarole above.
"Perceived as being cool", by whom? Everyone I know who's seen one had the Daily Show reaction: "So... it's just a Segway without the handlebars?". No one thinks Segways are cool, and no one thinks "hoverboards" are cool. Rather; *everyone* thinks that an actual hoverboard would be awesome and cool, if they were to be brought to market. But no one is fooled by these frauds.
The advertising slot right before Star Wars has got to be just about the most valuable ad space in all of cinema. I'd guess it's more likely that the Anglican church did not want to or could not afford to (They're not exactly Catholic rich, after all.) pay the rate that the slot is worth; and the "don't want to offend people"is some PR flack's notion of trying to save face and make the theater chain look less capitalist.
I disagree on the "full-throttle" part. That's be fine on consumer desktops. But Linux is mostly about production servers. Yes, yes... I know... mainstream Linux on the desktop is "just around the corner" and all that.:)
I have no great love for sysV init scripts. Getting rid of them would break a few things in my world. But really, those things could probably stand a new look and update anyway. But my second-to-main issue with systemd is that it's just somewhat half-baked and obtuse. There's a lot of "don't look behind the curtain, just trust us that it'll work" to it. That'd be tolerable in a consumer OS, or even in a consumer-targeted Linux distort like Mint, but not in bloody RHEL and Debian!
My biggest gripe about systemd, though, is its counterpart in crime: journald. Binary log files are the work of the devil and journald needs to die in a fire. And no one... not even a couple of Red Hat engineers I've spoken with... has been able to give be a non-hackish, production-worthy, way of ripping journald out of the thing and replacing it with syslog.
No, I'm not against copyright in general. Though I do believe that the current legal climate favors the copyright industry far too heavily over individuals and even other industries (I wonder just how time, money, and engineering effort that could have been put to good use tech companies have been forced to waste in order to appease the copyright crowd, for example?).
But what I am completely against is the notion that it's okay to punish the innocent, in any number or capacity whatsoever, just to make it a little bit easier to punish the guilty. ANY punishment, even your "couple of weeks" of takedown, is an unacceptable, abusive, and undue burden if the accused has not, in fact, committed the infringement. Due process and the presumption of innocence are the fundamental rights I'm talking about; not a free copy or the latest Rebecca Black song.
Obviously, we're arguing in circles here. I don't think it's ok to jump straight to punishing the accused without proof or due process under any circumstance. You think that there should be an exception to that for the DMCA. We're just going to have to disagree on that. But I hope I've clarified my position. I'm not opposed to the notion of copyright in general; or even the DMCA in principle. I just believe that both need to be reformed. They have been misused and abused. That's happened far too much. And it needs to be out to a stop.
You're assuming that every takedown is, in fact, valid and that the material should be taken down. I maintain that plenty are filed that are not legit. There are ample documented cases of DMCA takedowns where this turns out not to be the case, fair use, not actually subject to copyright, not filed by the legit owner; these have all happened. In these cases you propose that it's a-okay to arbitrarily and summarily punish an innocent person. I don't hold to that. I'm solidly and irrevocably on the side of due process, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved, and that it's better for 1000 offenders to go unpunished than for one innocent to be made to suffer.
Frankly, when we're talking about fundamental human rights vs. the hypothetical value of some record labels latest 4-minutes of autotune, I say to hell with the value of the copyrighted item. People come before quarterly profits and share price.
Slashdot Mirror
Just my .02: My big complaint is that Binge On is all-or-nothing, where I would want at least per-app, but ideally per-video, granularity, which T-Mobile seems disinclined to offer. Instead, they seem to want to turn it on for everyone and count on everyone being lazy enough to leave it on.
For example: 480p may be fine, especially given the screen size, for fooling around on YouTube on my phone. But if I'm watching a movie on Netflix... maybe even streaming it to a full-sized TV via ChromeCast... I want the whole 1080p. Or maybe, sticking within YouTube, 480p is still mostly fine; but when a new Star Wars trailer comes out, damn straight I want it in full resolution. That's the level of control I'd want; not: "Leave the app you're using. Login to the T-Mobile website. Turn Binge On off for the whole account. Go back to my video app. Watch the movie I want to see in HiDef. Then go back and turn it back on."
Binge On is not a bad idea. But it's really half-baked right now, both functionally and with obvious use cases not being considered; and I'm surprised it was allowed to be released as-is.
The thing with buffering is that... well... it's not 1999 anymore. Buffering is a massive step backwards and, in the here and now, is a sign of a severely deficient network, a very poorly run video service, or an incompetently written app.
I suppose your next bit of advice will be to go back to using Real Player again?
Somebody should tell Zuckerberg that if he wants to channel Tony Stark, then he really needs to come up with an ARC reactor and some powered armor. Without them, he's just another douchey asshole*, whether he has JARVIS at home or not.
*As a point of fact, Stan Lee made Stark a raging asshole quite intentionally. It was a challenge to himself as to whether he could get readers to like the character nonetheless.
There are already a ton of localities making up their own patchwork of rules concerning "drones" because the word is scary and unpopular and doing so is a good way for lawmakers and DAs to make a name for themselves. This needs to stop now that the FAA is doing its job wrt/ the airspace as used by quadcoptors and such. The FARs, AIMs, and NOTAMs, for example, are federal and universally applied. And so long as a regular pilot is in compliance with them, it doesn't much matter what J. Random cop, DA, or mayor thinks. The same needs to be true for model aircraft operators, traditional or "drone" or whatever.
I saw it first at a generic AMC theater. That one was the only place my friends and I were able to get tickets on opening night. It was fairly standard-issue chain-theater awfulness. We went out later and saw it again at the new location of the Alamo Drafthouse that just opened up in town. It was fantastic, and I highly recommend giving them a try if there's one in your area. Pretty much every theater in town besides the Alamo has now lost my business.
I don't think that's too unbelievable if you acknowledge the expanded universe. The YT-1300 was supposed to be a standard, very common, and easily customizable, model of freighter. Setting aside Endor, where it was turned into basically a giant fighter, I always took it as the in-universe equivalent of the DC-3. They're everywhere, if a bit dated; and operated by everyone from private to commercial to civil service to military. And could you tell one of those from another on sight from the outside? Also, the Falcon itself was stated on multiple occasions to not look its part. All of that is exactly what you want for a smuggler's ship. At the same time, the flight controls are pretty standard. In fact, they're fairly similar across most aircraft. Now, as to why Rey, with her age and apparent background, is a crack pilot *at all*, non-specific to the Falcon, that's another (good) question.
As to the fact that the Falcon was unique on-screen; well... we only ever saw a single Firefly-class freighter too, didn't we?
> and it didn't totally fuck it up.
And that's really all it had to do. Arguably, that's exactly and *only* what it had to do. Were it not for the prequels, episode 7 could probably have trod new ground, left out Han Solo, or been given to a director without quite the reputation as Ahrams. After the prequels, The Force Awakens really needed to be what it was simply to wash off the stink. Otherwise... well... look at Michael Bay and the Transformers movies.
You are correct sir.
In fact, that't exactly the argument that that the US government used in Wickard vs. Filburn to make the interstate commerce clause apply to pretty much any thing that like.
Though in this case, I do agree that airspace should be a uniform federal thing. J. Random local-yokel DA should not get to make a name for himself by prosecuting model aircraft hobbyists for made-up offenses because the word "drone" is unpopular these days. Nor should they be allowed to give jimmy-bob the OK to fire on them with shotguns. Can you imagine the national chaos is every state, county, city, property owner, or whatever, were able to make up its own rules over the airspace? Good luck catching a flight, operating an airline, or doing anything anywhere that has to do with aviation. In fact, the FAA has better than a thirty-five year history regulating model aircraft (And a healthy, productive, and reciprocal relationship with the Academy of Model Aeronautics) under advisory circular 91-57.
Yes, but with appropriate enforcement, the number and availability of guns, legal or otherwise, can be driven down to numbers such that gun crime is negligible. See for example: Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan.
There's no magic to it on their part, just a lack of political will on our part. All we need is for politicians to grow a pair and tell the NRA to go fuck itself.
Hell... I'm not interested in having kids in general. But if I ever change my mind on that one, I'll bloody well wait until I can be assured of having the money to put them through all the way in private schools.
I can't speak to what actual voodoo goes into insurance calculations. And I'm sure it varies state-to-state. So YMMV. But I've been rear-ended twice in my driving lifetime, filed a claim for the damage both times, and in neither case did my premium go up. I actually asked my insurance agent once if my rate would go up if I filed the claim because I was considering just paying out-of-pocket in order to avoid said increase. But she told me that when you're rear-ended it's pretty much a slam-dunk that the guy who hit you is always 100% at-fault. She told me the only exception is that if you're under the influence, on a suspended license, whatever when you're rear-ended; in which case you had no business being on the road in the first place, and then it flips, making you 100% always at fault.
I don't know about Spain or Ireland in particular; but the standards for attaining and maintaining a driver's license are much more rigorous and strictly enforced in much of Europe.
For example, Finland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Whereas here, we pretty much hand them out at 16 as a matter of course. And it's all but impossible to lose it once you have it. When I got mine, the only instruction that was required was a 1-hour "Don't drive drunk." class (ie. no instruction in driving skills). And the driving test was done in about 10 minutes in a parking lot.
This wasn't always the case though. Before the fetishization of McMansions out in the suburban sprawl, combined with GM buying out and shutting down many rail and streetcar lines in the cities; most people could get on just fine without owning a car. The trend over the last decade and a half or so seems to be for people to move back into the cities (To the point that San Francisco, for example, is practically bursting at the seams.). Aside from LA, the country's major cities are already fairly transit-oriented. And more are working toward that goal. Depending on the neighborhood, it is quite reasonable to live in SF without a car already.
I'm sure it'll be a while if it does happen. But I don't think it's unreasonable to hold out hope that the migration will continue, the McMansion fetish will end, and we can reverse the last few decades of bloody awful urban planning and clean out the sprawl.
Yeah. Almost all taxis I see these days are Praises too; about half of the UberXs as well. It's also pretty much the go-to if you'd otherwise buy a Camery, but you prefer the flexibility wrt/ cargo of a hatchback vs. a sedan. And they're manufacturing them now in numbers that the price premium for the hybrid drivetrain is minimal vs. said Camery.
There's pretty much no novelty left to them. They're just a good, reliable, mid-sized Toyota; but with better than usual mileage.
The bizarre thing about New York is not that it was damaged by a hurricane. They can be pretty devastating. The bizarre... and very troubling... thing is that Sandy, the hurricane that wrecked New York so badly, was only a category 1 hurricane. While no hurricane is exactly trivial, a cat 1 really is fairly weak sauce. For it do do as much damage as it did speaks to a vast lack of adherence to building codes and a very decrepit and sub-standard infrastructure. That's quite a concern considering the social and economic importance of New York.
When I lived on the east coast, a cat 1 was mostly an opportunity to get together with friends and use up our supplies of rum and fruit juice; and this was in Florida, which has neither the level of developed infrastructure nor the advantages of elevation and drainage that New York enjoys.
Simple. Follow the money.
Brazil's government is fairly notorious for using onerous regulation, taxes, and tarrifs to prop up their local corporations, at the expense of international competition. This isn't even the first time they've gone after WhatsApp. Over the years, they've also tried to double-tax out-of-country internet services such as Netflix, Google, and Facebook, or to extort them into opening local subsidiaries; with varying degrees of success. Amazon eventually wound up having to give them their own AWS region because they were going after international data transfer. And it's bad enough that Foxconn, even, eventually set up a local factory to do manufacturing in Brazil instead of Asia because they'd jacked up tariffs on iPhones, iPads, and the like, to astronomical levels (higher than 30%, in come cases).
No doubt this is more of the same: Just another shake-down for cold, hard, cash. TFA even mentions that the local telecoms are upset that competition from WhatsApp is eating into their profits.
Not so much. You can guess an age range from plenty of data other than the birthdate (How many thirty-somethings will like or follow Diplo, Justin Bieber, or Meghan Trainor on Facebook, and pepper their posts with words like "ratchet", "yolo", and "bae"?). A margin of a few years either way is close enough for targeted advertising. And it's not hard to guess what birthdays will be the bogus ones chosen. Birthday listed as January 23rd, 1945, June 9th, 1969, or April 20th of any year, and the user's profile has the right likes and language? Advertise the hell out of that next Selena Gomez track, and you likely can't go wrong.
So, war-cries of "Apple Ackbar" then?
... if you didn't use a headset, and and you contorted your hand uncomfortably to bridge that gap while holding the iPhone to your ear, after licking or otherwise intentionally wetting said hand to make it more conductive, whilst placing a call in an area that already had sub-par reception.
Sure, Apple could have handled it better from a public relations perspective. But, when not in intentionally contrived circumstances, it was a very difficult issue to replicate. I had an iPhone 4 and never had the issue except when I did go through the rigamarole above.
"Perceived as being cool", by whom? Everyone I know who's seen one had the Daily Show reaction: "So... it's just a Segway without the handlebars?". No one thinks Segways are cool, and no one thinks "hoverboards" are cool. Rather; *everyone* thinks that an actual hoverboard would be awesome and cool, if they were to be brought to market. But no one is fooled by these frauds.
Contract's up on January 5th. The last straw for me was when they refused to unlock my old iPhone so I could sell it after I upgraded to the 6s.
I'll be on T-Mobile before they get that $5.
The advertising slot right before Star Wars has got to be just about the most valuable ad space in all of cinema. I'd guess it's more likely that the Anglican church did not want to or could not afford to (They're not exactly Catholic rich, after all.) pay the rate that the slot is worth; and the "don't want to offend people"is some PR flack's notion of trying to save face and make the theater chain look less capitalist.
I disagree on the "full-throttle" part. That's be fine on consumer desktops. But Linux is mostly about production servers. Yes, yes... I know... mainstream Linux on the desktop is "just around the corner" and all that. :)
I have no great love for sysV init scripts. Getting rid of them would break a few things in my world. But really, those things could probably stand a new look and update anyway. But my second-to-main issue with systemd is that it's just somewhat half-baked and obtuse. There's a lot of "don't look behind the curtain, just trust us that it'll work" to it. That'd be tolerable in a consumer OS, or even in a consumer-targeted Linux distort like Mint, but not in bloody RHEL and Debian!
My biggest gripe about systemd, though, is its counterpart in crime: journald. Binary log files are the work of the devil and journald needs to die in a fire. And no one... not even a couple of Red Hat engineers I've spoken with... has been able to give be a non-hackish, production-worthy, way of ripping journald out of the thing and replacing it with syslog.
No, I'm not against copyright in general. Though I do believe that the current legal climate favors the copyright industry far too heavily over individuals and even other industries (I wonder just how time, money, and engineering effort that could have been put to good use tech companies have been forced to waste in order to appease the copyright crowd, for example?).
But what I am completely against is the notion that it's okay to punish the innocent, in any number or capacity whatsoever, just to make it a little bit easier to punish the guilty. ANY punishment, even your "couple of weeks" of takedown, is an unacceptable, abusive, and undue burden if the accused has not, in fact, committed the infringement. Due process and the presumption of innocence are the fundamental rights I'm talking about; not a free copy or the latest Rebecca Black song.
Obviously, we're arguing in circles here. I don't think it's ok to jump straight to punishing the accused without proof or due process under any circumstance. You think that there should be an exception to that for the DMCA. We're just going to have to disagree on that. But I hope I've clarified my position. I'm not opposed to the notion of copyright in general; or even the DMCA in principle. I just believe that both need to be reformed. They have been misused and abused. That's happened far too much. And it needs to be out to a stop.
You're assuming that every takedown is, in fact, valid and that the material should be taken down. I maintain that plenty are filed that are not legit. There are ample documented cases of DMCA takedowns where this turns out not to be the case, fair use, not actually subject to copyright, not filed by the legit owner; these have all happened. In these cases you propose that it's a-okay to arbitrarily and summarily punish an innocent person. I don't hold to that. I'm solidly and irrevocably on the side of due process, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved, and that it's better for 1000 offenders to go unpunished than for one innocent to be made to suffer.
Frankly, when we're talking about fundamental human rights vs. the hypothetical value of some record labels latest 4-minutes of autotune, I say to hell with the value of the copyrighted item. People come before quarterly profits and share price.