DMCA Takedown Service Tells Copyright Companies: 'Adapt Your Business To The New Digital World'
from the they-really-get-it dept
Although DMCA takedown notices figure quite frequently here on Techdirt -- especially abusive ones that use the system to remove material covered by fair use or even in the public domain -- the industry that has grown up around them remains somewhat in the shadows. That's what makes the site with the self-explanatory name "Takedown Piracy", found via the 1709 Blog, so fascinating: it offers a glimpse of the world of DMCA takedowns as seen from the other side.
As you might expect, Takedown Piracy sends DMCA notices to sites that it believes are holding copyrighted material belonging to its clients. But what's surprising is the scale of the takedown: one recent post on the site talks of "hammering these sites with DMCAs", and later goes on to give an idea of what that entails:
Once word got around that [the #3 adult torrent site] Cheggit was complying, myself and at least one other removal company began monitoring the site daily resulting in 100s if not 1000s of torrents were being reported every day.
Since the site was "complying", that presumably meant 1000s of torrents were also being taken down every day. Making extra work in this way lies at the heart of the company's service, as this helpful FAQ explains:
Piracy is rampant and can often seem like you’re playing Whack-A-Mole. However, in this case you’re not just hitting the moles with rubber mallets but we’re dropping napalm bombs on the whole field. Part of the success of piracy sites can be attributed to them offering a superior surfing experience for users. As long as copyright owners do nothing, that experience will continue to be superior. We interfere with that experience by introducing frustration to the mix. Whether it’s the site owner frustrated at the amount of time he/she spends on removing content or the frustration the downloader feels at not being able to find free content, frustration is a very valuable tool to use in combating piracy, and we excel at that.
What's fascinating here is the recognition that piracy sites offer a "superior experience for users" – compared to the official offerings. That confirms other evidence that what people who use unauthorized sources are really seeking is not free content -- because often they must pay to access them -- but the extra convenience those sites offer.
Which means, of course, that it is the copyright industries themselves, with their failure to provide that convenience, that are helping to drive potential customers to alternatives. It also implies that if the content companies managed to make their offerings competitive with pirate sites -- that is, even more convenient -- they would win back much of that lost business.
Significantly, that is what the Takedown Piracy service seems to advocate:
While we’re doing our thing, you’re able to adapt your business to the new digital world and have a chance for your new distribution models to flourish.
If even an avowed enemy of pirates can see what's needed, why can't the copyright companies themselves?
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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: adapt, business, business models, copyright, dmca, takedowns
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"We interfere with that experience by introducing frustration to the mix."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adapting would require them to both be honest (something they've proven to be largely incapable of) and to be able to actually compete in the marketplace (something they've also proven to be largely incapable of).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Instead. They told people "no singles from cds" which gave birth to Napster. They kept idiotic windows in place which sent people to video and movie pirate sites and kept geographical restrictions in place which sent people off to video sites. Sometimes industries create their worst nightmares and the piracy issue is one glaring example of that. Live music thrives because there really is no alternative to being at a show even if there's hundreds of people dancing and crowd surfing around you. You're a part of something. An important part of something, at least in your own mind which is where it really matters. Recordings not so much to hear the RIAA tell it thouhgh they've never addressed the issue of 13 cuts on a CD and 9 of them trash at an expensive price. Movies not at all because. apparently, they're all losing their shirts while continuing to drag in record revenues and profits.
What the monitoring agency/company is telling them is STOP making things so difficult or there will always be piracy. Seems a simple enough thing to figure out. But the RI/MPAAs of the world just can't seem to grasp it.
The way you did business, the pre-Web models you used are dead and gone. Accept it and adapt and you'll do fine. But just remember this you made things so hard or impossible to do legally the underground you were afraid of is alive, well and thriving and it's not going away. More people seem to trust pirate sites that they do Hollywood or whatever sites Hollywood might set up to respond to this in an intelligent way. So the opportunity to carve out part of the web to be the "new" radio, tv and movie houses has come and gone and they weren't there for it. The orderly mall has become a bazaar. So now they're going to have to try harder to convince customers to try them out after the customers have been treated as criminals (DRM), locked out (sliding release windows), geographic restrictions that make no sense (gee I can record a program from an American channel in Canada or I can record the same program on a Canadian channel but I can't watch a clip???? WTF?).
They had the chance, they blew it. The chance isn't coming back again. So much for some kind of new monopoly steam, four or five years ago it MIGHT have worked. Not now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This site is such a hoot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ripping your own DVD's gives a superior experience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ripping your own DVD's gives a superior experience
Doesn't need much more than 2 neurons to see that this will be outdated next year so why make it obligatory to watch?
Sometimes I take my DVDs out to watch and that's when I get reminded how nice it is to be a pirate. No unskippable content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ripping your own DVD's gives a superior experience
Yep. And no 10-20 minutes of commercials for TV shows.
While they can be skipped with DVR i would rather not even have them intertwined with the show in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ripping your own DVD's gives a superior experience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ripping your own DVD's gives a superior experience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"superior surfing experience for users"
could also mean, no ads, no stupid articles, no annoying pictures or pop ups etc...
bottom line is they want it free
"While we’re doing our thing, you’re able to adapt your business to the new digital world and have a chance for your new distribution models to flourish"
could also mean, while we take down the illegal content, your able to sell your content, since the illegal content is now gone
but most of the free loading losers will just look for another illegal rogue site to download content from, that they don't want to pay for to begin with
this article doesn't prove what you say, you read it your way to back up your arguement, while others read it differently
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're right, that's why Gabe is swan diving in his piles of money right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"bottom line is they want it free"
"free loading losers"
"they don't want to pay for to begin with"
Mr Pot, have you met Kettle, Esq.? I think you'll get on.
How does your typically skewed and falsified take address people who want to pay but either can't or are offered a vastly inferior experience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Who do you think you're fooling? You're very funny here, prancing around pretending this blog isn't full of unemployed content addicts that spend their worthless days ripping off other's work, in between bouts of registering faux indignation about their "rights" on pirate blogs like this. Gag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And guess what, the more you post shit like that, the more transparent you become.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Most of my friends have had or currently do have a Netflix account. Single biggest complaint on Netflix? Lack of new content. These are paying customers looking for the content you worship above all else who can't get it.
Here's a tip, put this junk on Netflix for reasonable rates. I can guarantee that piracy rates will plummet overnight.
Oh, me and my friends are employed too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
You keep saying things like this. I'd like to see the files you've had drawn up on all the commenters on this blog. How much does who pirate who also comments on this blog? How many of us are unemployed? How many private investigators are you wasting money on to find all this out?
Oh, you're not investigating us? You're just wildly speculating and your conclusions coincidentally fit your preconceptions about freetard pirates who just want everything for free? We thought as much.
Not everyone here is a pirate. Not everyone here just wants stuff for free. That you can convince yourself and attempt to convince others that that is the only perspective held by anyone who disagrees with your point of view is indicative of how much you live in denial of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am none of those things you describe. You, on the other hand, seem to be of the first commentors on every single Techdirt article posted. Isn't that telling.
Why don't you go peddle your one sided bullshit on the comments section of a MPAA or RIAA sponsored blog. Oh that's right. They don't actually want to hear what their customers are saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Think about that for a moment, then ponder the actual arguments being made, not the fantasy strawmen you people depend upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean... if the "pirates" can distrubite the content so easily, why the content industry can't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, the stupidity of this comment, accusing someone of something while doing that very same thing to "back up your arguement"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Part of the success of piracy sites can be attributed to them offering a superior surfing experience for users. As long as copyright owners do nothing, that experience will continue to be superior."
They obviously mean that piracy is evil and costs the economy more than the entertainment industry makes in a year.
Oh and....
"While we’re doing our thing, you’re able to adapt your business to the new digital world and have a chance for your new distribution models to flourish."
That clearly means that we are doing our best to hold off piracy until you can get lawmakers to completely protect your business at the expense of everyone else.
Thank you for helping us all with our reading comprehension. All those words in plain English were a little confusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A genuine question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's known as the "Redbeard Rum" argument:
"Isn't it usual to have a crew on a ship?"
"Opinion is divided; All the other Captains say it is, I say it isn't"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read It
Does the recording companies and publishers not steal all the producers rights, when they sign them up for marketing agreements?
Now there are options to how producers market their stuff and these recording and publishing companies no longer have monopolies.
You think MegaUpload was shut down for piracy? No that was only the public face of the action, the spin if you will. There were plenty of artists making a good living through MegaUpload that will not have that option any more. "Monopoly" through any means possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (@9)
There are ads all over piracy sites for one. The popup thing is a false claim, no one likes pop ups. I'm glad they stopped being such a big thing as they were in the 90s. At least now I can watch porn without having to close 20 popups a picture.
Who really cares what the reason is though, a superior service is a superior service. If I have the option between a mechanic who makes me listen to music I hate at full volume and a mechanic who just has on quiet music, whatever it is, the latter is a superior service and people will go there even if the first is cheaper.
Most people would be fine with paying, but if it means I have to sign up for 3 services that don't work well together (violetlight or whatever it is, I'm lookin at you), then its service is equivalent to having your dinner served with a shit log on top.
"You're able to adapt your business" does _NOT_ mean "you're able to sell your content" because the latter implies that _NOTHING_ is changing. Something has to change in your business for it to adapt.
Next time you say "could also mean", make sure you find actual possible meanings. You're practically inferring that the sky is red from the sentence "the sky is blue".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you run a restaurant, and don't have to pay for your food costs, you can spend plenty of extra money and time on "the eating experience". Pirate sites are in the same boat, they don't spend their time producing the content, cataloging it, or maintaining it, they get all that for free. They can spend their efforts on a better user experience. That improvement in experience is mostly that people don't have to pay!
I think what these guys did is perfect. They made the torrent site have to deal with the reality of using pirated content as the core of it's business, and when it got the point of having to deal with 100s or 1000s of removal requests, it ends up being too expensive to use this "free" content.
When it comes to this sort of thing, porn companies are way ahead of everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...then you're working in a fantasy universe where physical items incur no overhead, and thus you can do anything with the unicorns surrounding you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So sorry if it doesn't line up with your world view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you explain how much it costs to produce a copy of a pdf?
[ 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:
I'm sorry your world view can't allow for anything other than black-and-white, and precludes you from intelligent thought. Even a child would understand that your pathetic analogy is fundamentally wrong.
Unless you honestly think that the negligible overheads associated with copying digital files is the same level of overhead as buying in raw food ingredients, in which case back to the unicorns with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The site was packed full of torrents of illegal content. The rights owners "pounded" them with DMCAs until the cost of their "free" content was higher than it would be to be legit, and they shut down.
Deal with the main subject, stop trying to wander away from it. FACE UP TO REALITY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait... I know, you are snickering. But think about it. There is no need for them to change at all. If their business models are truly that bad, they will be wiped out by new business models, new entrants into the entertainment business that will wipe them out.
Let's go back and look at the classic buggy whip / buggy history. When the car came out, it became a better product, with better usability, better user experience, and it slowly but surely pushed the buggy companies out of business. Now, the car manufactures didn't hire hit squads to go out and shoot all of the horses to eliminate the old business model, they just made a better product, sold it in a better way, and as a result, they came to dominate the marketplace.
Mike tries to play it as a "business model" discussion, but it really is product. The business model follows the product, not the other way around.
If you think that the free distribution model is a better business model, then make some content for it and use the business model. If the model is so good, it will wipe out the existing entertainment businesses and the problem will solve itself.
However, if the only way the new models can compete is by taking the product of the "old models" and delivering it without cost, then they really aren't better business models.
Why do all the new models seem to be hinged on "and we pirate the old system into the ground?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The crazy thing about all of you AC's is how you attack Mike and this site while he is only trying to help you.
However, if the only way the new models can compete is by taking the product of the "old models" and delivering it without cost, then they really aren't better business models.
Correction - they aren't better business models for you! Why don't you guys ever consider the customer in your arguments? It isn't Mike himself out there costing you $10-bizallion in lost sales every year. It's your own goddamn customers. They decided your business model is no good. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well yes and no. That's exactly what willhappen/is happening. Except the playing field isn't level so it isn't happening as fast as it should. Unless, I suppose, you consider it acceptable as part of a business model to be able to buy laws to prop up your business in against any emerging competition that doesn't happen to have several billion lying around to "lobby" with.
It's both and service is a product too. Cars took off not when cars turned out to be "better" than horses, but when they were better AND accessible AND cheaper due to mass production.
You do know that every time you yark on about "giving stuff away doesn't work" you sound dumb, right? Not one person in this thread mentioned "the free distribution model" but you. I wasn't aware it was singular either.
They only do in your tiny little universe inside your head. Most articles and comments about business models I've seen round here talk about different ways of using legitimate content. Netflix for example. On the other hand you, like the major content companies seem to have one of 2 responses to companies or ideas like that; 1/ [put fingers in ears] "La la la la la I'm not listening to you, you can't make me so there!" 2/ "Oh, we didn't think that would work, right well now you owe us ummmmmm a Gazillion dollars in extra licensing fees that we've just invented on top of the ones we agreed to in the first place. Why? Umm well because only WE are allowed to make ANY money whatsoever of our stuff (It's OURS OURS OURS SO THERE!!!) and you're just making too dang much even though you're paying us."
[ 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:
Unless they spend 100s of millions of dollars to keep their bad business model relevant by buying registration and federal officers.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because that's all that was presented to be by you to argue with. I'm not disputing either than the site had pirated material, nor that the DMCA was used to shut it down (although there were certainly better ways to do this, and the method used is troubling for less clear cut cases).
No, what you presented was an idiotic analogy, attacks on people who haven't disputed your point, then went on your usual bullshit path of asserting your own opinion as if it were fact. In other words, you won't address the actual reality in front of you, because then you might have to think, and accept that people sometimes have valid opinions that differ from your blind assertions.
Why don't you wake up to reality? You are still unfamiliar with it, despite all the times people have shown it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You really should take a look because then you will realize just how little is actually spent on "efforts on better user experience". Pirate sites tend to be pretty bare and ugly to look at. They are not the most user friendly. In general as web pages go pirate sites suck.
The reason people go there is because even though they are ugly and a pain to use they are STILL easier to deal with than movie studios options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's stop apologizing for guys who run torrent sites, profiting from the work of others. It seems just stupid to support them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's stop apologising for guys who run studios that expect everyone to pay though the nose for mediocre product with zero delivery or service. It just seems stupid to support them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From my experience on the other side...
first we comply with a few. then some asshole starts sending dozens, then hundred or thousands. so we mirror the site, redirect to a new domain and burn the old contact emails.
Lesson learned, thats the last time those admins will deal with your nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Just Don't Get It!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Just Don't Get It!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They Just Don't Get It!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They Just Don't Get It!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They Just Don't Get It!
In a perfect world HBOGo would have all of the episodes you are looking for. This isn't a perfect world however.
(Viruses in pirated content, really? Just read the damn comments they aren't hard to avoid.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morony, pure and simple.
They are like a monkey who won't let go of handful of nuts in a jar, the nuts are keeping their hand stuck in the jar but they refuse to let go and get them out 1 at a time.
They will eventually starve to death, still clinging the same nuts they refused to let go of. Morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahahah, such a 'macho' analogy.
but what do you do when the moles go underground totally? Your 'napalm' won't work there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And considering their opponent,this is all they end up doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all just spin.
As long as SOPA exists - I won't buy music or movie DVD's/CD's new - used only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You remember wrong. CBS has only owned CNET for a few years. "Back in the day" they were independent. That meme that went around about CBS purposely seeding the world with file sharing programs is highly misleading and has to do with a silly lawsuit someone filed. Don't be duped.
[ 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:
If you started from scratch, this still wouldn't be the most desirable model. Versioning alone of files is a real issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Torrents are not efficient, except for the ways in which they are efficient." Interesting observation.
Soooo making, for example, an official release with an appropriate hash that's independantly checkable wouldn't go some way to solving versioning, or a little bit of thought and development from someone in whose intrerests it would be to make it more efficient? And as it is, you'd say bit-torrents were far less efficient than, say, shipping little plastic disks everywhere?
I think what you meant was "I can't think of a good way to be able to charge a boat-load of cash for every single peer-to-peer byte of data moved, nor can I think of a justification I could use to charge enough to average at least 1000% profit per item that anyone would swallow"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Versioning issues exist because not everyone has the right update. Trying to keep current (and eliminate out of date versions) in a universe where you don't control the distribution is pretty much a losing batter.
As for the rest of your post, it's total bullshit. Let's compare REAL models - bit torrent distribution, or direct download servers. In a direct download, you control the content, and you serve your customers directly, creating trust. The costs of bandwidth are low, so the costs to distribute in this manner are very low.
The rest of your post, well, just isn't honest or fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now there's an idea. I think I'll just go buy myself a legitimate 1080p download of the "just re-released on bluray" Pulp Fiction. Oh.. that's a shame I don't seem to be able to find one that's not (probably) infringing. In fact searching for it I don't see one offering I could "trust" not to be infringing. It seems my only choice for legitimate HD content is a little plastic disc. What was that about comparing REAL models?
Fair? possibly not. Honest? Yes it was a 100% honest, if facetious, opinion based on observation.
Oh, and:
Aaaaaand again with the "wanting stuff for free" rant. If you dislike it so much offer the customer a CHOICE. Personally I don't mind sharing a bit of bandwidth since a/ I can control it and b/ I can get a Linux distro or appliance server down in a 10th of the time it would take otherwise. But if sharing your toys and playing nicely isn't your thing that's up to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Riiiight. Freeloading on the internet connection that I pay for with my hard earned cash.
Next, your going to tell me that about all those bastards who "freeload" phone minutes on their unlimited phone plans by talking too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what Blizzard does and its much better than a direct download. Its better because they have multiple servers all giving out the bandwidth that most people use for a direct download. So rather than choosing a mirror to download from you download from all the mirrors at once.
Also, when a ton of people are downloading the same thing from a direct download host that host will not be able to provide a good speed to everyone, all pipes have their limits. However if this is a torrent all the people share with each other so as the host slows down the web of peers picks up the slack.
Blizzard has 11 million people downloading patches on the same day. They would not, and were not, be able to do this efficiently without torrenting the content.
Claiming you can't control versions when using torrents is also laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other places to buy music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"... you're able to adapt ..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Customer Appreciation
This sounds like the content industry's business model to a tee. The content they provide aka. "legal" are pure frustration for end users who have already paid! Frustrated by window releases, region locks, forced commercials, drm locks, lack of device portability, etc. Until the legacy buffoons make their services less of a frustration than pirate sites they will not gain ground over piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Customer Appreciation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frustrating customers... what the media industry does best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frustrating customers... what the media industry does best.
Well that's exactly it. When you've made your proudct so much more frustrating than the pirate alternative, you have two choices to compete. Make your product less frustrating, or theirs more so. They are unwilling to do the former, so are left with the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're easily dealt with
takedownpiracy.com: BLOCK
Nobody is obligated to accept their email, just like nobody is obligated to accept anyone's email. And since they've publicly admitted that they're spammers, there's no reason to. Best to just blacklist them permanently: if they REALLY want to communicate, then can send a (paper) letter.
Bet they won't. Bet their "service", based on intimidation, abuse, and extortion, won't be financially viable if they actually have to pay for what they use instead of stealing it from their victims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I pay to see a movie or concert, I am also covering the Intellectual property fees, SO WHY am I not allowed purchase the event in question in digital format of my choosing at the manufacturing cost?
Oh yeah I forgot it’s NOT about I.P. it’s about the money stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers
Phaps they'll come to understand the concept of restraint once the corn cob is swiftly ascending their posterior nether regions. . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
opyright owners must share the blame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
opyright owners must share the blame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]