It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
from the give-'em-an-inch-and-they'll-ask-for-a-foot dept
If we've learned one thing in watching the RIAA and the MPAA over the years it's that nothing will ever be enough for them in their neverending war against providing people what they want. With Friday's surprise announcement that Google would start filtering searches based on the number of DMCA notices sites got -- something both the RIAA and MPAA have been asking for for ages -- both organizations made it clear that, while they appreciated this step in the right direction, they wanted more.First, the RIAA's statement:
"Today Google has announced a potentially significant change in its search rankings that can make a meaningful difference to creators: sites that are the subject of large numbers of copyright removal notices may be ranked lower in search results than before. This should result in improved rankings for the licensed music services that pay artists and deliver fans the music they love. This change is an important step in the right direction -- a step we've been urging Google to take for a long time -- and we commend the company for its action.And the MPAA's statement:
"As Google itself has acknowledged, this is not the only approach, and of course, the details of implementation will matter. Moreover, there are many more actions that we hope Google will take. But by taking this common-sense step and treating copyright in a way that's consistent with the search firm's approach to other forms of activity on the Internet, Google has signaled a new willingness to value the rights of creators. That is good news indeed. And the online marketplace for the hundreds of licensed digital services embraced by the music business is better today than it was yesterday."
"We are optimistic that Google's actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online, and away from the rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites, and other outlaw enterprises that steal the hard work of creators across the globe. We will be watching this development closely -- the devil is always in the details -- and look forward to Google taking further steps to ensure that its services favor legitimate businesses and creators, not thieves.”Google may think that such moves will quiet down the complaints from legacy companies who don't want to innovate, but they may find that, like feeding trolls, it just brings out even more requests...
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: copyright, filtering, search
Companies: google, mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If this does not work we will 'invest' in them and gut them from inside."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crowd funding campaign....
This won't end badly at all.... (anyone want to buy this bridge before I jump off?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google has already been taking a "common sense" and "consistent with other forms of activity on the Internet", if a search term is being used more often by users then Google tends to push it to the top. If you want your result to always be displayed at the top of the results you can take out an advertisement slot for a sponsored link.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Make the Internet more like cable TV
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Such as? Seriously, what can Google do that the RIAA can't do more effectively in the first place? Hiding "pirate" sites doesn't do a damn thing to stop them. They can completely delist every site that even mentions MP3s and free downloads, and that wouldn't suddenly stop piracy. If the legal options remain restricted, overpriced and poor quality, what exactly can Google do?
"We are optimistic that Google's actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online"
You'd have to allow them to be offered to the majority of the online population to begin with, morons. Then stop trying to make them a 3rd tier quality solution in terms of the catalogue size and other aspects. Maybe then people will start using them instead of looking for better alternatives. As it stands, the legitimate ways to access content are either crap or completely unavailable, and that's by your design.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DMCA abuse
That way when people search for RIAA/MPAA/CRIA/IFPI/etc.. they'll find articles exposing them for their true nature first.
If you're going to lower rankings of sites receiving lots of DMCA's, you clearly know who's sending them, so lower their own site rankings if they are abusing/trolling with DMCA's.
Can we add a new term? Takedown Troll?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Giving it up
"While this may sound like a lot, the two expect Google and its employees to go a step even further to combat piracy by handing over their homes, bank accounts, fillings from their teeth, hard drives, laptops, electronic equipment, video game consoles, cars, SUVs, farm animals, donkeys, shaved yaks, farming equipment, CDs, phonographs, wheel barrows, wives, husbands, children, furniture, organs, and anything else the two organizations deem necessary to combat piracy."
Yeah...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Creating Bigger Pirate Sites
I can't believe they haven't thought of the unintended consequences of a move like this. All this influencing of searches is going to do is make the already most-popular torrent sites even MORE popular. You're no longer going to search Google for what you want, you're going to search your torrent site of choice. This will create a few big players, who will only gain more power and influence. Those sites will then be even more difficult to deal with than they are now....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A modest proposal
Google should not just downrank them, but really seriously downrank them practically into non-existence. Now if you search for something like the name of a song or movie, the authorized versions would appear at the top of the very first page. Yea!
The non-authorized versions would appear at the bottom of the very last page. Just click the "last" page button to get to the end of the list of 158,390,194 zillion search results. As you can see, by downranking the non-authorized sites, they will become impossible to find. :-)
Problem solved. Everyone happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Now, Megaupload, there was a service I was willing to pay for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So the *AA sites should be pretty low since they hardly pay the majority of artists right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Licensed...
Too bad those services are ranked lower than pirate sites because pirate sites work better, maybe? Yah think?
Do pirate sites include region locking? Nope.
Do pirate sites display "We're sorry, this video is not available in your region"? Nope.
Do pirate sites make it easy to access content, anywhere, any type? Yup.
Will the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/Etc... ever clue in and give consumers what they want? Nope.
Hey RIAA/MPAA, you've heard of wheels on mice right? Know what they are for? Scrolling over things, especially non-consumer friendly services. (Trolls: that does NOT necessarily mean "free", it means free of restrictions on use).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We look forward to further developments by google to assist the RIAA and MPAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So really when Google lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube or when Google blithely links to the pirate sites, it's the huge bully kicking sand in the face of the little guy.
But no one around here will ever believe that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hold on a minute
"...their neverending war against providing people what they want."
Come on now Mike...
I agree that the MPAA and RIAA are seriously misguided, even stupid at times in the way they try to stem piracy.For example, suing thousands of your customers is a pretty terrible excuse for a revenue stream. But just because they're fools with tunnel vision, doesn't mean you can accuse them of being pure evil...
They aren't in a war with providing people what they want. They just want to get paid and for their members to be paid. Again, when you say that their methods of achieving this are ridiculous and ineffective, I agree with you 100%.
There's just too much hyperbole and not enough honest discussion about how to solve the broken music industry model. A paradigm shift is required if the industry is ever to know it's former glories. I'm of the opinion that the major label model is toast. Some good ideas have been put forward such as a broadband fee.
Why don't we talk about solutions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't use google to search for songs, tv shows or music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: DMCA abuse
DMCA abuse is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of valid DMCA requests.
Not that you want to hear this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clank!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
What does that have to do with anything? Google isn't a content creator. It's not in the same market as the record labels/Hollywood.
"So really when Google lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube or when Google blithely links to the pirate sites, it's the huge bully kicking sand in the face of the little guy. "
So even with Google going far and above what the law says they must do...you're still not happy. They're still evil. Even though all of this copyright policing costs Google a ton, the RIAA/MPAA are still not happy and will not contribute a single penny towards the cost of policing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Licensed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where's this myriad?
Or, I'll be less greedy and try "watch dark knight rises online in Canada for any price sometime this century". Could MPAA please direct me to the myriad legitimate links that they claim are out there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hold on a minute
And don't waste your breath arguing. In other contexts, Masnick and Co. love to slag off Hollywood for producing too many big budget movies that play to the crowds by giving them exactly what they want. Hollywood is rarely right -- unless it's the part of Hollywood where Kevin Smith runs his paywall.
Remember that Mr. Masnick is just part of Big Search's astroturfing corp. I'm waiting to see if he comes clean when Google has to report their paid blogging staff to the Judge in the Oracle/Google case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Pot, meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
What about Seagate etc?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Try this one
http://www.amazon.com/Christopher-Directors-Collection-Insomnia-Inception/dp/B0085D3I3K/ref=sr_1_12? ie=UTF8&qid=1344872666&sr=8-12&keywords=dark+knight+rises
Pay the creator. It's only fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yet again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Being a shill again?
Yes you are! Yes you are! Here's a treat! *Waves treat* Now, beg for it. Come on, boy, beg for it. Yes! Awww! Look how cute you are...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: DMCA abuse
Yeah, I don't get that. It's like Nuclear bombs. One nuclear bomb is just a tiny, tiny fraction of a country's arsenal, and yet, people get all anal when, say, North Korea threatens to use one.
/end sarcasm
One erroneous DMCA takedown can do a lot more damage than 1000 pirate sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Now, go sit in the corner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This sort of statement rings hollow when films like Batman or The Avengers are breaking all sorts of records in terms of money made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if they're decision is constantly showing piracy then they're complicit in the same way that a business might be if they were constantly reselling items that "fell off the back of a truck."
Face it. It's a RICO suit waiting to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or as Kipling put it (from the article):
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Gee bob, I don't know. Maybe you should look into a new line of work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Given how ineffectual it is, I think it's fair to say they don't do much at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Licensed...
And as far as I can see, Amazon UK don't have an online video store, apart from Lovefilm, of which not all their catalogue is online: a brief glance at at is mostly DVDs/Blu-rays.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Quite simply - they're not making readily available the things that are readily available - in a manner consistent with technology.
To hell with ALL the middle men. They're all a little last decade. Put it up, charge reasonable admission (FROM ANYWHERE, ON ANY PLATFORM, AT ANY TIME) and ... profit??
Pirate "sites" are, how do I put this.. obsolete. Not entirely unlike some folks' thinking on matters of entertainment and educational media.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: DMCA abuse
Wow, bob, good thing you admitted to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Uh, no. If you're talking about SOPA, that bill was all about AVOIDING due process. It was all about a site receiving multiple accusations (not convictions) of copyright infringement, and then being blacklisted from payment processors. And all without a way of fighting back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Licensed...
Other than the U.S., of course.
Try other parts of the world, bob.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Giving it up
Seriously, why is Google even bothering to placate these unyielding, tiny-minded asshats? Why even take their calls? They need to be ignored into adapting, not coddled or catered to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
SOPA, PIPA?
Uh, no.
*Ahem*
Excuse me, I need to sing like Dr. Cox now...
"WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNG!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Translation:
Woohah! Now all we have to do flood google with more false copyright notices to make competition completely vanish! God bless pseudo-monopolies like google - I can feel a new Cadillac limo coming on!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hold on a minute
In other words, you've already made up your mind, and no matter how evidence anyone shows you to the contrary, you're going to stick to your beliefs.
It's not enough in 2012 to make a movie that people want. You ALSO have to deliver it in the way people want. Hollywood could release the greatest movie of all time, one perfect in every way, but it would still be hampered by being forced to be in the cinema first, then a delay before home video release. And don't get started on online availability - if you're not in the right country, then too bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Oh! You mean that stuff that doesn't work, pirates don't bother with and only punishes paying customers?
Ah, yes, bob's solution to everything...
Punish legitimate customers for the actions of others.
It's like, if someone took a cookie from the cookie jar, instead of going after the kid with crumbs on his lips, all the other children get spankings and get no cookies later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hold on a minute
I think there's little doubt that Masnick slops from the Google shill-though along with lots of other little piggies. The question is how he spins it and whether he pre-empts the announcement with one of his own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse
(And I'm sure that Google is aching to have more examples of these.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Try this one
What's his home address?
I'd like to send him money directly.
And skip the studios.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hold on a minute
That's a very interesting argument.
I've used (and implemented) quite a few DRM solutions, and I am definitely interested in hearing what kind of bleeding edge technology you think is involved in such a system.
I'll be waiting for your reply with heightened interest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hold on a minute
I think what most people rail against- and here I agree with them- is the abuse of those technologies and the lack of safe harbors in the law. Yes the DMCA provides for exceptions and the case law that has developed in the United States over the past decade or so had enriched our understanding. However, here in Canada, our government has just enacted a law that prohibits the circumvention of TPMs, even for lawful purposes. The exceptions tot he rule are incredibly narrow (dealing with things like encryption research and reverse engineering for product compatibility).
Events like the Sony Rootkit fiasco don't help either. Fact is that DRM has acquired a bad name, not because it's inherently bad, but because it's abused by the content industry and over-protected by legislation.
Bottom line, DRM has to get a little friendlier.
Masnick has to tone down the opinion and strive for a little more objectivity. You're borderline distorting facts...as was the case in your assessment of the 7th circuit decision in MyVidster...A LITTLE OBJECCTIVITY...PLEASE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120810/10465419988/google-caves-to-hollywood-pressure- will-now-punish-sites-that-get-lots-valid-dmca-notices.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201 20808/12301619967/how-googles-contentid-system-fails-fair-use-public-domain.shtml
Those are just the articles from this month.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Licensed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Licensed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"lobbying", you say that like its a good thing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse
Uh...no, its not. To file a counter-DMCA notice (especially on Youtube) you have to be willing to fight it in court. Very few people wish to do that, because the people filing the original DMCA notices have more or less unlimited legal funds to draw upon. Famous artist Dan Bull released a video explaining just that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-pT1CMy0EU&list=UU1hkAIJnb2CSmm7SPJaPR-A&index=4& feature=plcp
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you just playing at this idiot thing or not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: DMCA abuse
A few difficult edge cases? I've heard a lot more than a few just with YouTube alone. I wouldn't call a label taking down a band's own video a "difficult case" as in the case of Roger O'Donnell. His solo work isn't even massively popular but his label issued a DMCA takedown, meanwhile it was HIM uploading HIS song on HIS YouTube channel.
Right, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of valid DMCA requests.
Here's Google's take on that which counter's your claims:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2033134126.shtml
Oh right, it's from TechDirt, so how about Google themselves?
http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/feature/93FEDCEF6636CF90CC25757A0072B4B7
(since I doubt you'll follow the links provided by TechDirt).
Here's the actual numbers since 2011:
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/
*NOTE: Letters, faxes, YouTube, not included! What was the most common form of contact from lawyers to accused infringers? Electronic? No, letter!
So even this data is incomplete.
However here's a nice report for you, refer to Figure ES-4
So the majority of the DMCA's have been against competitors.
And even more interesting:
In other words Bob, your data is not as simplistic as you, or the RIAA/MPAA/David Lowery/etc... would have it be.
Happy reading!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
To the degree that user-generated content is too great a volume for legal review, it needs to be shut down completely; we need to return to the Compu$erve/GEnie/AOL model where content flows primarily from approved, centralized sources.
Big Content needs to take away the opportunity for infringement, no matter its effects on the opportunity for speech and expression. And, it needs to be able to do this at minimal cost: due process and accuracy are not cost-effective and they do not scale.
To Big Content, the Internet (as we understand it) is acceptable collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hold on a minute
And once again, it's really not Google's job to prop up legacy players any more than it is Apple's. DRM is a poor technological fix that is simply a waste of time. How long did DVD DRM last? Blu-Ray? It's nothing to do with your BS 'big search' and everything to do with technological progress and human innovation.
Ever since region-coding on DVDs (and even some release windows on movies), a 'war' on customers has been evident. Virtually no other industry plays these games or ignores customers to this extent, let alone the people generating their content. The legacy players reap what they sow...
Maybe they aren't actually 'evil'. For instance, they aren't starting illegal wars or removing people's ability to survive without jobs or have affordable healthcare. But they appear to be wilfully blind to what they are doing, more than happy to make up vastly wrong numbers that they keep spouting, and the annoying habit of blatantly buying laws and politicians. So while they may not be Satan himself, they do qualify as one of his boils ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Try this one
Seriously? That's your suggestion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Paul, you are the master of ignorant, short term thinking. As always, you have your nose pressed firmly into Mike's ass, to the point that you can't see a thing past his virtual cheeks.
Plain and simple, if consumers are presented with two options (pirate and non-pirate), they may choose either one. Presented with more of one choice than the other, they are more likely to choose that over the other.
The widespread "acceptance" of piracy is in part built on ubiquity - there are plenty of indications out there that people "trust" Google, and if they think piracy is okay, then this must be the acceptable way to get this content.
No, Google's change won't STOP piracy. It will however have an influence in changing the views on piracy, and changing the number of "undecided" consumers who have been guided to piracy in the past courtesy of Google.
Don't think of it has trying to slam a door shut. Think of it more as the campaign against smoking. It's taken a long time to get to the current results, and still, there are people willing to kill themselves for a smoke. No, piracy won't go away... but changing public acceptance of it is the point.
Perhaps you need to get out and think for yourself for a while. Does being locked up in Spain screw you up that bad?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Movies on your Thumb Drive
Check it out at digiboo (yes, digiboo).com
I give them an A for brilliant stupidity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If by "creators", you mean individual artists, then you're (mostly) right.
If you mean the studios (who are actually owners, not creators), then you're dead wrong, boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Try this one
Infinite goods, why should I wait? Provide me something affordable now, which wouldn't 'cost' you anything, and might gain you something you wouldn't have had. Or keep whining and losing out...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Try this one
Thank you so very much for this. I have been waiting to pay of Avengers and DKR since I saw them in the theater.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rope rope give them more rope...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Oh, please.
Disney could easily buy Google, but other studios would cry "foul" (and rightfully so), believing that Disney would skew search results to favor their properties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Studios and labels aren't "creators".
They're "owners".
Artists are "creators".
Get your facts straight, boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hold on a minute
That discussion has been dismissed by the MPAA/RIAA repeatedly, there are many articles on that (not just on TechDirt either).
They don't want help, they just want to go back in time to regain control over everything, what's created, how/when it is consumed, and exploit it for maximum profits.
Funny how Hollywood rose from the ground as almost a grassroots power against patent/copyright abuse that was coming from Edison's MPPC. Amazing how quickly they forget where they came from once they become wealthy beyond belief.
MPPC had shit films the public didn't enjoy, Hollywood created new and unique films, the public loved it. Now what are they doing, trying to destroy the only means of distribution for small players, while remaking films and generating sequels in an attempt to grab as much cash as possible.
They don't want to talk solutions, they've said "we want to talk" but that's it, them talking, everyone else listening, that's all they want. In old terms, they don't want bidirectional communication (full duplex), they just want half-duplex, without the ability for said end device to send anything back, just hold it's "CTS" (clear to send) pin low and listen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And you still think that will work? Ok...just don't be surprised if some people call you insane.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Leveling the playing field is never fun for the one who HAD the advantage...until now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Licensed...
Apple and Amazon both suck - they're band-aids, stop-gaps and "this will do - this is all we can do" distribution. They're just another brand for sale accompanied and encumbered by the same old restriction sets with the same catalogs licensed from the same people for the same, approximate, costs. Yeah, sure, we win.(/s)
They're squeezing the teet and, yet, there is no more milk that's going to come out of it - cow is dead.
I wonder what the future holds.
In other words - the only "casualty" from Google's actions are those having their legit shit squashed. (Gee, I wonder who cares)
Google is just an index - filter it however you please - any way you can - put alll the good shit up top. So.. what now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Licensed...
When music from the US is labeled "import" and charged 1.5-2x the regular price, I call bullshit price fixed cash grab.
So sorry, there ARE restrictions up the ying-yang and there will be with "licensed" services until the labels/studios get it through their heads that people will pay when it works, no restrictions, no price differences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Next troll please.
And like all old bullies, the mafiaa thinks it invented bullying and can scream "prior art!".
Meet the new bullies - same as the old bullies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
READ THE FUCKING BILL!!!!!!!! It's all in there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Wrong, boy.
If offered five "legitmate" choices that take six steps each and result in poor quality
or
a so-called "non-legitimate" choice that takes two clicks and a vastly-superior product
guess which one they'll pick, even if the so-called "non-legit" one costs more?
Quality counts.
Provide it and we'll buy it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hold on a minute
"You don't offer solutions" is like walking into Tim Horton's and complaining they don't sell coffee and donuts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really?
They why doesn't it simply do so and end all this mishigas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
That comment you just put up proves everything Mike says. Here I am, a customer willing to pay, and you DON'T want to fulfill that demand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why is this so hard for you all to get?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google's argument against the 'SEO' companies (those who want to manipulate search results, as does the RIAA/MPAA) is that Google's results are protected by 1st amendment. Although mechanically generated, those search results are why people come to Google -- because they value Google's opinion on what is relevant to what they were searching for.
The 'mechanically generated' part means that they do not exercise editorial control. In fact, the lack of editorial control is why people trust Google.
When Google starts exercising editorial control is when they will lose that trust. Look at Bing when it first started. It favored Microsoft and disfavored competitors to Microsoft, even if that was what the user was searching for.
I find it amusing that you (mis) describe Google's argument for why others should not be able to manipulate its results, as a reason why your dark masters should be able to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Next Troll Please
Citation please.
Or are you just making things up as you go along in order to suit your troll?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good One!
Had me laughing there for a second...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gotta love how your bosses get their information, distort it and pump it like it was the truth.
Hell, we should stop death because what will florists do? If no one dies then florists will be out of money. Just like they are used in the numbers, along with caterers, when Hollywood claims jobs would be lost.
Because we all know caterers only cater to Hollywood studios, no one else, no other companies. Just like florists only cater to funerals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hold on a minute
A Broadband fee!!
Are you fucking nuts, thinking this is a good idea?
They already have these type of fees all over the place and yet piracy still exist.
You want to solve the piracy problem and the best you can come up with are fees?
The only way to stop piracy is to do away with the people that think piracy is a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"got this instead"... that's kind of the point. nobody is actually "getting" anything. Certainly not who you think will get something. They've achieved enough getting something for nothing for quite some time now don't you think?
Everything they're doing, apart from actually making media, is imposing they're outdated will on said media. Not gonna work anymore. Technology has rendered such an attempt as untenable. What once was hidden is now seen.
I'm a pirate apologist because pirates do it better. The way you appear to prefer these things get done is to subscribe/submit/remit to "Copyright Authority" a.k.a. cunts anonymous.
How about some authorization? Seems a bit overdue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Au contraire. The mafiaa have indeed myriad legitimate ways for them to access their own movies and TV shows.
They don't see any problem at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube? ContentID? Maybe you've heard of it? I guess not. When it blocks legitimate content created independently on bogus copyright grounds that's as close as anything gets to 'kicking sand in the fact of the little guy.' The little guy being the actual creator, not the groups you mistakenly identify as creators above who are the ones doing the sand kicking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Taken down by ICE for a whole year on the say-so of the record labels, with no evidence.
Oh, and its great you say to read the bill. Funnily enough, the new bill, TPP, I'm not allowed read. The MPAA can though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but it (ContentID) lets your shadow industries take to task culturally devastating pirates like NASA and ornithologists the world round.
At least Google hired a few humans, which is more than we can say for the former content industries whose automated takedowns illustrate very well the true formula behind their plan for "dealing with piracy":
Loose content match + hits = Corporate Ownership
Add that now well-known fact of transparent abuse of DoJ connections in the Megaupload case, and we can pretty much go ahead and turn Burbank into a virtual parking lot for independent creators.
Hell, this past weekend my faux news reading brother was bitching about DHS copyright cops and DoJ abuse by the content industries.
In case they don't already suspect, that's a very, very gloomy anecdote if you're a legacy gatekeeper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'm gonna sound (read?) like an advertisement, but Interested parties should probably read this:
http://donttrack.us/
and this:
http://dontbubble.us/
Or just try it:
http://duckduckgo.com/
It's free. If you like it, good. If you don't, it's still good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact of the matter is that, were Google to actually turn all its assets into cash, it could buy outright the entirety of the RIAA's major contributors. From a business perspective, that's the rational thing to do. However, doing so would in all likelihood destroy its core business: searching the web and displaying rsults in order fo significance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We've already established that something like that simply CANNOT be done. Youtbe gets what? more than 60 hours of content uploaded every minute? Who's going to check all of that?
You're seriously arguing for someone to go to a lawyer, pay for an affidavit before speaking online.
No bob. No.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, firing 10% of the work force, starting with the VPs, of sections that haven't been profitable for several years is 'gutting it.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try again, bob.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Once you can get out of your silly little heads that control is not, any longer, where the good money is then I think we'll be on a better path towards mutual satisfaction.
Set the bar lower, not higher. Be your own partner for once and perhaps you can learn to please yourself on the path to discovering how to please others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Buying or investing in Disney would go against their corporate creed of, "Don't be evil."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1. You're not going to "steer towards legitimate ways" fpr pproducts that a pirate cannot buy. For example, that are not legally available in the region the pirate is in or they want things they cannot afford.
2. you're not going to get more sales when piracy is the RESULT of a sale you already made. For example, those that buy the game only to be fucked over by the DRM and go for the pirated version. Or it's an old game you already own and you want to download a digital copy to do things not possible on the game system was not designed to do.(online pley, custom textures)
3. you will not get more sakes where a pirate is pirating because it's so bad they only pirate it just to see the terribleness and would not want to spend money on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse
Moreover, you forgot that part where, in the counter-notice, you accept liability and open yourself to lawsuits. If that isn't an effect designed to reduce counter-notices, I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
I think we should all respond to Bob's posts, but in a polite, fact-based manner, or at least point out his argument fallacies.
The reason? There are still many politicians and artists who believe as strongly as he does that the RIAA/MPAA stats are 100% true and the industry as a whole (not just the label's subset) has been devastated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Geven the mathematics involved by the RIAA/MPAA, I'd say...YES.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Licensed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
- That's me, iTunes Video Store is unavailable in Ireland.
"2. you're not going to get more sales when piracy is the RESULT of a sale you already made. For example, those that buy the game only to be fucked over by the DRM and go for the pirated version. Or it's an old game you already own and you want to download a digital copy to do things not possible on the game system was not designed to do.(online pley, custom textures)"
- That's me. I've bought legit copies of all the Assassin's Creed games, only to learn recently that UPlay, the DRM, left me vulnerable to hackers. I've also bought Baldur's Gate twice, so if my hard drive dies and I download a fresh copy off Piratebay, how is it infringement? Where's the harm?
"3. you will not get more sakes where a pirate is pirating because it's so bad they only pirate it just to see the terribleness and would not want to spend money on it."
-That's me, I've downloaded things only to watch/play them and find they're terrible. If I had paid, I would have been ripped off, the quality is so bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Your tinfoil hat is coming loose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Which aren't available due to geo-locational bullshit. I can't watch two of ym favourite shows without resorting to things that are apparently criminal offences, because these things are not evailable due to geo-locational bullshit (for reference, the Daily Show and the Colkbert Report).
So, remind me again how I'm supposed to get these programmes legitimately?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
STOP FUCKING BITCHING
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Find one person here who thinks Google is the "little guy". I dare you.
You mean the same Google who is so heavy-handed about policing for copyright violation that they take down legitimate content?
Please. First, not every agrees as to what a "pirate" site exactly is except for a handful of clear-cut cases. Aside from that, neither Google nor anybody else has figured out an automated way to determine what sites are "pirate" sites or not.
That's not being "blithe" at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Time to move from search engine?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good One!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Good One!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Citation needed, your usual conspiracy theories don't count.
"They blacklist sites all of the time when it suits their needs."
Delisting or downgrading a site that's abusing either their own algorithms or ad system is slightly different from acting as a police force when their search results are inconvenient to another's business model, don't you think?
"They have no trouble blacklisting innovative sites that hurt their bottom line."
Citation needed.
"So why are they so devoted to these scuzzball sites that add nothing to society but bleed the content creators dry?"
They're not. Why are you so devoted to the scuzzball corporations who would rather destroy free speech and useful technology than accept that 1992 business models don't work in 2012?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You're also assuming without cause that the cause of some significant portion of copyright infringement is some kind of metaphorical stamp of approval from Google. That also doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
And you continue to ignore the main reason individuals resort to copyright infringement in the first place. Just to refresh your memory they are: Ease of Use, Quality of Service, and Availability. When legit sources compete on those three points they usually do quite well (unless big content prices them out of the market with stifling licensing costs that is).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
Nice try bob
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: DMCA abuse
bob, you're full of shit. If you've EVER spoken with any folk from Google, then I'm actually a well known author with a vast amount of best sellers under my belt. (Hint: I'm not.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And the MAFIAA could die a fiery death soon and let the world flourish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This happens with any and all businesses. But because Google owns Motorola (mainly for patent reasons) you're barking up a storm trying to make it into something bigger and more sinister.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: DMCA abuse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Wow, direct with the attacks and an irrelevant attack on Mike to top it off. Sorry, dumbass, I'm quite capable of formulating my own opinion. Why not try addressing that rather than your usual ad hominems and lies?
As for short-term thinking? No, I'm just repeating the same argument I've been making for the last decade and a half while you assholes have failed so miserably at even reducing overall piracy rates. If only you're get it through your thick skulls that you have to address the demand end of the curve before you attack the supply....
"No, Google's change won't STOP piracy. It will however have an influence in changing the views on piracy, and changing the number of "undecided" consumers who have been guided to piracy in the past courtesy of Google."
Yes, because nobody thinks anything without Google telling them to. Is this really what you believe? That nobody would find The Pirate Bay if Google didn't tell them it existed? That piracy only happens because of search engine results? How stupid are you?
"No, Google's change won't STOP piracy. It will however have an influence in changing the views on piracy, and changing the number of "undecided" consumers who have been guided to piracy in the past courtesy of Google."
Piracy existed decades before Google existed, and will exist decades afterwards. The only way to reduce it is to offer people acceptable legal solutions. If you're convinced that all modern piracy has something to do with Google, you're as stupid as you are arrogant, which is not something to be proud of.
"Perhaps you need to get out and think for yourself for a while. Does being locked up in Spain screw you up that bad?"
I do get frustrated at people like you lying about me and others instead of offering legal solutions to the 60 million people who live here without any such options. I only tell you what reality's like. But you are a total idiot who can't listen to any sort of fact not paid for by some corporation, and apparently a xenophobic one at that. What difference does it matter what patch of dirt I reside on? My arguments have been exactly the same in the past when I've lived in other countries.
Try laying off the personal attacks and listen to reality. It will help you stop failing miserably at every argument you attempt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even though you're mistaken about your argument when facts are presented (as always - see the comments above mine), it's not even logically consistant with your other claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
I know too many people who think the same as Bob does, so maybe, just maybe, if they read bob's comments and see the responses (with minimal ad-hominem attacks) it might help the readers who feel the same as bob see how they are not 100% correct (and neither are the doom and gloom industry stories).
I'm thinking of one particular musician who's music is very important to me, but he has similar conceptions of reality that match Bob's. People like Barry Sookman or Graham Henderson, well, those guys are being paid to feel as Bob does, so I don't care.
But the more I read bob's stuff and the more responses I see, the better I am able to try to convince musicians and people who's opinion I actually care about to see other information and see through the lies/tricks/misinformation provided by the RIAA/MPAA groups.
I am simply trying to be fair.
If we just dismiss Bob, ignoring him, well... others who feel as bob does will continue to do so, instead of being influenced by the responses to bob's ignorance and stubbornness to continue in their belief.
I've found through a2f2a.com (now gone) that many are like bob, but many are not so stubborn when they realize bob's views are based on less than accurate information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I am your average informed surfer, and I want a copy of Cars2, and I am willing to pay - but the first 20 links all take me to free downloads, perhaps I am going to take the free download just to see. Right there, Google has cause some portion of the population to move from paying customer to piracy. I don't think it's their intention, but more and more it's becoming clear that this is what happens.
Pirates will be pirates. Smokers will be smokers. You don't think the smoking rate would be higher if it was glorified, and we essentially stuck a pack in ever teenagers hand and lit the first one for them? Oh wait, that's what the 30s, 40s, and 50s looked like. See what happened? When we stopped glorifying it, and started pointing out the ill in it, things changed. It might take a couple of more generations, but I wouldn't be shocked to see smokers as rare as can be within my lifetime.
Changing piracy from easy and glorious to harder work and grubby may change the way SOME people look at it. Will it be a trend?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've lost the argument.
"Changing piracy from easy and glorious to harder work and grubby may change the way SOME people look at it. Will it be a trend?"
The only way that can truly happen is if all computers and computer like devices are extremely locked down, user content generated sites don't exist, and as bob suggested, you have to get an affidavit to post a video online. That is why I am against copyright, because the cost of enforcing it would damage society far more than the trumped up harm parroted by the copyright cartel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/for-teenage-smokers-removing-the-allure-of-t he-pack/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
six strikes : anonymous encapsulation
payment processor industry agreement = wait, people payed?
ad network best practices : click and win?
burial at sea : we never saw the body
judicial oversight : sovereign immunity
Nobody has lost anything of any consequence.
And the only thing missing is your boat.
Is it just me or have you completely over-fucking-looked just who is doing the fucking sniveling?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Licensed...
Yeah, try again.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/download/ref=atv_sr_download2
So in other words I have to use either their crappy streaming service or their crappy video player to watch a movie. Plus it only works on Windows so Linux, Android and Mac are out in the cold. How on earth can you actually say that right there is "few restrictions"?
Until I can download a DRM free copy that will work in any media player on any OS I want then there is no reason I should give them my money. I'm not paying for a crippled product.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
google bought motorola because it was for sale, the wanted a way to make their own handsets since HTC nolonger is making handsets for 3rd parties.
motorola as a company is crap, they do not update their phones properly(support on many of their android phones was 1-2 updates then abandoned.)
they are patent trolls(something your in favor of)
the way I and many others see it, google should have taken direct control of motorola operations and forced them to stop the patent nonsense as well as forcing them to properly update their devices, they however didnt do that and instead let motorola keep running itself into the ground....
I hope this leads to google producing their own line of android devices to show most other makers how it should be done!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
id rather have them self-regulate than have government dictate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Downgrading sites that have lots of DMCA notices (and hence probably many dead links) I think can yield better results, as long as sites the MAFIAA's are pushing don't get unwarranted promotions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Broken the internet? Who told you that, the tooth fairy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
guys and I start!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Try this one
Look, I get that the studio has already paid for the movie and is trying to re-coup their investment, but they seem to be too entrenched in their ways to see the massive demand before them. Maybe some accountant is too focused on using fuzzy accounting to make it look like they never make back their investment that they are concerned about making too much money too quickly. They wouldn't want it to look like a success; they might just have to fork over some of their haul.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Youtube and Google
Result: Thousands of legitimate artists (including those from the Big Labels) will suddenly suffer from a loss of popularity, mainly due to the number of people who won't come across their legitimately posted videos on YouTube.
Big artists suffer from loss of exposure and suddenly garage bands rule the Internet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Microsoft never came out in favor of SOPA, and was the primary reason why the BSA changed its official position on SOPA from in favor to neutral.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the navy of evil, Google occasionally passes on the wrong side or drops a beer can in the water. Disney drops nuclear waste into international waters, blows up oil rigs for fun, and drains the waters from the worlds oceans to fill its private aquariums so it can charge you to look at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
that pretty much covers drm....
drm is never good, it never does what it says it does(stop piracy), it only punishes those foolish enough to support it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
The problem with DRM is that it can always be circumvented. Thus, the only people that have to put up with the restrictions imposed by a DRM scheme are legitimate paying customers. Your paying customers should be the ones getting the best experience from your product, not the worst. Thus, DRM is in fact synonymous with "bad".
What needs to replace DRM is trust. Media companies should make everything as freely available (ie. no DRM) as possible and trust that people will pay for it if they find value in it. They also need to create ways for people to pay that include varying cost. When I was young, I valued music very highly and was willing to pay a lot for it. When I hit 30 something switched off in my brain and I stopped listening to music or caring much about it. Now I might value a song a 5 cents that they want me to pay $1 for, so they get $0 from me and I do without.
On the other side, in exchange for media producers trusting us, society needs to adopt an attitude that it is not ok to get something you value and pay nothing for it. ie., We need to replace law enforcement with a social stigma. Those that have the means to pay but choose not to need to be ridiculed for it. They are being nice, so we should be nice. Everyone should be good to eachother and stop fighting.
We can continue down the DRM, control, fight, enforce, restrict, greed, closed, path or the free, trust, cooperate, open, share, fair, path. The first path seems futile given the technology, and painful for everyone as it leads to anger, hatred, and conflict. While the later path leads to happiness, peace, love, and harmony among human species all over the planet. Choose!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hell, they don't even have to do that much, just unlock the bootloaders of the devices that are only few years old. Then let the independant developers do the rest (Cyanogenmod, for example).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Honestly, while they think they are making the sites harder to find. This is only effecting one search engine of the myriads that exist today. Google is heavily used today, but the public opinion could just as easy move on to another less accommodating search provider.
Some alternatives: DuckDuckGo, StartPage, IXQuick, etc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't necessarily have to be the copyright holder or have permission from the copyright holder to legally use copyrighted material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dont know why you say Google MAY have more requests put to them, it's a definite and they will be orders, not requests! Google are going totally against the consumer now and falling willingly into bed with the entertainment industries. the supposed 'myriad of legitimate services' offered by the industries are 'a wealth' for them because they are trying to charge the same as for a physical medium. not all things are available from one place and people cant pay for all of them. the reason they want cyberlockers, p2p and torrent sites shut down isn't because of the amount of money those sites are making (nothing for the files!) but because the service given knocks the arse off of what the industries are offering. as for getting the US government involved, they did that years ago. instead of continuously going against customers requests, they ought to be taking note, then they would make more money instead of wasting it. what they also need to remember is that any threats against the EU (TPB being in the EU, not in the USA 'we are the most important nation on the planet, so do as we tell you!) wont be taken kindly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Pure speculation. My opinion is different -- I don't think it would affect piracy rates one bit.
The biggest factor in making piracy seem OK to the average person is the MPAA, RIAA, etc., themselves more than Google.
These groups are widely perceived as being (to use the parlance) evil. Although it's not correct, a huge percentage of people justify piracy by the "two wrongs make a right" argument.
Another huge percentage of people justify piracy because they have a choice between piracy or not being able to access the content in a manner that is remotely useful to them. Again, this is not ethically correct, but the thinking is that even if they don't pirate, they're still not going to buy the movie (or whatever) because there is no acceptable alternative.
If the industry actually addressed just those two points (i.e., if they stopped being evil and they started making the content widely available in a convenient manner), piracy rates would plummet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also, the biggest problem with what Hollywood is asking is that Google could not only lose millions of dollars in having to re-write the code, but also piss of millions of consumers (look at what happened with Panda) who end up losing their rank in search.
What Hollywood wants is unrealistic and due to their half-assed attempts at PR, they've literally driven their own legitimate download links to the bottom of the page because the majority of people do not want to pay exorbitant prices for DRM-riddled media.
On top of that, some shill earlier on the thread mentioned looking up a legal download link for Cars 2. I tried the same with the words "cars 2 legal download" and still got a bunch of torrents. It's ridiculous that Hollywood can't even put forth the effort to dominate that set of keywords and provide legitimate alternatives to torrents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're aware the ranks are based on popularity, right? The pirate sites aren't listed at the top because Google puts them there, they're listed at the top because they're what people want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The US government has/claims copyright for the cables.
(And any government for any "leaked" material).
A few of the millions of government employees sending DMCA take-down notices, and cablegate sites (or other leaking sites) are gone from result pages.
This is a government censorship tool.
Forget pirating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The US government has/claims copyright for the cables.
(And any government for any "leaked" material).
A few of the millions of government employees sending DMCA take-down notices, and cablegate sites (or other leaking sites) are gone from result pages.
This is a government censorship tool.
Forget pirating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
All digital media should be, pay what you want, when you want. They can give you suggested price and/or what others have paid as a guideline or just leave it up to you. This is easy to implement for games because they have a built-in UI. It is tougher for mp3s or AVIs. But if they gave us a website to easily get anything we wanted that website could also be used to keep track of payments. That website would put itunes and netflix out of business shortly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
/ari emanuel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hold on a minute
As a consumer, copy-prevention technologies rarely present clear and direct value to me. One of the few prominent exceptions is Steam, which actually offers a legitimate and comprehensible convenience. In contrast, every flyer and explanation I ever saw about UltraViolet just made me more confused and more wondering "why exactly can't I just rip this on my PC like an audio disc?"
Sure, the industry shills will say "without crippling DRM, we couldn't sell $foo...". Bullshit. It's not that you can't sell it, it's that you won't because you think you can grab more out of the customer. Notice how media companies had to handle China-- without being able to effectively swing the club of the law around, they actually had to re-price their products to the market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again your lack of knowledge as to what Google actually does is tripping you up bob.
When YouTube's content ID system finds something it recognizes as copyrighted by a known rights holder it pays the rights holder ad revenue, regardless of who uploaded the video.
So even though you see "tons of pirated material" which may have been uploaded without authorization, YouTube is automagically paying the rights holder for those anyways. This is all above and beyond anything legally required of them.
But, yeah, Google doesn't do much at all, do they?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Bullshit. We live in a world where food, clean water, medical care and education are not viewed as entitlements and you make a statement like that? And as often as not, this claim is being made by foreigners who are largely talking about access to American culture because their's is so numbingly dull. It sure reveals how pathologically obsessed you freeloaders are. It's mind-boggling that so much is made of free access to entertainment with all of the legitimate want in this world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
What you said has nothing to do with quality and if you were running a store you'd be losing customers.
What you totally miss is these people are PAYING customers who WANT to buy (ad supported or actually pay for it at a reasonable price), but your country's infinite wisdom prevents people from legally accessing it. So you try to stop them rather than provide an affordable means to do so.
Way to alienate too, you MUST be a douche at Hollywood.
I've got news for you, just because you have more TnA and explosions than anyone else (not just your military attacking countries for corporate control)does NOT mean you get to police the world.
You sir, and the way your laws are written, are a prime example of ignorance and stupidity.
I would NOT generalize all US citizens to be like you, just the ones who work for entertainment industry lobby groups, some corporate execs, and a large number of your Members of Congress.
And let's not forget the UK's influence on US culture!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
In the mean time, since I don't wish to waste my hard earned cash on crappy music or movies, I'll try out the media through torrents, and if I like it enough, I'll buy it off of itunes or purchase the DVD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
I find it rare when the US releases something in the theatres that's unique and interesting, then I find out it was stolen from one of those "numbingly dull" countries you refer to. Or written by an author from one of those countries.
Yes, you've created lots, just like everyone else, but you've overhyped it. Sorry to break it to you.
And stop coming off like an arrogant ass, it's really doing the decent people in your country a huge disservice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
"sometimes I think it is to provide evidence of their so-called "independence" from their paymaster."
"I think"
He's not lacking a chromosome, he is just confused, like the majority of us, that you would represent your opinion as a fact about Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Submit your search and wait until you get an email with a link to the search results.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Oh, and I'm not in the UK. Close though.
So, wanna try again at hurling an insult my way that actually works and makes sense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I did, and it had some HORRIBLE wording to it.
It was too broad, too dangerous, and it had to go.
Which it did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm...
Good job, China.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Were those fireworks locked up because they could not negotiate an extortive price or was it for safety reasons?
When you go to another state or town to buy them, does your own state come after you and arrest you? When you drink in another town, does the dry town police come after you and charge you?
No, again, wrong analogy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The people who created the internet and understand what DNS blocking would have done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
And thus, you prove WHY piracy continues to exist.
Guess what?
The people paying for the entertainment also pay the bills for those who make the entertainment.
If they don't want to make it available...
Well, then they don't need my money, do they?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Maybe you should be more concerned about that than why you have to wait to see Dark Knight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Yes it does.
Free market, boyo.
If it doesn't provide what I want, I'll get it, whether by hook or crook.
And since I can't get it legally, I'll get it illegally.
THAT is the truth of the free market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
No, wait, I shouldn't be congratulating you. What you just said is completely retarded, and I would say is more indicative of what a Down's Syndrome person would say if I didn't actually have Down's Syndrome friends & relatives and didn't want to inadvertently insult them.
The reason the sale of fireworks and alcohol is restricted in certain US states is because they are DANGEROUS. Physically dangerous, as in, if you misuse fireworks or alcohol, you could end up hurting or killing someone.
You just spewed that out without thinking through it.
Dumbass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
My point still stands, whether or not its the Dark Knight Rises specifically I want to see. Even if a film service were to appear tomorrow, with non-Hollywood movies and offering them to deliver them in ways I and others want, Hollywood would still go thermonuclear war on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
As the article suggests, Microsoft quietly supported SOPA until it became clear that it was DOA. And like so many Congressmen and Senators, jumped ship and joined the list of opponents when the outcome was clear. But you already knew that, didn't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
They don't "drive" people to Hollywood, Hollywood buys them on the promise of lots of money and "making it" in the US. They promote bullshit lifestyles of Hollywood's rich and famous and tell them "that could be you."
And that's not reality, with the exception of a select few.
It says NOTHING about the country's own culture, only that Hollywood was successful at exploiting someone else's work for greed, by lighting a greed fire inside that person. Then reality comes into play and for most cases, those exploited artists/producers/writers are tossed aside and have to travel back to their homeland TO MAKE MONEY TO LIVE.
That's assuming Hollywood even bothered to give the creators anything or even invite them for the "lottery" that is Hollywood.
I've already seen The Dark Night and The Dark Night Rises, thank you very much.
I've also seen the subtitled versions of The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, My Sassy Girl, The Lakehouse, Dark Water, The Ring (this one they actually brought the guy over because we know Hollywood would have fucked it up), etc..
I guess for Americans like you it needs to be Americanized without subtitles because reading is just too much work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
Dear God, are you ever slow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
Actors, directors and some producers get residuals. Crew residuals are paid into their health and retirement benefit plans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
Man, you really don't know much about US policy do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
Why are you saying such bad things about yourself?
Think happy thoughts, man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
So I guess not all shit coming out of the UK there AC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
well
Step 1b. Get google to ERASE "pirate" links entirely
Step 2. Declare anyone who insults the RIAA/MPAA (i.e. techdirt) declared as a "pirate" site, and therefore removed from google.
step 3. ?????
step 4. Profit (when magically somehow everyone starts buying vinyl records/CDs etc again)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I remember
HE said (this is a quote) "Computers are a passing phase, soon everyone will go back to pencil and paper"
He erased BILLIONS from BT's share price...and he's exactly the type of luddite that the RIAA and MPAA etc have on their board of directors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I remember
Speaking of memories from the past...
I recall, just as I was about to graduate high school...
How a local newspaper said "the internet is just a fad, like the CB Radios that people were putting into their cars, it'll die out in a few months."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Hollywood has the opportunity to do the same things and they won't do it.
That's stupidity and bad for business when you can take advantage of a bigger market and won't. For the fact that you support that, makes you an idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting how Microsoft had "no comment" about SOPA when they were asked.
Doesn't really sound like they "came out in support."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Says who? You?
It sure reveals how pathologically obsessed you freeloaders are.
I'm not a "freeloader," you arrogant ass. The culture I enjoy is already free. But I am a sympathizer with those you do classify as "freeloaders." Why? Because, quite simply, they're the enemy of my enemy.
Make the materials available worldwide to those who wish to see it. Stop whining because someone has the AUDACITY to view it for free, instead of having the "morals" to say, "Gee, even though it's right there on the internet available to me and I really want to see it, I should just not watch it because the retail system will never offer it here."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Try this one
Only if I want to watch it, which I don't.
Besides...
Blu Ray.
I don't support that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
It's mind-boggling that so much is made of free access to entertainment with all of the legitimate want in this world.
Then why ARE you making so much of it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that article was wrong. The BSA supported it -- which got some people, like the VB writer to falsely suggest that Microsoft supported it. But Microsoft did not support it, which is why the BSA changed its mind. The publicity from bogus articles like the VB one hastened the process of MS telling the BSA to back down.
The BSA backed down way way earlier than "when the outcome was clear."
But you already knew that, didn't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Denial- not just a river in Egypt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pirates dont use Google...WTF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I would strongly argue that the ubiquity of piracy is in part built on widespread "acceptance".
People have realised the artificial limitations are no longer in place, and have defaulted back to mankind's millennia-old position on sharing culture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When Lamar Smith recessed the markup instead of making everyone sit through each of the 75 amendments (mostly) authored by Google's hired gun, Marvin Ammori; that was the moment the outcome was clear. He calculated correctly that Smith wouldn't read the shifting sands until it was too late. The antics of January 18 were grandstanders abusing the corpse of an already-dead bill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
.....says the douchenozzle who never read the bill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep dreaming, skintube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And look how well that worked for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And it won't stop piracy either. Suck it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who told you that, the tooth fairy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Really? We thought that was you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Actually, it has to go away cause it offers NO benefit to the customer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
As is the customer in not buying it. So what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
No surprise there. They happily wait for the dumbed down remake of successful British shows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
If the (MP|RI)AA were forbidden by law to sell to people outside of the US, you would have a point. Instead, you have people coming up to them on the internet, where it is perfectly legal to sell their goods and physical location does not matter for distribution, and being turned away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're missing the reality of the situation, of course, but god forbid you should base your arguments on that. Reality is too complex for your ilk.
Go on, try a tiny piece of research before typing for once, and you'll see. Search in Google for Cars 2. Go on. What do you see? No illicit downloads are there? There's trailers, copies of the DVD and Blu Ray, iTunes downloads, official merchandise, the video game, even other companies unrelated to the movie that happen to have those characters as part of their name. I just tried, and I don't see any illegal downloads in the first 10 pages. The very first result is Disney's official movie site.
You won't see easy links to pirate downloads until you start modifying the search to include them. Do you see the problem now? People aren't suddenly downloading movies for free because Google tell them to - Google is telling them that they exist AFTER they start looking for them. At that point, Google simply returns the most relevant sites for their search - they aren't instigating the search itself.
There's your problem. Instead of finding why people are searching for the illegal downloads, or offering additional ways for them to obtain the movie legally, you wish to make Google's search results less relevant and try to trick them into consuming the content in the way you want them to. That's just not going to work until you address why they're looking for alternatives in the first place. That, of course, would involve something other than scapegoating a 3rd party and might even involve real work as well as addressing the reality of the marketplace, so no surprise you won't do that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
WTF?
This is why piracy exists!
What kind of arse-about-face, fucked-up fantasy world are you living in when it makes sense to stick it to your customer?
That's what kills businesses!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Oh look, there's a free alternative with no restrictions. Hmm, maybe I'll just try that instead.
It's not about entitlement, it's about making customers of your fans - rather than enemies, which appears to be your objective?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
disney.go.com/cars/
www.imdb.com/title/tt1216475/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cars_2
pixar.wik ia.com/Cars_2
trailers.apple.com/trailers/disney/cars2/
www.amazon.com/Cars-2/dp/B001HN6922
www.d isney.co.uk/cars/
www.facebook.com/PixarCars
movies.yahoo.com/movie/cars-2/
www.moviefone.com/m ovie/cars-2/33555/main
www.fandango.com/cars2_119583/movieoverview
Now what do you see when you look at these? Not a single pirate site and not a single legal site. The downranking of dmca'd sites might be in effect but why the hell is there not a single site I can go to and buy the movie from? -.-
Untill there is the mpaa has no right to complain about piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, they miss the fact that there's serious underlying problems that lead to infringement in the first place. People don't pirate just due to convenience (although that's part of it, and something they could offer if they chose to). If they manage to get Google to play their game, they'll just find another scapegoat when that fails to reduce piracy in any meaningful way, and the game will continue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
Windows made sense when the movie industry was physically shipping the movie reels around the theatres. They don't make sense now. If your contracts with the theatres require this, re-negotiate. The theatres need the content, the content doesn't need the theatres.
"the owner of said business is free to market his product as he sees fit."
And the owner of said business is free to see it go to the wall because he refuses to serve his potential customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
Instead I'll wait until it's in the bargain bin at the supermarket.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Try this one
So, I'll wait. Maybe I will decide to buy another DVD in the meantime from someone who's offering me the product, then pick up TDKR in the bargain bucket after it's dropped in price following their decision to actually offer me the product. Their problem if they couldn't be bothered to offer me the product when I was willing to pay full whack for it.
See how that works? Warner have failed to collect my money when it was being offered to them.
"Pay the creator. It's only fair."
I do when they decide to take my money. Not my problem if they refuse it in search of something else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one
...and potential customers are free to tell them they're doing it wrong, which includes the option of not buying. That some people opt to "pirate" rather than simply not buying does not undermine this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
And can't you be more civil? All of your dipshits and dogshits... you do love your shit.
Let me introduce you to Reality - what Hollywood produces lately is not what we PIRATES (Argh!!!) download. We find quality content through other means and I surely wouldn't waste my bandwidth (hint, it's broadband in real sense of the word, not "broadband" you have in US, so yeah, I can only waste time) on some hollywood remake of some shitty remake of some dudes getting drunk.
The only entitlement is coming from industry of middlemen. Come on - in US you made "taking a cut that's bigger than cake" into an art form.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
And your ad-hominem attacks really form solid arguments, way to go!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(UK company specialising in storage in a yellow warehouse)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse
Oh bobby, you are still our favorite moron even though you are a moron ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Creating Bigger Pirate Sites
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Comparing items forbidden by law with creative content is by far the dumbest analogy I've seen.
It's not called entitlement. Entitlement is what the copyright industry feels when they put artificial barriers around their content. And frankly, I'm glad there are ways to destroy those barriers that end up harming many artists and creators, depriving the public of the ability to enjoy their productions.
It's comparable (in a much, much smaller scale) to medicine. There are artificial barriers and overpricing issues that made the Governments revoke the patents in many places around the world. Sure entertainment content isn't nearly as vital but if you put artifical barriers around content ppl want, they will break those barriers down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC claiming only good comes out of the US?
Ever see the original?
They must be desperate if they are remaking this, not to mention the tag line "unaware of the forced that threaten our freedoms." Ha ha, yeah, keep that 9-11 fear that everyone is out to get you bullshit alive, while ignoring the reason WHY some MIGHT WANT to take away your freedom (duh - foreign policy).
And North Korea? The country with barely enough food to keep their army alive, let alone their citizens, is going to somehow develop a more advanced weapon against the US? Oh and who will support them? China? Russia? Yeah, they know how reactionary the US is and they also know how many Ohio class nuclear subs the US has (with 24 Triden II's, each with 5-8 warheads, each warhead is 475kilotons of TNT equivalent) - yeah that's realistic.
It's nothing but explosions and likely TnA. Nothing original.
I can't wait until they remake the National Lampoon Vacation series. Or better, they'll remake Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Or even better how about the Deathwish Series? Who will replace Charles Bronson? Maybe they can CGI Arnold's face like they did for Terminator Salvation (using footage from the original 1984 movie)?
Yeah, that's creative. So don't bitch when people download to determine whether it is worth seeing, or they already know the price is NOT worth it and just download it and watch it at home while doing dishes or cleaning.
This film isn't worth the huge budget for the explosions and CGI and I am sure North Korea will sit there in shock at how pathetic this film is, not to mention demeaning and insulting to their country. Not that Hollywood cares right, as long as the USA wins?
Please, you call this talent and worthy of protection with asinine laws?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Not an excuse, a reason why some people do it. Especially given that the legal alternative may a) never be available and b) may be a worse product due to DRM or similar restrictions.
I note you're still unwilling to consider why depriving your potential customers might be a bad business model in the first place?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if any one of the RIAA's major contributors were to "to actually turn all its assets into cash, it could buy Google easily", boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gee, that explains why there are so few alcohol drinkers now, after Prohibition...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Hollywood continues to lose favor with their consumer, which is not dependent on what the consumer does, but what Hollywood does to bring the consumer in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But unless there are legitimate offerings that are as fast, easy, and simple to use, they won't increase use of legitimate sources. Because you know what else piracy is? A remarkable laboratory for content delivery. The sites that make it onto the MPAA & RIAA's myopic radar are the ones that have risen to the top of an enormous stack because they have the best interface or the widest selection.
Absolutely nobody cares whether an artist is signed to one major label over another. We just want to be able to easily find the music we want. Same with movies and studios, or TV shows and networks. If we have to jump from one service to another to another to yet another for the same media, just because none of the rightsholders will give up an iota of control for the chance of actually getting a sustainable customer base, we'll give up and find what we want on a convenient torrent site.
But that's not even the real horror scenario for you lot. For that, ask your local phone company how many twentysomethings--not living with mom & dad--pay for landlines. The only thing I watch on TV anymore is sports, and all the games I care about are also streamed on the web. That means no cable bill for me, either. So what do I do for my entertainment? Games, mostly. Steam, you see, makes it easy to get what I want, when I want it. So much so, in fact, that I've hardly gotten time to play half of my Steam library.
So you can take your movies, and your music, and your TV shows, and follow the landlines and buggywhips into oblivion, while I play my war-themed hat simulators. Or you can quit whining and actually compete for our precious ears and eyeballs. The choice is yours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For that matter, BSA retracted their support.
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/bsa-microsoft-join-sopa-opposition-47043
http:// www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/244501/business_software_alliance_withdraws_support_for_stop_ online_piracy_act.html
What was that, again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
If I had fireworks, and someone came up to me to buy them, I could not sell them by law. That is a valid reason to answer them in the negative.
However, say I've written an original story. I've already sold copies of the txt file to other people in my state for $10 (yeah, we're assuming it's a DAMN GOOD story). If someone in California wants to buy a copy of the txt file for $10, I'm free to sell it to them. I'm also free to tell them no. But if I do answer them in the negative, all I'm doing is depriving myself of money. No matter whether they do without or go find someone else who I did sell a copy to to tell them the story, I'm out $10 that I could have had with little effort.
Personally, I wouldn't want them to pirate my story. If they don't value it that much, I'd rather they found something they did value enough to pay for. But if they're willing to pay me for it, then they might also be willing to try to get it for free, whether I think that's wrong or not. So why not go ahead and sell it to them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
1. I find something I like
2. I share it
You see - education is not a democracy. Ideas that are most popular are not necessarily the best. So just because some stupid Hangover movie is most downloaded movie - that does not make it the best. Most of these movies suck hairy balls of ebola infested monkeys. Now THAT is pretty pathetic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yacy anyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]