BearGriz72's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the government-for-the-people? dept
To lead off I have to say that Senator Ron Wyden is making me prouder to be an Oregonian every week. When he called out the Obama administration on trying to do an end run around Congress by allowing the USTR to agree to ACTA without Congressional ratification, it made me want to cheer. Then the New York Times jumped into the fray and filed suit against the federal government for not revealing its interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, something Senators Wyden and Udall have been agitating about for weeks.This week has been a morass of stories about security issues including wiretapping Skype and vulnerabilities at American Express; as well as government and corporations trying to break the Internet. In response we're seeing alternative DNS systems show up, as well as more backlash against PROTECT IP (AKA: the Internet censorship bill).
From the governmental-idiocy dept: We have California governor Jerry Brown leading off with the ridiculous notion that it is OK to search your mobile phone during a traffic stop without a warrant, even though the California legislature said no. Apparently, in California, "it's better for the courts to decide" than our elected representatives. Next up is the news that the Taiwanese government is putting together a "patent bank" to Protect Taiwanese Companies Against Patent Lawsuits. I think Mike said it best with, "... when governments... have to create special institutions to protect their own companies from the patent system. Shouldn't that raise questions about the patent system itself?" Back to the US we have the winner of the "it would be funny if it wasn't true" award for the week: an Environmental Protection Agency agent manufacturing a case/evidence so that he could spending more time with his mistress. In addition, apparently releasing the office phone numbers of public affairs staff the Department of Homeland Security poses "a clearly unwarranted invasion" of employee privacy.
My honorable mention for the week is: Mike's article on a member of the EU Parliament (Christian Engstrom) of the Pirate Party with a blog post about how copyright law today simply doesn't mesh with current technology and that the laws we are passing have the effect of making nearly everyone a criminal.
Finally for the sheer humor of it, the request from Aiplex (apparently an Indian anti-piracy group) for Techdirt to take down a post on another site! Granted the post is on a copycat blog that appears to just scrape Techdirt posts, but for basic understanding of the interwebs, it is a fail of the first order.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
More like the chicken little bill, as all the freetardian types scream that the sky is falling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See there accusations are fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
grammar fail
forgot the word of the week
Your trainee is not maintaining your normal level of trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No seriously,
how many movies did you see a the theater too this week?
How many plays did you go see this week?
How many Broadway shows did you see this week?
How many Streams did you buy this week?
How many DVD's did you buy this week?
How many Blue-rays did you buy this week?
How many CD's did you buy this week?
How many Singles did you buy this week?
How many tracks did you buy this week?
How many songs did you listen to this week?
How many t-shirts did you buy this week?
How many mugs did you buy this week?
How many collectibles did you buy this week?
How many donations did you make to artists this week?
How many concerts did you go to this week?
How many commercials did you see this week?
How many newspapers did you pay for this week?
How many magazines did you pay for this week?
How many royalties did you pay for this week?
How many books did you buy this week?
How many e-books did you buy this week?
How many apps did you buy this week?
How many programs did you buy this week?
How many licenses to use images did you buy this week?
How many websites did you pay for this week?
How many pay-walls did you pay for this week?
How many subscriptions did you pay for this week?
How many kickstarters did you fund this week?
How many flattr's did you make this week?
and remember, you have to post receipts or you are a freetard scumbag pirate from freetaria.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Yes, I do. But not well enough, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is fun LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No seriously,
how many children did you jail in the theaters this week?
How many people did you accuse of illegal filming inside a theater?
How many people did you accuse of taking illegal photos somewhere?
How many people got harrassed or threatned by collection agencies this week?
How many years someone most be paid for work done decades ago?
How many time did you violated the first amendment this week?
How many laws did you imagine to erode the civil liberties of the other citizens?
How many songs did you accuse of plagiarism because of 3 notes this week?
How many artists stole others this week?
How many labels, studios and publishers stole from the government using creative accounting?
How many ways did you find to make more people criminal?
How many ways did you though of to force others to do something?
How many price hikes based on the monopoly channel did you make this week?
How many jobs were outsourced to Asia this week?
How many many artists that are played where not paid their dues by collection agencies this week?
How many many artists that believe in promisses of residuals did not get paid because films are not profitable on paper this week?
How many top 100 artists didn't buy a new boat this week?
How many old people did you accuse this week?
How many innocent blogs did you shutdown this week?
How many innocent business did you seize the domains this week?
How many innocent websites you put on blacking lists for censor this week?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If McDonald's complained about how unfair was that another fastfood chain copied some product of theirs people would just laugh instead McDonald's needs to compete and improve their services and it paid off, they are in the top of the corporate world, they don't get a hundred years monopoly on anything, they can't go to courts to claim harm for being copied and still they manage to outsell everybody else, they are not a one of, Google, HSBC(its a bank) they don't get monopolies or easy ways to censor others and they still manage to sell something.
http://www.elistmania.com/top_10/top_10_companies_with_highest_market_value/
Can Exxon stop others from selling gas?
Can Wal-Mart stop others from selling something?
How is that in this day and age we allow a small group of people to hold a monopoly, why can't they just compete in the market, they sure won't be penniless, they may not be able to afford another big boat next year, or a new jet but if ticket sales numbers are any indication they will not be dinning at McDonald's either.
What right does those people have to erode the laws that safeguard Americans from abuse? Trying to enact laws that threaten the constitution without any mechanism against abuses, that doesn't seem to me like people who respect the rule of law, that seems to me like people who doesn't care about anyone but themselves and are willing to go to extremes to protect only their interests at the expense of everybody else's.
It is not enough to have a life + 95 monopoly, it is not enough to make 100's of millions of dollars personally, it is not enough to be able to demand any price they want, it is not enough to get paid once, they need to get paid repeatedly for their entire life and after their deaths for a hundred years does that sounds reasonable to anyone? Seriously?
Does it sound good that a starting musician can't get a job because others are afraid to play music in their business?
Does it sound good that prices in locations with music are higher than those that are not?
Does it sounds right that business need to keep an eye on customers so they don't sing anything that could get them in trouble?
It does not sound right to me, it also doesn't sound right that the little guy's in the street can't play anything and try to make an honest living, buskers loose the places to play, street vendors that have nowhere else are criminals now, yes they are hard to look at, they are also human beings that because of circumstances many times beyond their control are down on their luck and cannot do anything for a living and that is sad. That public space should be theirs to make something out of it and for that to occur monopolies need to go down.
Surely if McDonalds, Exxon, Wal-Mart and others can compete in a world without protections artists can too.
Lets make copyright last 1 nanosecond, that is all protection artists deserve or need from the government. Let them work for their meals like every other citizen inside society, maybe then they will be more sympathetic to what others have to go through and gain a new perspective on life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here is another woooooooooooooosh!
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sometimes you just need to find one and redeem it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How many times do you see these anticompete laws going after a kid's lemonade stand? How many times do you see competition stiffled because patent trolls have the resources to destroy innovators and the courts willingly go along? How many times do you see the Barney Franks and Chris Dodd's of the world stuffing their pockets and then turning the other way when they should be regulating and enforcing?
How many BluRay discs did I buy? Not a gd one! There's another big up-the-butt for the consumers when congress allowed BluRay to become a monopoly by tying up all the content sellers and forcing HD out of business. Happens all the time.
If we had true competition and a government who effectively regulated and made for a fair playing field, rather than stuffing money in their pockets for protecting their contributor's interests, we'd be a lot better off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How many people did you extort this week dimwit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
W00t, I'm a freetard now!
So it's just "the freetardian types" saying that S. 968: "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011" (AKA: PROTECT IP) is an Internet censorship bill? Well there are dozens of law professors that agree with me and that it's unconstitutional to boot. Here LMGTFY.
@AC02
Why none. Thank You for asking. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: W00t, I'm a freetard now!
Do you really intend to jump on the first bandwagon and give no consideration to counter arguments?
If so, that would not be a fair airing of the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: W00t, I'm a freetard now!
Quote:
Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/15/world/occupy-goes-global/index.html
Do you really believe the people buy the BS from you or anyone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: W00t, I'm a freetard now!
I want you to explain why IP address that don't show who did anything are being accepted as proof of wrong doing even when people didn't do anything wrong but it is cheaper to just pay up, innocent people are now not worthy of protection by the law and the state?
Why are laws that can and will be used to erode not only the first amendment but other civil rights paid in blood by our fathers allowed to be enacted without any consideration to due course or even strong deterrents against abuse that it was proven already it will happen by the DMCA and the incompetence of government agencies?
We the people want to know why censor tools are being given to proven crooks that not only defraud the state but other artists and consumers?
What kind of honest people needs a monopoly on anything for life + 95 years to earn anything? That is not earning a living that is being a parasite in the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: W00t, I'm a freetard now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Control Issues
What are you looking for exactly? Will PROTECT-IP finally put the "creative community" (read: MPAA/RIAA/BSA) into the black? Is that what you think will actually happen?
PROTECT IP, 3-6 Strikes, ACTA, etc. are all supposedly going to turn a nation of basement dwelling pirates into paying customers. That's the plan, isn't it? This legislation will pass and the money will start rolling in.
But what if it doesn't? What if the legislation does pass and your collective P&Ls remain in the same sorry shape they're in now? What then?
You already know "what then." You'll craft new legislation and wave money in the general direction of your favorite politicians and demand satisfaction. More laws. More enforcement. More penalties. More power to the Content Cartel and less to the rest of the citizens.
And what if that doesn't help? Or doesn't do enough? What if the spike in sales is more of a blip?
You'll just keep heading back to the legislation well, lobbying money in hand and backscratchers at the ready.
You won't be happy until you've got your own internet, cobbled together into some sort of AOHellish, government-run (with the input of our acronymous and acrimonious "friends")[BTW, "acronymous" is now a word. Go use it somewhere.] portal that "allows" internet users to reach only pre-approved sites and every other word on the page links to a "Buy" transaction. You won't be satisfied until you get your own search engine and browser software. (Check with the BSA. It's got to have some "creatives" within its ranks that can bang this out over a three-day weekend for you. [I don't know... "CopyRIGHT Day?")
But, take a moment and consider this:
What if, "hypothetically" (there's a reason that's in quotes...), you keep jamming more laws and restrictions and breakage down everyone's internet and the end result is NOT A GODDAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE?
What if sharing goes dark and you can't find it? What if your former paying customers get a little sick of you eroding their civil rights, fucking with their internet service and using their legislative system (and their elected representatives) to force the general public to bend to your increasingly expensive whims? What if they decide to just stop spending money on your products because they're sick and tired of feeding a machine that's always hungry? What then?
Your sisyphean efforts will NEVER be repaid, at least not to a degree that will satisfy you. It will NEVER be enough.
Do you honestly think that the people who download because they can't afford to buy will suddenly find their wallets full of cash once the legislation passes? Are you counting these (and other unhatched chickens) in this theoretical future windfall?
How about all of those people who stopped buying your products years ago and now spend their money supporting independent artists directly? Do you think a shit ton of legislation and a government-addled internet is going to suddenly win their hearts and minds (and most importantly, wallets)?
Honestly, I don't think you even care. I think this legislation is nothing more than a vindictive attempt to rabbit punch a few infringers. It's the equivalent of leaving a flaming bag of shit on the doorstep of America (and the rest of the world, if you get your way). You're hurt because you've gone on a 15-year slide and the only moves you know are (a) bitch and (b) moan. Fortunately for you, your bitching and moaning is heard in Washington. But it won't be this way forever.
You can't stop piracy. You can't even contain it. All you can do is make the world a lousier place for every person who doesn't still rush out and buy your plastic things on day and date. You'll screw up everything for everyone, including the artists you pretend to speak for.
Shut down all the digital lockers and you're hurting every band that uses them to distribute their free music. You'll turn every cloud service into a prohibitively expensive and completely worthless digital trinket, saddled with a million "me too" licensing fees and built-in tariffs for the always-popular "just in case there's stuff on there that's not quite right."
You jackasses can't even sell an mp3 to anyone. It never belongs to the customer. It still belongs to the artist. If someone wants to offload their iTunes purchases on an open market, you're right there to remind them that all they purchased was a "license" for the track in question, an ephemeral piece of control freak crap that isn't worth the paper it was never written on.
So, go ahead: insult us. Scream. Bitch. Call us any name under the sun. But all that bile isn't putting any money in your pockets. And it certainly isn't winning you any new friends.
You've got an entire world to compete with, most of whom can do your job (connect with fans, sell music/movies/software, earn customers for life) better than you can. You don't care about your artists. You don't care about the general public. All you care about is "getting yours," no matter how much you have to destroy in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Control Issues
Unlike say, others, who stay at home doing nothing but babysitting while their wives bring home the bacon.
Those people are difficult to take seriously when they attempt to throw stones at those who are actual contributors to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
Unlike say, others, who stay at home doing nothing but babysitting while their wives bring home the bacon.
Honestly, I could care less about your martial woes. Are you going to address anything I've written?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
Unlike say, others, who stay at home doing nothing but babysitting while their wives bring home the bacon.
Honestly, I could care less about your martial woes. Are you going to address anything I've written?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
Remember if its not a hit you got no cigar and no protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Control Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Control Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Control Issues
I think that this pretty much sums up why you guys don't get it. It isn't about "putting them in the black", it's about having their rights respected.
Yes, it is also bottom line oriented - nobody should be forced to compete against people taking their products and giving them away for free illegally.
If the "jackasses" won't see you an mp3, buck up, and go buy music from someone who will sell you an mp3. No, not the same music, you need to respect their rights NOT to sell you an mp3. If you want an mp3, it can't be that music.
Live with it, or live without it. You can't just take it and ignore the rights of others. That just makes you a jackass yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
If they can't compete, get out of the market.
"Live with it, or live without it. You can't just take it and ignore the rights of others."
It happens. More laws ain't going to change it. The denial phase is gone, the anger phase has done nothing. All you have to do is accept it and learn how to move on with making alternatives instead of thinking Congress will actually save the day with copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Jay, this is possibly the stupidest comment in the thread, and that is saying a lot. How are the suppose to compete with their own product, when someone is giving it away for free, because they have no costs involved?
I mean, come on.
What you guys don't seem to get is that is they "get out of the market" it won't be available on your pirate sites either. What the heck will you listen to, Corey Smith?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
The way we always have, WE DON'T! There was never a competition with the non-existent market of "piracy". Only piracy competes with piracy. This is first grade economics here, you learn on the first day of the job for Pete's sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
If you are selling lemonade and some girl puts a free lemonade stand on the sidewalk the correct response is to apprehend the girl right?
If some restaurant makes a steake everybody who dares to do one at home in a barbecue is a criminal right?
C'mon, you are saying that artists only have that one stream of revenue, they don't do shows, they don't have other merc? they don't have offers to show up somewhere? they don't get contracts to advertise something?
Why can you be honest just once?
Quote:
What you don't understand is that people don't care.
Here go to Jamendo and listen to some good music for free that you can share with anyone.
Youtube is pack full with good music too for free, and the horror are not the labels the ones giving away music for free on the internet?
I find it amusing that they put the music out for free and complain that others are doing it too, is that some form of mental illness? or just severe cognitive dissonance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Here go to Jamendo and listen to some good music for free that you can share with anyone.
Youtube is pack full with good music too for free, and the horror are not the labels the ones giving away music for free on the internet?
I find it amusing that they put the music out for free and complain that others are doing it too, is that some form of mental illness? or just severe cognitive dissonance?"
Like I've said before, it shows that he hasn't worked a day in his life, at least not in the field he so quick about 'defending'. Truth is, it doesn't need defending, not from him anyway. The Music Business was always like that. Making money from the service offered to musicians and fans. Some things are changing, and so is the business (with or without the big labels).But 'Piracy' isn't the reason why, nor was, or is a problem. Unless your from the legal department. But they have their own reasons for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Not a relevant example, unless the little girl is stealing your lemonade and giving it away for free. The free stand won't exist long giving away something that costs them money. It's the trick of piracy, the raw materials don't cost them anything, so whatever they make is profit.
It's hard to compete with your own product, when the competition is free.
You need to learn the difference before you call someone less than honest. Clearly you don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Of course it is not relevant you don't want it to be, because if all the little girl was doing was copying a recipe and making her lemonade with her own resources like people copy music with their own resources it would sound ludicrous.
You see nobody inside society has the reach and depth of rights that copyrights give some people, people really need to work to get paid they can't just claim something is owned to them because of past services rendered.
A musician that don't go play to their public should not be paid, he is not doing his job, a musician who doesn't have to set foot on a stage should not be paid, in what world people get paid for doing nothing?
In your world only.
How can a law permit that someone that doesn't show up for work be entitled to money and give him or her the sense that others are criminals for copying him or her?
In your world only.
But reality obviously doesn't respect your imaginary concepts of right and wrong, even people don't respect it, so please cease and desist your innuendo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
The little girl those is a dirty criminal that needs to be put in jail for copying the lemonade of others.
That is how you sound to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
They all serve the same things don't they?
How they differentiate themselves if they can't stop others from copying their dishes?
How can there be so many tool manufacturers if everybody can make tools? can they not compete?
People are not blind they can see there is no difference in there.
You are not Steve Jobs his cloak of reality distortion has gone with him to his grave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
You are the one who keeps saying that copying is taking something that is not yours and it is stealing plain and simple.
So copying is stealing or is not which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Nope
"Not a relevant example, unless the little girl is stealing your lemonade and giving it away for free. The free stand won't exist long giving away something that costs them money. It's the trick of piracy, the raw materials don't cost them anything, so whatever they make is profit."
No, he has a point that you're trying to evade. If on one side of the street, you have a girl selling lemondade for $5, and on the other, she's giving away her lemonade, then there's no added value to the product. Since they're competing goods, the $5 girl has to do something to make her product worth more in the customer's eye or drop the price accordingly. It doesn't matter if she does a dance for the money, gives them a note to wash a car, or shows how she'll give part of the proceeds to charity, the fact is, she'd have to compete against the new price point by changing how she prices her wares or adding something new.
It's becoming more and more obvious, you've never taking a marketing class. You don't understand simple economics. Are you sure you want to keep plugging your own argument with holes, by continued used of tired rhetoric?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Ad hom.
"How are the suppose to compete with their own product, when someone is giving it away for free, because they have no costs involved?"
It's called adding value to the product. The fact remains that making a song free will only entice so far. Making a game free will only work. But maintaining a connection with those that want to support you, listening to their ideas, implementing them helps to build a new business model than what copyright does. That's the part you seem paid not to get, I guess, but the reality has been working in every entertainment industry. It just doesn't work when you try to control everyone's spending habits.
"What you guys don't seem to get is that is they "get out of the market" it won't be available on your pirate sites either. "
Tell that to the Beatles. Tell that to JK Rowling before she switched her stance. Or better yet, tell that to the mountains of evidence that piracy is caused by unmet demand instead of an arbitrary limitation on supply. Keyword: arbitrary. That limit is removed on digital. Or will you play the "obfuscation" card again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
You earned it, it was truly a stupid comment.
"The fact remains that making a song free will only entice so far."
When you are only in the business of selling music, once it is given away for free, you have nothing left to add. You cannot value add to your sole business, at least not in a meaningful way.
It should also be clear, the only reason they are in this position is because of piracy.
Piracy isn't caused by "unmet demand", it's cause by "unreasonable expectations". It's cause by people who children, throwing their toys out of the pram if they can't get the new movie of the week online, in their preferred format, now, and for free.
The "unmet demand" types are clearly unwilling to pay what it would cost. They are the ones who bitch about expense anime / manga books, not realizing that the total english market for them fits on the head of a pin.
You need to accept the basic concept: If someone doesn't want to sell you something right now, it isn't permission for you to go and take it anyway.
Are you going to try to get around that again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Music, books, theatre and movies are nothing without that connection.
There is a demand for it, there is no demand for monopolies though, someone should not get paid without having to work that is just immoral, it is even more wrong when someone that doesn't actually do the work for others also tries to stop others from trying to offer that work like in the case of musicians being fired from establishments because owners can't afford to pay collections agencies so it is better to them to just not have those musicians there, the music is gone, the musician who was servicing the customers is gone and so is the money all for what? Some other musician that wouldn't play in that establishment, didn't go in for work but feels entitled to receive money for work he didn't do?
We all know what to call people like that and it is not pretty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
You can't explain payola's can you? Why labels pay radio's to play their music, shouldn't be the radio's paying them in your absurd world?
You can't explain why musicians complained that Youtube cut them off because they if was to expensive to have them there?
You can't explain why are the labels giving music for free?
But when others share that is a crime?
Poor artists they don't have a monopoly on the public space, they can't control it, but they can force every company out there to comply with them, they control the commercial space and can force others to comply to every whim they have but that is not enough, it is not enough to make hundreds of millions of dollars touring or in ticket for seats, it is not enough to sign multimillion dollar contracts for promotion and production of secondary merchandise, did you know that big acts don't sell just music, they sell apparel, books, videos, cosmetics and all sorts of products?
Now, will those artists go down to play for joe 6 packs in the local pub?
Of course not but that idiot empowered by a powerful company wants to force others to pay up for work they will never do themselves, that is just disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Yawn*
... The song isn't the only business of an artist... You have no idea how people create nor market themselves, do you?
"It should also be clear, the only reason they are in this position is because of piracy."
Nope, try again. Piracy is a symptom of unmet demand and a failing business model of trying to get people to spend on overpriced CDs/mp3s instead of offering better products in general.
" It's cause by people who children, throwing their toys out of the pram if they can't get the new movie of the week online, in their preferred format, now, and for free."
Try to rewrite that sentence again, but this time remember that Spotify uses free and very few musicians have to get legal on their customers.
"You need to accept the basic concept: If someone doesn't want to sell you something right now, it isn't permission for you to go and take it anyway."
Wow, you're still on thinking that Hollywood controls what I spend my money and time on. So Hollywood doesn't want me to watch their movies for $20? Okay, I have a game I can play for free and spend my time and money elsewhere. Remember this sentence?
No shit, sherlock. That's why alternatives pop up.
I have alternatives to Hollywood. It's called Youtube, Jamendo, Dmusic, Twitch.tv, Valve.com, or *gasp* the great outdoors. They don't have something I want, I can do without. Without piracy. But of course, since Hollywood is paying you to promote them at the behest of various legal forms of content, be it on Vodo.com, Kickstarter, or whatever, it would behoove you to just constantly think since they're growing more and more.
Oh, and if you haven't noticed, Gaming industry revenue
movie industry revenue
Music industry revenue
Obviously, money is being made in all three industries despite piracy. And from the looks of it, piracy hasn't killed any of them. Or would you like to be schooled on how you can use the economics of free to promote yourself, find new marketing strategies, and use better ideas than this tired belief that the large industries control how their content is consumed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Or you realize that you're not just in the business of selling music, and never have been.
This is the point that has been explained to you for years now.
How can you still not get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
They were never selling a product to begin with, this a point you always miss since you have never worked in the field.
Everyone here who has can tell you, you sell a service, a convenience. The raw bits that sharing was always able to provide is immaterial to the end equation. Thats what sharing does in the end, shares the raw material, the raw bits. A restaurant doesn't compete with the supermarket, or people's ability to make the same meal, or even a better one at home. It doesn't have to, it sells a convenient service, the same service the Entertainment industry has sold since the beginning. thats where we make the money, not the end raw bits, the service we charge for. Food Piracy, Media Piracy, Water Piracy, Air Piracy...you can call them all you went, the fact is the only ones profiting from these 'wars' on piracy are the lawyers, which I assume you are since you have no clue about the actual business side of the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
The only "rights" involved are artificial. Artificial rights that have been hugely expanded in recent years, with little to no evidence that such expansion was necessary. Artificial rights that were explicitly conceived to create balance between content creators and the public interest, but no longer do so.
So fine, they have all those rights, against which there are many good arguments. If they are going to have them, and enforce them, then they damn well have to do it right, as the already-generous law dictates - through notice-and-takedown, through individual lawsuits, and through the existing means available to them. They don't need yet another law, one that gives them a magic wand to wave and wipe out huge amounts of speech with no concern for collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Almost all rights are artificial in nature. Almost every legal construct of a democratic country is created by balancing one side against the other, to allow the most while restricting the undesired or unwanted effects.
The laws of ownership, property rights, even the laws against jay walking are created with the balance in mind. The laws are designed to further the public good (even if they public doesn't like it), while minimizing the negative effects on society.
In a democratic society, you always end up giving up a little of what you are physically able to do (like killing someone) for the balance (knowledge that generally people won't kill you either). We all drive on the same side of the road even though we are physically able to drive on either side. We jail people who drink and drive, even though those are two things that they are legally allowed to do separately.
"Artificial rights that were explicitly conceived to create balance between content creators and the public interest, but no longer do so."
You are correct here, but not the way you see it. Part of the :rights" created here is the right for the public to NOT consume a product if they don't like the terms. There is no legal force that says "you must buy this DVD or go to jail" or "you must go to Itunes and get this song or get fined". You are free to make your choices to consume or not consume the product under the terms that it is offered.
If you don't like the terms, don't consume it.
What you (and others like you) want to do is gain the right to dictate to content producers (you know, the guys and girls who actually make this stuff) how they will give it to you, how you can use it once you have it, and how you can reuse it without concern about them. Effectively, you want them to have few if any rights, and you want all the benefits.
In a democratic society, you have all the right to ask for it - and the other side has all the right to tell you to pound sand. Nobody can tell you what to wear or tell you what to eat for dinner, so why should you be able to tell someone how their product should be sold or used?
Your comments come across as greedy and self-centered. If you don't like the terms of the content, STOP USING IT! Go make your own (without using their content to do it).
The blame for collateral damage should go to those who break the law, and try to hide amongst law abiding people while doing it. It's the internet version of human shields, and just like in war, it makes you look like a prick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Get a job working with artists, and you'll understand that. Until then, aside from your vested interest in the legal side, the rest of your comment is meaningless to non-lawyers .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Artist make art. In order for them to make enough money to be able to keep being artists, they have to (gasp!) sell their art. At the moment it sells, it becomes a product, especially if it is something that is replicated / duplicated from an original.
All I can say is that if your entire comment comes down to "you use the word product too much", then I think I got it right and you don't have much of an argument.
Marcus? What about you? Can you come up with a reason why you should be able to tell and artist how their should live, work, and sell their art?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
No, the art is advertisement. The product is the artist themselves. Ever heard of commission? The art piece could sell elsewhere without the artist being involved, and he still wouldn't be entitled to that money. But I guess that evades you.
"Can you come up with a reason why you should be able to tell and artist how their should live, work, and sell their art?"
Can you come up with a better reason that people should rely on copyright instead of finding new revenue streams that are far more efficient?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Of course not after it was sold they don't have a right to come calling and telling others what to do, only in your fantasy world you believe that is the normal thing people should do.
Copying lemonade being a crime is crazy talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
No shit, sherlock. That's why alternatives pop up.
"What you (and others like you) want to do is gain the right to dictate to content producers (you know, the guys and girls who actually make this stuff) how they will give it to you, how you can use it once you have it, and how you can reuse it without concern about them. Effectively, you want them to have few if any rights, and you want all the benefits."
A business does not have the right to make money. They have the ability to try and fail based on their merits. If their merits try to limit consumers, then the consequences fall on them also. Do more of what a customer wants, make more money. Do less, money goes to other service providers. It's not rocket science and yet, you continue to believe businesses have a license to print money from things that harm the public for short sighted gain?
" Nobody can tell you what to wear or tell you what to eat for dinner, so why should you be able to tell someone how their product should be sold or used?"
If you think the song, movie, game, is the only end product, then you're doing it wrong and you don't see the larger picture. Maybe you can tell me why people still make remixes, alternatives, and homages that aren't based on the product, but shout out to them as meanings and inspiration.
"Go make your own (without using their content to do it)."
Since I used the English language first, you have to stop using it. No really, stop reading this sentence. Come up with your own language so you can't communicate about a new form of entertainment, are left out of conversations, and leave your idea of businesses having personal rights elsewhere. They provide services. If they can't do that very simple thing, they don't get my money and it goes to competitors. Or it gets saved. It's that simple.
"The blame for collateral damage should go to those who break the law, and try to hide amongst law abiding people while doing it."
And that's the most asinine thing I've heard from someone advocating copyright. Collateral damage? When people find alternatives because the legal version is riddled with restrictions? When there's no difference between one version or the next? When the company can't figure out how to make it easier for their consumers to enjoy entertainment instead of bitching at Congress for more laws that will be fruitless?
You deserve pity for keeping such a sad sheltered life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
No shit, sherlock. That's why alternatives pop up.
"
Then why the fuck is the Hollywood stuff the most popular and most in demand stuff on the pirate sites? Nobody is clambering for the "alternatives", they are ignoring the alternatives and slathering at the mouth for the latest from the real movie and music industries. Why is that?
"Since I used the English language first, you have to stop using it. "
FUCK ME YOU ARE AN IDIOT! I didn't say stop using music, notes, or instruments, I said stop using the music.
God damn, you are truly dense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
For the same reason Coca-Cola is still the biggest seller in the world. And the same reason why Barak Obama is still trending on twitter
We call it being popular and using marketing, you might want to read up on it.
"Nobody is clambering for the "alternatives", they are ignoring the alternatives and slathering at the mouth for the latest from the real movie and music industries. Why is that?"
You seem to have this weird fantasy that people are horny and jerking off to Hollywood movies and music.
Tell me,how many Hollywood produced movies do you watch per day? Because your obsession with them isn't healthy.
on btw, real movie and music industry? You mean there's a fake one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Popular and in demand?
You are right about movies, but music or TV shows, I don't think you have had a stroll around the world recently you would be shocked to learn that people don't listen or watch US music or TV and it is reflected on the number of searches for lyrics and translations.
Quote:
LoL that one is funny, if you can't use the music why have notes or instruments then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
K-Pop chars don't show that.
http://loveforkorea.wordpress.com/category/k-pop-charts/
Funny is the visitor count Americans are the top visitors for that one. There not one American artist in there, and I wonder how many of those K-Pop are part of any of the big labels.
In China apparently what is hot is Chinese and Japanese pop stars nobody cares about American pop stars there is not in the news.
The same happens in India and it is happening incredibly in Africa, Russians it appears are starting to have their own open culture too, maybe that is why sales are going down, everybody is dumping the big label asses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Ladies and gentlemen, this is called the 1:1 correlation. You see it's subtle. But when you look at this sentence, you carefully note that it's ignoring all of the legal alternatives in order to propogate Hollywood as the only important stuff on the Bittorrents. For there are a few facts that the AC doesn't even consider while he tries to say "only Hollywood matters"
1) Most downloaded material happens outside of the US - Since the US has the most legal alternatives of any other country, it's natural that Bittorrent usage goes up in a place like Russia where copyright is used to beat down legal alternatives.
2) The legal sharing of Jamendo music, Grooveshark music, old games that aren't even on the market, movies that have been out of print for years, or even a foreign market that is stymied on DVD (but not on the internet) is ignored... All for Hollywood
3) There's no mention of other alternatives and how they compete for time. There's only 24 hours in a day, and you can only spend so many watching movies. I wonder what would happen if you played video games instead of watching movies? Oh wait... That's costing Hollywood a fortune!
Hmmm... I wonder who the AC works for?
" I didn't say stop using music, notes, or instruments, I said stop using the music."
Actually, here's your words:
Your comments come across as greedy and self-centered. If you don't like the terms of the content, STOP USING IT! Go make your own (without using their content to do it).
So in order to make content, people get inspiration from other things. Since you're using the English language, I don't want you to take anything from me. Not my words, not the context behind them, nothing. Just stop using them.
And yet, you can't see the idiocy of what you're trying to say to Marcus of coming up with something "original" from a vacuum, instead opting for an ad hom attack that makes your argument even weaker. But hey, I don't have to tell you you're an idiot. You're doing a bang-up job shredding your own argument by being dense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
You seriously have no idea how art and culture works. It's sad, really. So incredibly sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
You can't just take it and ignore the rights of others.
That goes for freedom of speech too, thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-zone-database-home-lawsuit.html
It impacts everyone everywhere in a very negative way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
Are you sure that's the simplistic decision you want us to make? Because you seem to forget that we're talking about entertainment here, one of the first things people stop spending money on when prioritising their expenses. You overvalue the content if you think people can't "live without it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Control Issues
This can't be emphasised enough. Some of the regular commenters here clearly have a vested interest in me paying them money for whatever content they're flogging, and it's amazing that they don't seem to realise how much their insult-laden rants make me NOT want to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Control Issues
Is that it?
Those that rely on art to make a living and complain about file sharing tend to have a false sense of entitlement, the same kind of entitlement they accuse the "pirates" of having.
They think along these lines, "If I work hard on creating art to sell, anyone who enjoys it is duty-bound (and law-bound) to reward me for my efforts!" It doesn't work that way though. Nobody has any moral or legal obligation to pay you (copyright protects against unauthorized copying, not failure of payment. That's your job to secure.) for appreciating the art you create.
"Working hard" does not grant anyone entitlement to be paid for their work. There is no social, implicit, nor explicit contract that those viewing the art are obligated to compensate you. If people are enjoying your art, but haven't compensated you your preferred wage, it's not their fault. You did the work before securing your payment and you're the sucker because art is a service, not a product. If people enjoy the results of a service you did without you negotiating for payment, it's your fault, not theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be known as "Sue in 30 seconds".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't understand words by they probably can believe their own eyes if someone does it in front of them.
And ask them to explain why are they risking the constitution for zero gains and how will they justify the onerous burden placed on everybody else for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is that not the intent of that law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how hard it would be to set up a bluetooth connection between a smartphone and a laptop, and use something like Clear internet service on the laptop for making calls, while the smartphone is simply a dumb terminal to the laptop? That way you can make calls with the convenience of a smartphone, but remain secure in your papers, person and possession from unreasonable search and seizure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Aside from that, people can build their own networks on the cheap that although may lack in performance can make up in security and privacy not to mention cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://sipdroid .org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_VoIP_software
That should get you started
For security you may want to look at SRTP and ZRTP protocols for encryption, not TLS never ever trust a third party to deliver the keys for you if you are serious about security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you take a smartphone, and modify it (software, hardware or both) so that it cannot make phone calls, and only does data, essentially making it a palmtop PC instead of a phone...
Can cops in California search it without a warrant? They can't even jiggle a computer mouse to stop a screensaver without a warrant, so you'd think that would make a warrantless search of a palmtop computer illegal...but I bet the police would try to argue that even with the ability to make calls (not even VoIP installed) physically removed, it's still a phone (somehow).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6svA6Qvq1U
Quote:
This is the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They both voted FOR warrantless wiretaps � twice this year, but got publicity for coming out against warrantless wiretaps.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-19
http://senate.gov/legislative /LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00075
http://www. opencongress.org/blog/Mark+Udall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]