Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
from the it's-about-eliminating-competition dept
I'm not big on videos over a minute long, but this one really lays out the war on sharing that underlies bills like SOPA (and its predecessors COICA, ACTA, and the DMCA). Some excerpts:SOPA and PIPA...want to raise the cost of copyright compliance, to the point where people simply get out of the business of offering it as a capability to amateurs....
In order to fake the ability to sell uncopyable bits, the DMCA also made it legal to force you use systems that broke the copying function of your devices...they also made it illegal for you to try to re-set the copyability of that content. The DMCA marks the moment where the media industries gave up on distinguishing between legal and illegal copying, and simply tried to prevent copying through technical means....
PIPA and SOPA are round two. But where the DMCA was surgical - we want to go down into your computer, into your television set, your game machine, and prevent it from doing what they said it would do at the store - PIPA and SOPA are nuclear. They're saying we want to go anywhere in the world and censor content.
If you're trying to explain the issues regarding SOPA to someone else, try showing them this. Yes, it's 14 minutes, but still much more concise and comprehensible than anything I could accomplish in a much longer conversation.
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
Filed Under: clay shirky, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzqMoOk9NWc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now lets be serious, the only way to reduce the problems with censorship is to diminish the monopolies that give rise to them, meaning ending copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
how can you have "monopolies" ?? by definition a monopoly is ONE. (MONO = ONE).
at least you got to the actuall TRUTH of the matter, that there is no monopoly, but you use that emotive term for greater effect, with the full knowledge it is a total, screaming LIE !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“Monopoly” has been the proper English language term since at least the Case of Monopolies (Darcy v Allein) in 1599 - 1602, and the Statute of Monopolies (21 Jac 1 c.3) enacted in 1623.
The term has been in continuous use in the English language for over 400 years to describe a state-granted privilege of exclusivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
you can be a copyright holder without the state granting you anything !!!
does masnick own the copyright to all copyrighted material, if he did he would have a monopoly..
But he does not own the copyright to all copyrighted material, LOTS AND LOTS of different people and groups own copyright to various works..
Lots is not one,, Lots is generally accepted as MORE THAN ONE, a monopoly is ONE..
Can you tell the difference between 1 and more than 1 ?
It's called counting, once you go above one, you can no longer call it a monopoly.. and you would be seen as stupid if you did...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as copyright is concerned, it's most often used as nothing more than a legal stick to go around whacking people with, like the big legacy players constantly do. And because they have so much money, they can literally buy people in Washington to push legislation which furthers their ends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.
(Emphasis added.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, to be fair, economists like to talk about substitutes in the discussion of monopolies, which I think might be the point you're trying to make. It's certainly true that for most copyrighted products there are plentiful substitutes. That's what keeps the costs down and makes the monopoly rent somewhat less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fox Film v Doyal (1932)
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
(Emphasis added.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations Freetards, You've Let The Copyterrorists Win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congratulations Freetards, You've Let The Copyterrorists Win
you mean like the people who want to restrict our ability to copy, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congratulations Freetards, You've Let The Copyterrorists Win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Congratulations Freetards, You've Let The Copyterrorists Win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congratulations Freetards, You've Let The Copyterrorists Win
You, sir, win two internets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congratulations Freetards, You've Let The Copyterrorists Win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congratulations Freetards, You've Let The Copyterrorists Win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congratulations Freetards, You've Let The Copyterrorists Win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congratulations Freetards, You've Let The Copyterrorists Win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still, i bet you made it through at least half an hour of Cory Doctorow's talk, till the Q&A part, didnt you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
so either your stupid or lying or both, because you admit it yourself !!!!! in just two lines of text .. well done !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show this to everybody you know.
It's not perfect, but it's the best tool, at the right moment. We held our ground; if we do not push back now, then when?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Show this to everybody you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Show this to everybody you know.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/supreme-court-rules-congress-can-re-copyrig ht-public-domain-works.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Show this to everybody you know.
generally you push forward, and pull back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Show this to everybody you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW: excellent video.
The best defense is to explain and share what this all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
what he said is right, torrent freak and it's ilk do not create anything, and if it was not for the copyright people and the CREATORS that they support you would have nothing to pirate..
Why cant you understand that most basic of concepts ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That makes the assumption that they can't otherwise, which is just plain false.
"what he said is right, torrent freak and it's ilk do not create anything, and if it was not for the copyright people and the CREATORS that they support you would have nothing to pirate.."
Torrenfreak is a blog. It's not a distributor of files. They report on it, thus they do create. Megaupload is no different than a publisher except that they don't pay anyone to create the content they store.
"Why cant you understand that most basic of concepts ?"
My grasp of the concepts is fine. Publishers create nothing. The only reason they make any money at all is because they control the flow of goods between those that produce them and those that purchase them. They are a leech, a parasite. They take work that people do, pay them a fixed salary, and then attempt to extract endless profit from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So they're just like them, except for that massive difference sitting right there? Except for that thing that would define a publisher the most?
Megaupload is in no way similar to a publisher. Not at all.
"Publishers create nothing."
They facilitate creation. Not every artist needs that, sure. But many do. And it's a good service to have available to the artists who want it.
"The only reason they make any money at all is because they control the flow of goods between those that produce them and those that purchase them."
They don't control. No one is forced to work with any corporation (and publisher really is the wrong word here). They "facilitate" for those that want to participate.
"They are a leech, a parasite."
Hyperbolic nonsense. I have known so many artists over the years who lack the ability to effectively distribute on their own. Without a second party organizing this, there work would have sat in their own homes, unseen or unheard. Not every artist is able to take the time and energy and market their work, and having someone who they can voluntarily seek aid from in this end is a good thing.
"They take work that people do, pay them a fixed salary, and then attempt to extract endless profit from them."
That's a very limited view of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your blindness appears to be so willfull that you cannot fathom any faults with the old system. Why do you fear change? Why do you fear the loss of control? Why do you fear the inevitable advance of technology which makes middlemen and labels obsolete? It is clear your livelihood is tied to the old ways, which is why you defend them so much. Technophobia is, I believe, not an unusual condition, but one which can be treated if you allow it.
And you continually ignore the reality that price is not equivalent to value. Again, price is not the same thing as value. How many times must it be repeated to you before you understand? What once could be monetized no longer can be, not as it once was. But there are other things that can be monetized, which often more than compensates for the absence of sales of copies, if done correctly.
Are you even aware, Memyself, that the very nature of a computer involves copying on every level? It is inescapable and thus, illogical to charge for digital copies which can be infinitely reproduced. You can never account for every copy because more can and are easily created all the time. The content creator never loses his or her copy of the work and can always continue to use it to bring revenue via related goods that are truly scarce.
You will never earn the goodwill of your customers by placing restrictions on them of any kind. People instinctively resent any attempts at control placed upon them by others. The entertainment industry will, in time, face that which it has sought to delay for so long—its own collapse—sooner than you may think. And it will have been entirely because of their own shortsightedness. As long as they are putting themselves first, before their customers, they will not endure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One: This has not been proven as universally true. Every business model has some flaws, and shitty people who take advantage of others exist in every aspect of life. How many artists have benefited from corporate employment? Exactly what percentage of artists have been treated poorly. Give me some real statistics if you're going to claim that this is a "routine" matter.
"They attempt to purchase laws favorable to their industry, despite that being, by definition, bribery, as Chris Dodd's recent speech has demonstrated."
And how exactly is this related to the argument I'm making regarding the potential benefit of "publishers" to artists?
"Your blindness appears to be so willfull that you cannot fathom any faults with the old system."
For someone who calls themselves "the logician", you're arguing in quite and illogical manner.
"Why do you fear change?"
I Don't. I think it's awesome. Thanks for inferring aspects of my argument that do not relate to anything I said. Again: Illogical.
"Why do you fear the loss of control?"
I Don't. I think it's awesome. Thanks for inferring aspects of my argument that do not relate to anything I said. Again: Illogical.
"Why do you fear the inevitable advance of technology which makes middlemen and labels obsolete?"
I Don't. I think it's awesome. Thanks for inferring aspects of my argument that do not relate to anything I said. Again: Illogical.
"It is clear your livelihood is tied to the old ways, which is why you defend them so much."
I was championing free distribution before there was an internet to speak of, and have been working hard to see my industry shift towards technological distribution since the early 90's. Again, you're full of illogical presumptions. Change your name already.
"Technophobia is, I believe, not an unusual condition, but one which can be treated if you allow it.
Okay. That's it. Fuck off already. Seriously. You're an idiot. You make wild presumptions about my beliefs and turn towards scatter shot insults to make unrelated points. Where is the "logic": on this, Logician?
"And you continually ignore the reality that price is not equivalent to value."
Where did I claim otherwise? Right... I didn't. You're just a bit of an idiot.
"Again, price is not the same thing as value. How many times must it be repeated to you before you understand?"
I didn't claim otherwise. How many times must it be repeated to you before you understand?
For fuck's sake, you're a complete embarrassment to the concept of "logic". Come back if you want to address the things I actually said, rather than the made-up argument that exists within your sad excuse for a brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that one thing makes everything else that is exactly the same nullified. Sure.
Publishers copy and distribute content made by other people. So does Megaupload.
Publisher create nothing and only seek to profit through distribution of content. So does Megaupload.
Publishers make money from the work that other people do. So does Megaupload.
Publishers fund the content creators and control access to that content. Eh, Megaupload doesn't do that. That's the only difference.
"They facilitate creation. Not every artist needs that, sure. But many do. And it's a good service to have available to the artists who want it."
That's false. They fund artists. Nobody needs that funding except for those that want superstar level success. Ordinary work-a-day artists can make a decent living through just making what people like.
"They don't control. No one is forced to work with any corporation (and publisher really is the wrong word here). They "facilitate" for those that want to participate."
I didn't say they control the artists. I said they control the flow of goods. Learn to read.
"Hyperbolic nonsense. I have known so many artists over the years who lack the ability to effectively distribute on their own. Without a second party organizing this, there work would have sat in their own homes, unseen or unheard. Not every artist is able to take the time and energy and market their work, and having someone who they can voluntarily seek aid from in this end is a good thing."
There's nothing wrong with seeking help, but to think that there is no way to succeed without big budget funding is a foolhardy idea. There is an entire internet of possibilities for an artist to get their name out there and establish a market for the art. Those artists you speak of who failed distribution 101 need to take lessons. It's their own fault if they can't figure out what the many successful independent artists on the internet have learned. Your sad devotion to that obsolete model has not helped you conjure up the public's respect or given you clairvoyance enough to solve the issue of running a content business in a connected world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that one thing is the fundamental nature of the entity in question, yes. "Publishers" pay artists to create content. Everything else is secondary top that aspect of their business model.
"That's false. They fund artists. Nobody needs that funding except for those that want superstar level success. Ordinary work-a-day artists can make a decent living through just making what people like."
You're making the common failure of only examining this as a financial issue. Many artists do not want to self-distribute. Many of them simply cannot do it. That was the point I was making that you fully misunderstood. Kind of funny given your "learn to read attitude".
"I didn't say they control the artists. I said they control the flow of goods. Learn to read."
Nope. What you said was:
"they control the flow of goods between those that produce them and those that purchase them."
If your argument is that corporations universally control all media created by the artists they invest in, your making a completely incorrect argument. So I read what you said, I just gave you credit that you didn't actually mean it in such a blatantly stupid manner.
"There's nothing wrong with seeking help, but to think that there is no way to succeed without big budget funding is a foolhardy idea."
Again you're making the mistake of thinking it's all about money. Regardless, for some artists a facilitating partner who takes care of all the business ends is absolutely necessary.
"There is an entire internet of possibilities for an artist to get their name out there and establish a market for the art. Those artists you speak of who failed distribution 101 need to take lessons. It's their own fault if they can't figure out what the many successful independent artists on the internet have learned."
Bullshit. Some people simply lack the construction to function as independent business entities. Who are you to say that an artist who wants to spend 100% of their energy on their art is wrong to do so. Who are you to judge that an artist who becomes to stressed out to manage distribution channels is a "failure"?
"Your sad devotion to that obsolete model has not helped you conjure up the public's respect or given you clairvoyance enough to solve the issue of running a content business in a connected world.
You're a fool. You're trying to make this personal, except you know nothing about me and whether or not I'm successful and exactly what business models I have embraced. Read my earlier posts in this thread. I've already explained the fact that I have been working towards free digital distribution in my industry since the mid 90's. So as for your arrogant presumptions - you know what you can do with them, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're so full of shit, it's coming out of your ears.
"Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information—the activity of making information available to the general public." - Wikipedia
"a person or company whose business is the publishing of books, periodicals, engravings, computer software, etc." - Dictionary.com
"One that is engaged in publishing printed material." - the free dictionary
I don't see anything about funding being their primary function. So, you were saying?
"Many artists do not want to self-distribute. Many of them simply cannot do it."
If they don't want to, that's their choice. They can if they want to. There is no excuse for not being able to self-distribute in this age. But you go ahead and make up false dilemmas.
"If your argument is that corporations universally control all media created by the artists they invest in, your making a completely incorrect argument. So I read what you said, I just gave you credit that you didn't actually mean it in such a blatantly stupid manner."
You are a petty and offensive debater. You argue from the shittiest reasoning and throw in insults at the same time. You're completely convinced that you're totally right and everyone else it totally wrong.
You never admit being wrong, no matter how many facts contradict your arguments. Your arguments are one-sided and you clearly have no interest in hearing from the other side other than to tell them they are wrong despite everything you say being entirely your opinion and delusional beliefs on how things work. You never have anything real to back up your ridiculous claims, but you yammer on about how much you know about it all. Clearly you are a troll and not at all interested in an honest debate. So go to hell. I won't be responding to you ever again you puffed-up, arrogant know-it-all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't know everything in our world was universally defined by the dictionary. Oh right. It isn't. Context fucking matters, And contextually, the primary role of "publishers" is to finance creative projects. Remove that aspect of their being and they aren't what they actually are.
"If they don't want to, that's their choice. They can if they want to. There is no excuse for not being able to self-distribute in this age. But you go ahead and make up false dilemmas."
More of your bullshit. We're all capable of fixing cars, right? So we should all be able to fix cars. We're all capable of plumbing and electrical work, so how come specialized knowledge is still valuable? Face reality: Some people are talented at self distribution and some people will never be able to rise from to the challenge. Just because the "tools" are there doesn't mean it's the right job for everyone.
Pff. "False dilemmas" my ass. This is just basic human nature.
"You are a petty and offensive debater. You argue from the shittiest reasoning and throw in insults at the same time."
Dude, you came at me with "learn to read" and you expect civility? get your head out of your ass and take a whiff. Smell, that? It's your hypocritical bullshit.
I treat people with the contempt they earn. You earned it with your choice to attack me over attacking my argument. In short: Go fuck yourself.
"You never admit being wrong, no matter how many facts contradict your arguments."
Read the thread. I politely conceded a point regarding SOPA in this very thread a few hours before you posted the above garbage. Seriously, read your own posts back to yourself and see what kind of a childish asshole you are.
"So go to hell. I won't be responding to you ever again you puffed-up, arrogant know-it-all."
Your glass house is quite drafty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So? The old die and the young take the place of others, when the old publishing houses die, new ones will come of age and they not necessarily will be financiers it could become a separate thing or both, Microsoft certainly is investing in production, so is Netflix and probably Facebook will enter that market too so they can exclude old distributors from their platform and rip the benefits of a more tidy integration, even Google is doing it.
Quote:
True that is why others will come in and make the platforms for artists to take advantage of it, like Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, Vodo, Pirate Bay, Megaupload, MiniNova, Spotify.
Did I mention rara.com? A legacy player had the brilliant idea to capture the rest of the 70% of mobile market that don't consume digital at all and don't buy CD's either by selling a subscription to a service that is one penny a month, that guy is the new publisher not labels, he is the new distribution channel, he is the new master.
The fact that you labels are slaves to Apple today just proves the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Entirely irrelevant to the point under discussion. Companies that spend ,money to generate content are not synonymous with companies that only distribute.
"True that is why others will come in and make the platforms for artists to take advantage of it, like Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, Vodo, Pirate Bay, Megaupload, MiniNova, Spotify."
Not the same kind of service at all. Those platforms require self-distribution, as opposed to having a company handle the marketing and distribution for you.
"The fact that you labels are slaves to Apple today just proves the point."
There we go again with people and there condescending assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone with a semblance of knowledge of SOPA/PIPA, as well as ACTA, knows full well what these bills represent: Corporate control over the internet. And everybody knows that these mega-rich conglomerates do not have the best interests of the public in mind. One only need observe the way these corporations and their subsidaries treat/abuse people. Their contracts essentially strip every artist of ownership of their own work, rob them of their rightful profits and turn them into their own corporate slaves. They routinely outsource jobs and then blame it on piracy, even while turning in record profits. They work out legislation in secret and pay off politicians with bribery money. They send extortionists out to local bars, clubs and mom & pop shops and threaten them into paying their absurd fees or risk facing legal action. You purchase said items from them which always include threats and demands as to what capacity you're allowed to use "their" products.
Not exactly the bastions of decency and good will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Piracy is part of the problem. A huge part. And distribution without compensation, permission or investment is not "competition".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is not "piracy", it's bad business models. This isn't the 20th century anymore, this is the 21st century and we have the internet now. People have the capability to copy and distribute any and all information they want to. It makes clear that humans do not want to simply consume information, they want to participate in the grand conversation that is our culture. This "war on piracy" is a failure to realize that human beings never wanted to be part of a one-sided conversation where the media corporations feed you the content they want you to buy. People want to absorb information, remix it, and distribute their expression of what their culture means to them over the internet so others can be touched by their ideas and interpretations.
That's what the entertainment industry is fighting against. They want to put us back in the position of passive consumers of media instead of active participants of culture. Copyright infringement is a small slice of the issue they are trying to legislate away. They're trying to stop anyone that isn't a corporate media distributor from actively producing and distributing content. Why? Because if people are creating quality content for free, it's competition they can't allow. It undermines their power. They can't have that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Labels and studios do not give a hoot about new means for others to produce and distribute content. They care about producing and distributing their own work product, the creation of which is many times much more involved and expensive than the DIYer's work product.
The propensity of some to the contrary, the labels and studios do have a very legitimate point..."We invested money, time, and assets in creating what we hope the public will like. Apparently they do. Many are constantly stealing it, and then rationalize doing so when we get upset by trying to portray themselves as victims."
SOPA and PIPA are conceptually sound, unless, of course, one is inclined to put his/her "rights" on a higher plane than the rights of those who created the original work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Laws that limit the huge innovation growth the internet allows are conceptually sound?
Laws that "target" infringement and yet will also allow removal of large swathes on non-infringing material are conceptually sound?
Laws written by industries with huge vested interests and championed by whichever politicians they paid the most are conceptually sound?
Laws open to gross abuse are conceptually sound?
Glad you don't have anything to do with writing laws. At least I hope you don't...
"...unless, of course, one is inclined to put his/her "rights" on a higher plane than the rights of those who created the original work."
Actually, thanks to constant expansions and abuse of the copyright system by rightsholders, corporations and governments, a large and growing proportion of the populace now hold copyright in very low regard and do in fact hold more fundamental and natural rights on a higher plane. As we all should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And well they should, because the fundamental laws that protect our civil rights are above all other laws in this nation. That is why they are called "the supreme law of the land". All other laws a subordinate to them, including copyright, trademark, and patent laws.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why not? You and the assholes you support presume sinister intent at every corner. Nay! They're SURE its sinister intent. Pay for a movie, they presume your a criminal. Pay for music, they order you to pay for it on EVERY SINGLE DEVICE and ON EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE OF USE, since you know, you're sinister music fan. Pay for a game, and hell man, you'll be lucky not to get he crap beat out since you must be a criminal scumbag, only criminals PAY for games. You use the Internet, it must be sinister intent, you have to be monitored, citizen
Funny how you MAFIAA apologists always paint it day in day out on here; its only sinister if its from citizens and artists, when corporations do it, its is blessed and just. You people are a fucking joke man.
Now pick up that can, citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is a reason monopolies have a bad wrap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Labels and studios do not give a hoot about new means for others to produce and distribute content."
For the past century, the labels and studios have fought tooth and nail against every single new means of producing and distributing content: the player piano, the VCR, the MP3 player, the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What grander way then creating and contributing something new? Why does "participation in the grand conversation" involve downloading the newest episode of Game of Thrones?
What you describe as "grand conversation" sounds like "people want stuff for free".
"People have the capability to copy and distribute any and all information they want to."
People can want a lot of things. Desire and means do not actually make these things right.
"They're trying to stop anyone that isn't a corporate media distributor from actively producing and distributing content."
That's absurd. I've been producing creator owned content for twenty years. How is corporate media interfering with this?
"Why? Because if people are creating quality content for free, it's competition they can't allow. It undermines their power. They can't have that."
I think the thing they care alot more about is people pirating rather than paying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's simple. The purpose of copyright is to encourage more art. The fastest way promote that goal is the unfettered access to all art in order to inspire people to create new art from what came before, as all art is created from what came before. Not everyone who downloads episodes of their favorite shows is going to create new art for absorbing the inherent ideas, but some will and more than would if you locked it up behind a pay-wall.
"What you describe as 'grand conversation' sounds like 'people want stuff for free'."
That's just your opinion, you have no factual basis to support that. The grand conversation is the sharing of ideas and expression around the world, without limit, which promotes the advancement of our culture.
"People can want a lot of things. Desire and means do not actually make these things right."
Again, that's your opinion. Information does not belong to any singular entity. To claim as such would be the misappropriation of culture. Information, knowledge, and culture is not something anyone should have the right to restrict nor limit.
"That's absurd. I've been producing creator owned content for twenty years. How is corporate media interfering with this?"
SOPA/PIPA. They are always trying to own the means of communication. TV, Radio, Cable, and print media have been nearly the exclusive domain of the corporate media outlet. The internet is a threat to that control. The internet is not an exclusive club that only the rich media corporations have the means to distribute with. It is a place where the power of distribution is made accessible to the common person. Anyone can now create and distribute content throughout the world, reaching as many people as whom care about your work. That runs counter to their goals of maintaining a captive, passive audience.
"I think the thing they care alot more about is people pirating rather than paying."
Anyone who doesn't realize this is a battle over the marketplace and a war on competition from the public is blind. There is one thing that a business always puts at the top of their hit list: competitors. This is obvious information and common knowledge. The fastest path to defeating the competition is to remove the competition from the game. Without competitors, everyone must come to you and then you can name your price. It leads to higher prices, lower quality, and fewer choices. It's not simply the "pirates", its anyone whom competes with them for the mind share. The infringement just so happens to be easier to point a legal finger at than the rest, but they can use that as a platform to pass legislation that enables the censorship of content they do not approve of, for whatever reason.
Clearly, you don't have a clue if you don't get that.
[ 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:
You mean they provide a successful service that millions of people around the world want, and yet despite the obvious opportunities offered by that demand and success, the big media companies continue to fight against providing or collaborating with services that can and do compete with piracy.
"These people are the most egregious examples of vulture capitalism."
So record companies that sign artists to contracts that take away all the rights to their own material, and which are almost never recouped because of ridiculous, meaningless costs and expenses, are not egregious examples of vulture capitalism? Movie studio accounting practices that make sure hardy any of those owed royalties ever see a dime because immensely popular movies supposedly failed to make a profit are not egregious examples of vulture capitalism? Sorry, you do not have a moral high ground to preach from here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
NO ONE is forcing them to sell the copyright to the publishing company, they CHOOSE to do it !!!!..
get that,, THEY WANT TO DO IT !!!!!, they LIKE TO MAKE MONEY !!!!, and they REALLY WANT to sell their product and get some MONEY for it...
what can you offer ?
why dont they come you or torrentfreak first if what you say is anything but total bullshit ?
How many artists has torrentfreak made contracts with and payed them large sums of money for the work they have done ?
There is simply no choice, if you can sell something and make lots of money, or let it be stolen and make nothing what would your choice be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
they still create content, and are able to afford to continue to create content !!!.
and they make a profit as an agreed (AGREED) percentage of the earnings gained from the content.
And STILL NOT ONE is FORCING them to sign, they WANT TO SIGN...
I guess the truth and facts are not things you are really interested in...
If there was no one to sign with, they would simply not make the content in the first place..
but you cannot see that !!!..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because there are some uninformed people who are looking for a big break and the record labels promise them the moon. However, because of the open environment and ease of access + free promotion which the internet provides, most aspiring artists are intentionally AVOIDING major labels.
"they still create content, and are able to afford to continue to create content !!!."
And yet they're threatened by the internet and so want to regulate it to silence any competition. Independently created content isn't ok with them, particularly when the middle man (labels) aren't profiting.
"and they make a profit as an agreed (AGREED) percentage of the earnings gained from the content."
Correction: They take the lion's share of the profit and leave the artist with mere scraps, usually around 12-13%, out of which the artist is expected to pay back an exorbitant debt (which they almost never can). All the while, the record label makes a killing and writes those artists off as losses. Welcome to indentured servitude.
"And STILL NOT ONE is FORCING them to sign, they WANT TO SIGN..."
Again, most artists in this day and age intentionally avoid signing to a major label. The labels are no longer necessary to be a successful musician.
"I guess the truth and facts are not things you are really interested in..."
Uh, sure thing.
"If there was no one to sign with, they would simply not make the content in the first place.."
That's a blatant lie. Nobody requires a major record label in order to make artistic works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One thing that's allowed the labels to succeed over the decades is the seemingly inexhaustible supply of people who think they'll be the Next Big Thing, and will be made rich and famous by a record label.
"they still create content, and are able to afford to continue to create content !!!"
Really? do you not realise that for every successful label musician there have always been hundreds of unsuccessful ones?
"and they make a profit as an agreed (AGREED) percentage of the earnings gained from the content."
Go look at the published stats for musicians that have recouped their paid costs and hence started to make a profit. It's a tiny fraction. Most make nothing. The new non-label models let musicians keep most of the profits and hence actually make a decent living.
"And STILL NOT ONE is FORCING them to sign, they WANT TO SIGN..."
This is a strawman argument. Nobody has ever claimed anyone is being forced to do anything. This claim shows the weakness of your argument, since you need to make stuff up to strengthen it.
"I guess the truth and facts are not things you are really interested in..."
That's an ironic thing to say considering the massive amount of independent research that has been published over the years that debunks arguments like yours, and yet continues to be ignored by the labels as they spiral downwards into obsolescence.
"If there was no one to sign with, they would simply not make the content in the first place."
I can't tell if that's a bold-faced lie or a massive denial of reality, but you're utterly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? So when I used Megaupload to send someone music that I personally created, I was stealing content? By your logic, anyone offering online data storage who doesn't openly monitor every single transaction is aiding and abetting theft. In that case, may as well round up the entire internet because it's not going to stop simply because one, two or even twenty sites go down.
So tell me, if I claim that you stole something of mine, is it reasonable that you be held accountable without any evidence and I get to seize your property in the interim? Furthermore, I get to place the full burden of proof on you to prove your innocence. And, should it turn out that I made a false accusation, I'm immune to legal retaliation.
Do you see the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next Steps
Some sort of easy to use special effects toolbox for the home user would put a big nail in the coffin of big contents strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Add friend-to-friend sharing tools to that list
In the long term, once personal upload rates become heftier, we would only need tools like that (assuming it does what I think it does) to replace sites like YouTube. In the short term, assuming that at least some file locker sites manage to stay alive, sharing links via such a network might be OK.
Personally, I'm optimistic that things won't deteriorate to that level. Now that the genie of wide access to information/communication has been let out of the bottle, I doubt that even the **AAs can put it back (if we remain vigilant). OTOH, it pays to always have a "Plan B".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next Steps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next Steps
good luck with getting that free online !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Next Steps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_content_films
http://vodo.net
Slowly but surely people will find the tools to make things for themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_editing_software
https://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Lightworks
Power of free:
Blender Siggraph 2011 reel (Revised) by BlenderFoundation on Aug 24, 2011.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Next Steps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next Steps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Next Steps
As Stephen King once wrote, thinking of money "constipates the whole process." When financial return is not the primary motivator, quality is more likely to be better. And it is the very companies you admire who are responsible for the lack of quality in mainstream works due to their virtual monopoly and and their paranoia regarding anyone producing any content outside of their system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Next Steps
Now hold on here. I didn't say EVERY SINGLE studio makes good stuff. That might have been true 10 years ago, but now I can count the number of TRULY great games/movies/whatever on both hands. Most studios ARE indeed producing horse shit these days, (yes call of duty and beiber wannabes, I'm talking to YOU.) you can't say EVERY single piece of entertainment produced by a major studio today sucks. Because there are a few things that are still good. :P
The point I was trying to make though, is that some dude in his garage doesn't have the budget or work hours that the studio does, which WILL either affect the quality of the work, or have a ridiculous turn over time due to only working on it an hour a day after work/school. I agree a lot of studios need to get their shit together and connect with their fans and all that other fun stuff, but they (and mid to large sized indie studios perhaps) are the only ones capable of being able to make things like games or an anime in a reasonable time frame. I don't know about you, but I don't want to wait a year or two for a single anime episode because all the people working on it had to get other jobs and only had time to work on it an hour or two a day.
"You also fail to understand that when something is a creative passion to someone, they naturally seek to hone their skill whether formally or not as best they can, and to make their work of the best quality that they can because it is an expression of who they are."
I'm a musician myself, so no. I don't "fail to understand." Definitely agree that someone shouldn't be MONEY MONEY MONEY all the time, but it still SHOULD be a concern. Put yourself in a content creator's shoes. Would you feel more comfortable creating something you know your fans will like enough to support, or any random thing because you are "expressing yourself" with no regard to what money you might make? Of course both can be done over a career, but the first one WILL be the majority of what someone creates if it's their job. You say not worrying about money affects the quality of the work in the end...the same can be said if your favorite artist/game dev/whatever had to work on their craft after being a walmart greeter all day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a moron.
A granted monopoly is excluding others from doing something and that includes people being able to express themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a moron.
masnick owns the copyright of the web site "techdirt", the Government does not enforce his copyright, it does not OWN his copyright.
it is the choice of Masnick (the copyright owner and enforcer) to choose if he does or does not want to enforce that copyright.
Again, the Government enforces laws, copyright owners enforce copyright, and if they choose to enforce that copyright, and they see someone breaking that law (of using that copyright) to get the Government to enforce the copyright owners RIGHTS, as it is a law, and the Government enforces laws !!!..
how old are you ? have you ever received an education ?
what a moron... !!!!!! is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What a moron.
No it is the copyright holder of Techdirt, who censors what is and is not presented.
Do you think Masnick asks the Government if he can make a post ?
Yet Masnick holds the copyright on the content, and is 100% responsible for the censorship of content !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What a moron.
How will you enforce copyrights if you don't have courts?
Obviously you have to use the government to do the enforcing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a moron.
I imagine a 1984-ish scene: A massive herd of people --ordinary citizens, with muzzles around their mouths and their hands handcuffed behind their backs. They are being forced along an orderly procession by the thought police who have them completely surrounded. The only ones left with any degree of freedom are the few at the top who control the money, the information and the law. A huge neon sign flashes a message: "You belong to us: Your every thought, action, emotion... All ours. Do not step out of line; do not presume to act the part of the hero because there are none left. You have no voice, therefore you cannot protest. You cannot defeat us."
Funny thing is, this seems eerily similar to what the major media is trying to create: an internet wherein all things, all knowledge and all art/creativity is filtered through them. An internet where anything they deem unfit ot undesirable ...vanishes in the blink of an eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a moron.
Of course they will. Whenever the government does ANYTHING it's for it's own purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a moron.
I thought the explanation was extremely clear, so I'll just assume you are a bit slow and try to explain it again. It is very much censorship because it does not place the burden of proof on copyright holders to prove copyright takes place. It forces people trying to express their own bits, and the people/sites trying to distribute those bits, to first prove they are not in fact violating copyright to avoid liability (and given the length and scope of modern copyright, that's a pretty high bar for most people to hurdle).
Given the technology, these bills will not do what they claim they want them to do, prevent infringement. What they WILL do, is what they really want them to do, and that is stifle competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a moron.
Before commenting next time, you might want to watch the video first, so that you can understand the topic. Posting straw men just makes you look stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a moron.
So what is your preferred term for when non-infringing content is taken offline without any adversarial process in a broad sweep to net infringing content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a moron.
I don't like that aspect of recent activity myself - but that doesn't make it censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopoly
We already know about DaJaz1 and how the RIAA fooled ICE to seized this domain despite the vast volume of lawful music supply.
What is most concerning with this latest Mega case is that they shut down MegaBox. We may recall that Kim was offering artists 90% of the sales and setting himself up as direct competition of the RIAA. That service was announced during the Mega Song conflict when UMG falsely took down this lawful independent video. The time between then and now is just long enough for the Feds to plan this massive raid!
Let me get this straight when the RIAA using their private Governmental Police service just closed a huge and dangerous market rival. I can promise you now that the Judge is going to take a very close look at that one and he won't like what he sees.
If you combine MegaBox, this Mega Song case, DaJaz1 and more you can certainly make out a clear pattern of the RIAA abusing the market, destroying independent channels, to protect is monopoly.
The Federal Government certainly won't have an easy case here and to justify their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Monopoly
Had they followed justice and due process then first would be a civil court case proving they violate DMCA law. Then can follow a criminal case proving they aim to infringe copyright as part of their business plan. Only once then convicted of a major crime is it fair to order company closure, bank funds seized and seizure of the domain names.
What we have here is nothing more than censorship. We do not like you, we do not like what you are doing, and despite no infringement conviction at all we will totally destroy your multi-million dollar corporation including several sub-companies unrelated to our main infringement claims.
This is not justice and due process when this is only monopoly censorship. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Kim under the law is innocent and yet his many companies stand "destroyed"
We should be very concerned indeed seeing half of the DoJ's claims are little more than a sad joke. This is not to forget the many thousands of artists and others who have just had their lawful supply shut down.
For these reasons file sharers are currently at War and our enemy is known. Respect justice and due process and we respect you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Roman Legions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One missed point
If someone sends you a DMCA takedown notice, you're guilty until proven innocent. And if you buy a copyrighted work that includes DRM, and something goes wrong with the authentication, you're not even guilty until proven innocent; you're just plain *guilty*, and screw any relevant facts.
Until we manage to push back and overturn the DMCA, this will keep going on. He's quite right that the DMCA is at the root of all of this, and the only way to win any real, meaningful victory is to get it repealed or thrown out in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Lamar Smith Internet Bill on the way
http://live.drjays.com/index.php/2012/01/20/sopa-is-defeated-but-new-internet-bill-gains-critics /
They hide the provision in a child pornography bill. This is so that they can go after the Biebers of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Lamar Smith Internet Bill on the way
The action starts at section 4. This collected and stored information would be accessible via an administrative subpoena. Given that there is nothing limiting said type of request to anything regarding children I would have to say that this bill is no small threat to any given three year record of your online bread crumbs.
Lamar is a cheeky bastard and his string pullers will not stop until forced to.
We'll be batting down bills and sneaky amendments like this forever until we get to the root of the problem. Let's define that and dig in like we mean it and Fight Like the Internets! (FLI)(what?)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA & PIPA are the symptom ...
Yes, I think IP creators should be compensated but I think we should reduce free speech and encumber innovation and creativity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA & PIPA are the symptom ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA & PIPA are the symptom ...
the limit is USE YOUR OWN FREAKING STUFF, and dont steal stuff from others...
how hard is that !!!!
to keep it simple (your probably from America), use the stuff YOU come up with and create yourself, and DO NOT use stuff that others have created...
unless you are an ameteur thief, not a film maker, make freaking films, dont steal films made by others....
Geeeezzzzzz..
BTW: when you are driving a car, those sign's on the side of the road with numbers on them are LIMITS to the speed you are legally allowed to travel !!..
anything else, you need to know,, what about how to tie your shoe lasses ?
no one is interferring with your free speech rights, you are free to speak your own mind, you are simply not free to speak someone elses mind...
dont you "get" free speech either ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA & PIPA are the symptom ...
And yes, they ARE interfering with our free speech. YOU clearly don't "Get" free speech, because if you did, you would see that any bill that gives a kill switch for any website will be abused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SOPA & PIPA are the symptom ...
darryl seem a little bit desperate lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason SOPA & PIPA are not going away
We're all being played, and all the players are in it for the long haul. Every administration since Nixon has worked towards an imperial president. We're going to lose, there's no doubt about it, because we have placed lords and princes in power over us. Big money knows how to align their interests with government to get what they both want: more control.
Read this: http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4229964/Chip-counterfeiting-case-exposes-defense-supply-chai n-flaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real reason SOPA & PIPA are not going away
Here's another video ... well, movie (1.5 hours so watch it in the living room using your Google TV) that talks about this and other subjects.
CULTURAL CREATIVES - THE (R)EVOLUTION
http://vimeopro.com/fogelmedia/cultural-creatives-10-the-revolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real reason SOPA & PIPA are not going away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real reason SOPA & PIPA are not going away
win or lose ? are you the tyrant or not ?
you may not lose,, but you certainly will not win either..
I dont even think you are in the game, or know what the game is..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real reason SOPA & PIPA are not going away
"I dont even think you are in the game, or know what the game is.."
Spoken like a true shill, my dear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real reason SOPA & PIPA are not going away
really !!!! I would have thought it was somewhat longer than that.. I did not know it was such a new building !
oh, yea, the white house is a building, when was the last time you saw a building playing a game ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's amazing how anti-competitive laws are never used to go after those who attack restaurants and other venues that wish to host independent performers because their content might compete with government established media monopolists.
Instead, anti-competitive laws are used to go after Google for trivial reasons in ways that hurt society more than they help it. They're not used to go after those who are actually responsible for anti-competitive activities. They're used to after more honest businesses that actually provide society with social benefit (not that Google is completely honest, but they sure as heck are better than Hollywood).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redirecting the fight
True it would take some time to hurt them, but eventually they would resort to doing something so stupid that our cause would only gain momentum.
It may currently be difficult to get this ball rolling, but consider the fact that most of the Internet users are quite a lot younger than most of us. They are also the ones that typically go to most of the movies. I myself am 50 yrs old, and rarely go to the theater. It's much easier to rent it when it comes out on disk. Then I can literally "be at home" while watching the movies, hell, I can even have a cigarette or a beer when I wish.
I believe that if everyone started finding alternative pass times to going to the theater, or buying the latest CD, MPAA and RIAA would quickly back off from pushing all this crap. When it affects THEM things will be different. If it affects them every time they start some shit, they will eventually get the message.
Just like taking the food away from a dog that bites. Force it to accept hand feeding, and it will quit biting. If these two power groups keep losing their money each time they start roughing our feathers, they will quit doing it. When they quit, the congress will quit, because there's no "pocket" money in it anymore.
Maybe you think it's impossible to do this, but only a few days ago, everyone though it was impossible to break SOPA/PIPA at this current juntion. But we did... :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywierd's Inability to find a new business model
And if they can't figure out a business model that is based on streaming new releases, just ask me or any of a million other network engineers in the country.
We think that technology just MIGHT exist somewhere. . . . (eyeroll) . . . if they look around hard enough . . . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even worse things are coming
A very good talk from Cory Doctorow on this (Upcoming war on general computing):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
(Yes, way longer than 14 minutes, but I watched it attentively, and it worth watching every minute).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even worse things are coming
even every second !!!..
if you only watch it every minute, then you only see it 14 times in 14 minutes..
if you watch every minute, you would not little or no clue about what they were talking about. ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even worse things are coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real reason SOPA & PIPA are not going away
http://www.catherynnemvalente.com/fairyland/about
And you know what? That book she allowed people to pay their OWN price for, it's her best-selling book in hardcopy to date!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever happened to ACTA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See, you want to play the "that's your opinion" game. Well guess what? It's your opinion that more people will create art more quickly if they have complete unrestricted access to said art all the time. I disagree.
Regardless, there are Fair Use laws that protect much of what you argue in favor of. And if you want to argue that those laws could be less restrictive than we're in total agreement. However, you seem to be in favor of the nuclear option: Any form of "paywall" is negative.
"That's just your opinion, you have no factual basis to support that."
Really, I could pull quotes from all over the internet of many people declaring exactly what I described. It's not exactly a secret that a certain percentage of vocal pirates quite readily admit that they're in in for the free stuff.
"The grand conversation is the sharing of ideas and expression around the world, without limit, which promotes the advancement of our culture."
That you THINK promotes the advancement of culture. You want to turn it into a war of opinion, you cannot actually prove that the next one hundred years would be more artistically enlightened if everything was automatically free without limits than it would be if everything continued to come with a price tag.
"Information does not belong to any singular entity."
Again, that's your opinion.
"To claim as such would be the misappropriation of culture. Information, knowledge, and culture is not something anyone should have the right to restrict nor limit."
Again, that's your opinion.
"SOPA/PIPA. They are always trying to own the means of communication. TV, Radio, Cable, and print media have been nearly the exclusive domain of the corporate media outlet. The internet is a threat to that control. The internet is not an exclusive club that only the rich media corporations have the means to distribute with. It is a place where the power of distribution is made accessible to the common person. Anyone can now create and distribute content throughout the world, reaching as many people as whom care about your work. That runs counter to their goals of maintaining a captive, passive audience."
You didn't answer my question. SOPA and PIPA would have zero impact on my ability as an artist to create and distribute my work. I'll ask again: I've been producing creator owned content for twenty years. How is corporate media interfering with this?
"Anyone who doesn't realize this is a battle over the marketplace and a war on competition from the public is blind."
Opinion.
"There is one thing that a business always puts at the top of their hit list: competitors. This is obvious information and common knowledge."
It's your opinion that these two services are competitors.
"It's not simply the "pirates", its anyone whom competes with them for the mind share."
If this is true, you should easily be able to show multiple examples of this war against independent creation and distribution prior to the shutdown of services that serve as vehicles of piracy. Go ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, this is an opinion blog. So yes, we are playing the opinion game. We can state our opinions (and any supporting evidence and reasoning) and you can state your opinions (which mostly lack evidence and reasoning) and readers can decide what to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can disagree all you want people can look at Red Hat and see that they can't enforce any monopoly except for their trademarks and see that they are doing just fine, Arduino another example of openness that works, Jamendo, Magnatune, Youtube, Vimeo, when things are unrestricted people find ways to use them, ways which no one person can come up with, it also creates more opportunities for more people, it creates more economic activity in all income segments not only the higher brackets which in turn creates greater need for services and products which ends up creating more wealth.
This is not an opinion is a statement of fact or are you stating that lower barriers to access promote the use of something?
How one guy with the power to stop the entire population of a country from doing something promotes larger adoption of anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you describe as "grand conversation" sounds like "people want stuff for free".
That statement is why I mentioned the distinction between price and value. If you truly understood that distinction, you would not have made that statement. Also, you say you were supporting free distribution before the internet existed, yet if that were true, you would not have made the statement that you did above. Rather, you would understand that the monetization of copies is no longer feasible in most cases and would agree with what Greevar is saying rather than oppose it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A nerve has been touched? Could that be due to your engagement is foolish and unfounded assumptions regarding my opinion?
You can pretend that my reaction is an indication of that your position holds merit. But such assumptions are foolish. All you're doing is ignoring the very clear reality that you responded to me in an arrogant manner and attached a multitude of positions to me that I do not hold. I have no patience for idiots, and you painted yourself as one.
"yet if that were true, you would not have made the statement that you did above."
Except that it is true, and I did. And we're just back to you being a presumptuous asshole. Congratulations on that.
"Else why would you lack concern over SOPA/PIPA
If you bothered to read my words with context rather than foolishly attempting to analyze them for hidden meanings, you would see that I clearly stated that personal disagreement with the collateral damage of SOPA and conceded that there is danger of abuse with SOPA. You're taking a very true statement, that SOPA will not affect my business model, and pretending it means something other than what it means. Give up trying to read between the lines and address the things I say rather than the arguments that only exist in your own imagination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While I partially agree with you, I don't view all file sharing as legitimate. Indeed, some of it is tantamount to outright theft. However, I much prefer the internet as it once was. At least so-called pirates never prohibited my access to websites, goods and ideas around the globe. Copyright infringement is and will always be secondary to freedom of speech and the open market which, if big media has their way, will be on the chopping block. I predict that within the coming years, the internet will be severely crippled by oppressive corporate/government interests and major public backlash will result. They want us all to shut our mouths and consume their products and their media propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, the corporations don't view things the same way. They don't want ANYONE transferring data without themselves acting as their intermediary. All that matters to them is whatever will increase their bottom line and control of content distribution. Piracy is the most convenient excuse because it allows them to portray themselves as the hapless victim. They so badly want to control the internet in much the same way as they do TV, film, print, and entertainment. They already treat their own stables of artists like corporate slaves and have shown contempt for the buying public. Granting these corporate heads reulatory powers over the internet isn't going to completely eliminate piracy -- it is, however, going to put us on the fast track towards a broken, big brother-ish, heavily censored internet.
Sad thing is, although we've won the battle against SOPA/PIPA for the time being, they're winning the war, what with Megaupload creating a chilling effect across other digital storage/locker sites. Doom and gloom is in the air.
[ 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:
Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Listen to how the news media reports accidental shootings. They say the gun "went off". Guns don't just decide to "go off". Someone has to pull the trigger or cause the gun to discharge in some way.
If "killing people is part of the very nature of what guns do", then the same could be said of cars and a lot of other things. But somehow I feel this is part of a whole different debate.
[ 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:
Regardless, the point remains: The ability to use something in a specific manner does not automatically justify the activity in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You don't even appear to know what my claims are.
"nor have you described how SOPA/PIPA will not affect your business model, or even what that business model is."
My personal life and how SOPA does or does npt affect my business is 100% irrelevant to any argument I have advanced.
"You have merely responded with additional unsubstantiated denials."
False.
"Therefore, your argument is invalid. Lashing out merely diminishes your own credibility and accomplishes nothing aside from making you appear as though you are throwing a virtual temper tantrum."
I treat you with the contempt you have earned., You entered our dialog by assigning multiple arguments to me that I did not advance, and attempted to pigeon-hole my perspectives into some pre-built slot that fits your personal world view. But it turns out you're not very good at discerning hidden intent.
"You also failed to reconcile the statement of yours which I highlighted with your claim that you understand digital distribution. If you did, you would have no problem with the free sharing of digital files, as you would understand that attempting to monetize them directly in most cases is neither feasible nor sustainable."
So basically you're saying that there are two options - I understand the topic and must agree with you, and if I disagree with you I must not understand the topic. Ha!
"If you did, you would have no problem with the free sharing of digital files, as you would understand that attempting to monetize them directly in most cases is neither feasible nor sustainable"
Are you simply an idiot? I guess so. I repeatedly stated that I favor digital distribution and the free business model. Do I need to break this down into simpler words for you?
For fuck's sake, you can't seem to grasp even the simplest of concepts. Did you read the thread and assume posts by other people belonged to me or something?
Let me attempt to get through your skull here: I am not inclined to waste time defending or substantiating viewpoints that I neither advanced nor believe. You can attempt to define my perspectives and opinions beyond my clearly written words all you like, but that actions is both foolish and dangerously arrogant.
Do us both a favor and READ before you respond again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect competition the dream.
It is a new year and I really want to see that happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy is as big of a slimy liar as Masnick is.
You people are truly sick. And dangerous. Thank god I have a government that is protecting me from you sociopaths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not that I regard the Tea Party that much, but they did one thing and that was they showed the Republicans they can unseat anyone of them that doesn't hear them, now they just need to start drafting laws and you are screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]