Evidence Mounts: UK Study Shows Better Legal Alternatives Pushing Pirates To Become Customers
from the yarrrr-forget-it dept
The theory that piracy enforcement is a far inferior method for combating copyright infringement when compared with better and innovative business models and offerings is certainly old hat for us here. And, while there have certainly been studies going back years showing that to be the case, it seems notable that the past few months have seen a wave of these studies all coming on top of each other. We had MUSO, of all organizations, essentially concluding a survey it did in the UK showing how much content "pirates" actually buy legitimately by saying, "Hey, content industries, get your shit together!" That was followed quite recently by a study performed by Dutch researchers that did an amazing and large-sampled survey that concluded quite clearly that user-friendly legal alternatives depressed piracy rates at a far greater clip than enforcement measures.
And, now, because good things always come in threes, yet another study in the UK has shown that once-pirates of music are morphing into very real customers due to convenient and user-friendly streaming services.
A new report from market research and data analytics firm YouGov only adds weight to that apparent shift. The headline stat from the company’s Music Report is that just one in ten Brits are currently downloading music illegally. That’s down from almost double (18%) that figure five short years ago.
It's quite obvious what coincides with that time period of the past five years that could contribute to this reduction in piracy and sure as hell isn't anything in the enforcement arena. Instead, the YouGov study suggests that the streaming services so many in the music industry have tried desperately to torpedo are responsible for this reduction. And, more interestingly, the report suggests that the trend line is only going to continue, if not accelerate.
More than six out of ten (63%) illegal music downloaders predict they’ll still be pirating in five years’ time but a significant 22% believe they won’t. Just over a third (36%) acknowledge that using unofficial sources for music is becoming more difficult but the summary doesn’t offer reasons why.
“It is now easier to stream music than to pirate it. And the cost is not prohibitive,” one respondent said. “Spotify has everything from new releases to old songs, it filled the vacuum, there was no longer a need for using [an] unverified source,” added another.
In other words, innovators solved the music piracy problem in the UK, as we always said would happen. John Marshall, the associate director at YouGov, was even more explicit in his conclusions, essentially stating that the public was now satisfied with streaming services and mostly had no use for piracy.
All of this is not to say that the music industry doesn't still have jobs in peril, of course. It's just that those jobs appear to be the ones involved in copyright enforcement, while the business of music itself should be doing quite well.
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, customers, licensed services, piracy, streaming, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Getting appropriate responses
We do understand that it is not just anti 'piracy' but about control. Control they do not deserve, nor should get.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know how it is with these anti-piracy types
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uhm, Pirates? There be no pirates.
Oh, you meant file-sharing, which isn't piracy in any way, shape or form, did you?
Why didn't you just say file-sharing? Oh, right, you want to call it piracy because you don't understand how things work in modern society.
The only piracy going on is the kind perpetrated by MPAA and RIAA organizations, stealing everything they can from the content creators, song-writers, composers, singers, actors, directors, etc... As well as the copyright and patent pirates, you know the ones, that take content, by force if necessary, and then keep it locked up forever.
DMCA? That's actually illegal, because it extends copyright to eternity.
Yeah, we need to start punishing those fucking pirates, all of them, take down every business entity like the MPAA and RIAA, as well as Disney and every other movie studio keeping their content illegally out of public domain, pretending like it's legal by buying out our government to make pretend laws to whitewash their thievery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Uhm, Pirates? There be no pirates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Uhm, Pirates? There be no pirates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pish, this is just anomaly #5927265. It's not like it ever actually happens, it's not proof of anything!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If we're going to have copyright protection, and we should, we need enforcement. Telling me I need a better way to sell my books or my writing because someone can steal it makes no sense. I can adapt to any environment but I see no reason why that environment should be ruled by pirates.
Don't like my work? Don't download it. The act of downloading it is an admission of its value. Lack of piracy enforcement helps the big "mafia" cartels at the expense of creators with small audiences who can't rely on tunnel distribution like someone who got their book on Oprah used to have.
In a world without any copyright, I could copy this article, post it to my site, and the "market" could decide who has the better "business model." Masnick would just have to adapt by that logic, rather than rely on a constitutional right.
Since artists still have to pay their bills, they will adapt naturally, but that would be like using FEMA and the Red Cross to justify arson.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
“In a world without any copyright, I could copy this article, post it to my site, and the "market" could decide who has the better "business model." Masnick would just have to adapt by that logic, rather than rely on a constitutional right.”
You totally can. Mike has said so repeatedly. As you would know if you actually read the articles before you drooled stupid onto the page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is the most important point to artists, especially small ones. The world of no copyright enforcement is the world of less art, less literature, less music, less everything creative.
He was not drooling stupid at all, but you are definitely drooling something disgusting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In a world without any copyright, I could copy this article, post it to my site, and the "market" could decide who has the better "business model." Masnick would just have to adapt by that logic, rather than rely on a constitutional right.
Yes, you can do that, and yes, if that was successful we would have to adapt. I've explained this many times over. We put all our content into the public domain, and you are totally free to do what you want with it, so let me know if you post it somewhere. And, if you can make money off of it better than we can, then we can learn from you and that helps us. Also, we expect most people will eventually figure out where the original content came from and prefer to get it from the source -- so in essence you'd be marketing us for us.
So, yup, go for it. That would be great.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In a world without any copyright, I could copy this article, post it to my site, and the "market" could decide who has the better "business model." Masnick would just have to adapt by that logic,
I do so love it when people think they've got a gotcha like that, only to end up falling flat on their face. As the AC above noted you can absolutley do that, as has been made clear several times in the past by previous people who thought they could score an easy point with that very idea.
rather than rely on a constitutional right.
Yeah, hate to burst your bubble but copyright isn't a 'constitutional right'. The constitution allows for congress to grant it, with the goal of serving the public, but copyright law in the US could be eliminated overnight and not a single constitutional right would have been violated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is the most important point to artists, especially small ones. The world of no copyright enforcement is the world of less art, less literature, less music, less everything creative.
Yes, because if anyone is going to be making use of the DMCA and other forms of copyright enforcement it's going to be the smaller artists, those who's greatest obstacle for success is not people sharing their stuff without paying them, but people not even knowing they exist.
More stuff than ever before is being made and shared, and for large chunks of it(remixes and fanfic/pics as three examples) it's despite copyright, not because of 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:
Why is all these great business models based on "relaxed rules", i.e. illegal activities? Simply because they don't like some of the rules and they can get away with their illegal practises, why do they think it's a good plan?
"We don't like ownership, so stealing is ok"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's not necessarily true. At most I'd say it could be an admission that your work might have value, but I wouldn't know that until I've seen/read it. I might be willing to pay a modest fee to trial the work if what I knew of it was sufficiently interesting, but then if it was utter crap I would be less upset at the loss of money and possibly willing to view a future work from you. However, if I paid full price for crap, good luck ever getting any money from me ever again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Compare and contrast the amount of art and entertainment that come from the US (with it’s historical protection of copyright) and the rest of the world. The USA leads the world in creative content, and we are the envy of totalitarian regimes like Russia and China. There is one reason for that. Copyright protection and enforcement. Argue otherwise, please. Try.
Correliation is not causation of course, but if you really insist on playing that game, buckle up.
The first burst of American creativity... came because of US piracy. We had very weak copyright laws in the 1800s and that enabled all sorts of creativity to flow.
But, if you want more modern info, the rise of Hollywood in particular took place during decades when the US had much more limited copyright compared to the rest of the world. Remember, much of the rest of the world signed and implemented the Berne Convention way, way back when (signing was in 1886). The US refused to be a part of it for basically a century because it would have required much stricter copyright laws, only assenting in 1988, after other countries agreed to make exceptions that allowed the US to NOT include moral rights and allowing the US to retain broad fair use protections.
So... uh... the claim that we lead the world because of copyright protection and enforcement is not supported by history. The US as a strong copyright protection and enforcement nation really only started much much later, well after the US had become the capitol of entertainment.
Indeed, if anything it supports the studies that Levine and Boldrin noted in their book that historically shows that stronger protections and enforcement tends to come AFTER an industry takes off, because those who were successful then want to put up protective barriers against competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We (Americans) lead the world in creativity, that is undisputed, and it has been done under American Law. My belief is that the fuel for this creativity is money, that is what brought creative people to the US and money is what fueled their artistic contributions. Artists need to eat, they need to support their families. They charge for their work. Copyright protects that. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. But stealing it and paying nothing is just wrong.
I understand you need money too, and you need to eat, and I see who you take money from, apparently Globalist Socialists. But your articles are literally taking food from the table of starving artists. Don’t you feel at least a little guilty about all the art that will never come to market because of your efforts? Are you really satisfied with the crap that is being produced from stolen works and promoted by your Globalist Socialist masters? Have you no shame? Do you feel no empathy for those with creative skills but no money? Do you really want only to see work from well financed global corporations?
I say give some protections to talented artists with little or no money, and make it cheap and easy for them to protect their work and prevent anyone from using it for free. Let them prosper and flower into whole gardens and orchards and estates of creativity. You are the one supporting the “status-quo” with your talk of copyright and patent abolishment. Your politics supports large well financed corporations and decimates the creative geniuses of tomorrow who are not yet funded.
Oh, I forgot, you’re the same guy who peddles “truth” in the absolute form. You believe “truth” is absolute and not relative to the thinker. Share more with us, Mike, maybe you will win me over. I’m open to it.
Think about it, Mike. The small starving artist who contributes something to society that everyone appreciates. Don’t steal it from him and remove his source of income and let his family starve. It’s just wrong and Un-American.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But your articles are literally taking food from the table of starving artists
Yeah, I'm sure that consumers suddenly chose not to buy music when they could get Masnick articles in exchange. You're just not good at argumentation, Hamilton. Or providing any sort of proof for your claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
People have always done this where possible, be it by getting a friend to copy / lend an album for you to listen to a few times to giving you a game cartridge when they're done to borrowing a book from the library. The internet opened up availability, it didn't make people do what wasn't already happening. Only the parameters changed, and it just meant that if you had a worthless product, people could find that out before paying instead of afterwards. The issue there is still the worthless product, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
By which metric?
"we are the envy of totalitarian regimes like Russia and China"
Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which matters exactly what on an article about the UK where you're rambling on about Russia and China?
If you're going to be a jingoistic idiot, it looks better if you keep them to the articles that are about America in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
since you invoked 'science'
So we may have quite a while to wait before "copyright enforcement effectively combats 'piracy'" is no longer believed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, now there is an organized group of people who advocate hating America. When I listened to both Obamas, they both seemed to hate America to me, and they seem to have gathered up all the other haters into what we now call Democrats.
Regarding leading the world in creative content, consider the US GDP. We are not the biggest or most populous country, but our economy dwarfs all others. That’s historical fact and something worth protecting from all you America Hating Democrats and Socialist Foreigners.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Getting appropriate responses
Copyright reform.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most creative work is driven by a desire other than money, which is a secondary consideration. Also the fate of most creators is to languish in obscurity.
If making money by selling copies was the main driver behind creative effort, YouTube, Jamendo, and similar sites would not exists. Those sites give a creative person a chance of reaching an audience, as do personal wed sites where they give away works, and there is a chance that a creative person could use patronage, or the selling of physical copies, or live performances, or other business model to make a living from their creativity, if that is what they want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do love how much you know about me personally. Stalker with poor fact gathering skills, or just an idiot creating strawmen?
"Regarding leading the world in creative content"
Oh, you finally got around to the question that was actually asked? Cool.
"We are not the biggest or most populous country, but our economy dwarfs all others"
Which proportion of that is due to creative content, the only part of the economy under discussion here. Come on - fact, figures,
That's the problem with jingoistic types, they have to bang on about things irrelevant to the discussion just so they can drool over a country they likely had no part in creating.
Come on, it's easy - you insisted that "the USA leads the world in creative content" and have not provided a metric by which you're measuring this claim, let alone citations for said claim. Why not discuss the issue at hand rather than spout rambling nonsense that's got nothing to do with your claim
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would hurt those that get rich off of the works of creative people the most, that is corporate moguls, and lawyer who patent troll and use copyright as the basis of an extortion racket.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Most creative work is driven by a desire other than money”.
Time is money and money is sex. And vice versa. (Not my quote)
Tell me why anyone works for anything if not for time or money or sex. Religion? Not that much work in religion, actually, you can relax a lot. I don’t meant relax, I mean really work, get the hell up, focus, keep that focus for hours days or weeks, again and again, over and over, until you achieve a goal. Why do you think people do it if not for (a) money (b) sex or (c) time to spend (a) or enjoy (b).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The approval rating is below 20%, which is incredibly low.
Trump approval rating is somewhat better but is still net negative.
Your talking out of your ass here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For exapmle explian to me exaclty how redcuing the length of copyright from life + 70 years to life + 50 years or life + 30 years would reduce creative output.
Take disney, if current copyright laws were in force when the were founded you probably would never of hears of them.
They built their empire on copying othere peoples work, much of which would not be in the public domain if current absurdly long copyright laws were not in force.
Then take this
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-century-books-is-even-worse- than-it-seems.shtml there are more books available from the 1910s then the entire second half of the 20th centurey COMBINDED!
That is the whole that copyright has caused.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has only been since the Obamas that the ideas about hating the system itself have flowered, as least from my view. People used to bicker about the politics, but I have never seen the level of hatred I see now for the system itself. Overturn the election with the electoral college. Overturn the election with impeachment. I’ve heard CNN advocating military coups. It’s crazy now. A new period in history.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about being part of a community, or a strong desire to tell a story, or simply the pleasure of creating something, or sharing a passion for something.
Also, creating something is not the only activity that does not earn money, and some people would rather be doing something, or creating something, rather than than being passively entertained. The Internet allows them to share their efforts without having to convince someone else that they have a marketable work.
Also, if you think creating something is a good way to make money, well you are more likely to join the millions where the work gain little or no purchase, that the few whose work make them a living, or the even fewer that get very rich.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A) being part of a community. Nope, a community that demanding is not worth it.
B) a strong desire to tell a story. Nope, that level of desire pales in comparison to real desires, like sex and money, trust me about that, maybe you’re a little young to understand
C) the pleasure of creating something - you mean I would sacrifice my pleasure for the pleasure of sacrificing my pleasure?
You seem to be missing the point. I am talking about sacrifice now in return for pleasure (time money sex) later. Why do people sacrifice if not for time, money or sex? You talk about creativity as if it’s like passing gas. It’s not like that, trust me. It’s really hard and not always pleasurable.
I believe creating something is not just a good way to make money, it is the best possible way. And the best possible place to do it is the USA, and one of the reasons for that is the existing (or improved) copyright and patent law. Both should be made cheap and easy for creators to control the distribution of their own works. Believe me, it is an effective technique that makes the country as a whole richer simultaneously with making creators richer. It is fundamental to wealth creation as opposed to wealth distribution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also you misspelled Soros.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is licensing the major issue? Does domestic consumption not count?
"Hollywood is number one by far"
Again, by which metric - domestic revenue, international revenue, quality of movies, number of films produced? You refuse to say. Name one, then state why that is the most important metric.
"You want me to give you figures?"
Yes, you make a claim, you support it with evidence. That's how it works.
Unfortunately all we have is a man child launching personal attacks because I dared question his assumed authority. Sorry, you need to do better than than.
"You don’t even care that your compatriots are being jailed just for free speech"
If you knew the facts, you'd know this is a vast oversimplification, and outright lie at best. But, either way it's got nothing to do with the discussion at hand. So, back your own words up with something resembling evidence, I dare you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you claim.But, surely someone from the industry would have something other than empty insults to back up his claims with. Acting like you are now is loudly proclaiming "I'm a liar with no facts to back my lies up".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, by which metric? There's plenty of ways in which the US is not number one, even if it pains morons to admit this.
But, we cannot argue the facts until you have determined which metrics you're using to come to your conclusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personal insults is a business?
No wonder you feel so threatened that you have to waste your time on a website you yourself consider so insignificant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reviews, critiques, reactions, parodies, community interaction with the work is valuable to culture as a whole and to the inventor or artist themselves; the more play their creation gets, the more people are aware of it, and the more people are likely to actually spend money on it (as evidenced by the effect streaming services have). Copyright abuse tends to target these expressions - this, in and of itself, is harmful to new creators and inventors. In this sense, the current copyright doctrine is counter-productive to the very thing you care about.
If we must have copyright, let it be limited to 20 years. No extensions for any reason. No transfer of these rights allowed. You cannot sell the copyright, it cannot be inherited.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who, pray tell, gets the right to judge which citizens are “most creative”? What makes “creative citizens” more deserving of an income stream than anyone else? What makes abuse of the law less important than protecting the wealthy “creative citizens” about whom you are obviously most worried?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lots of people create artistic works because they feel a creative compulsion. I mean, you feel compelled to lie all the time, and lying is technically a creative act, and I doubt you do it for time, sex, or money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You seem to be ignoring the one you either cannot or do not want to see. For a good number of people, yes, money and sex are incredibly tempting motivators for creating artistic works. But I doubt you will find many fanfic authors who have fat stacks of cash and lipstick stamps on their passport. (I think I need a new one, myself.) Your narrow view of creativity—and the reasons that people create new works—blinds you to a point you have yet to refute: In the absence of restrictive copyright laws (or any copyright laws at all), creativity would no more die than you or I would.
I wrote fanfic many, many, many years ago. I did not do it for fame and fortune and pussy—I did it because I liked the original IP on which my fics were based and I wanted to write something for the fan community of that IP. That community never demanded anything of me. I wanted to tell a(n admittedly shitty) story and I had fun writing it. If you create only for the sake of dollars and sex, your work must be mediocre as hell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, like that means anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh my god, you're serious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The American government sucks. When will you coming to shove a gun in my face and make me say otherwise, you violence-happy ratfuck?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Didn't you guys have something of a Civil War about that?
As for how hard D. Trump works, have you looked at the statistics (published by his own Whitehouse) about the amount his golfing trips have cost in terms of hours and dollars?
And as for 'leading the world in creative content' ... that's only in English, and really only because the US population is much larger than the sum of any other predominantly English-speaking country.
The Spanish, Portuguese, and, need I say, INDIAN, creative industries are also very, very active. Bollywood is cited as creating somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 movies per year. Hollywood produces less than half that.
That's before we even consider South America media production, or creative industries outside of cinema and music, with which the US seems obsessed, to the exclusion of the other arts.
Yes, the US does create a lot (sometimes I wonder how much is actually worth creating, but that's another story entirely), but to assume it's world leading because the MAFFIA say so? US blinkers off, please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
(Broad sweeping statement warning!) The money is not the motivator for most creators; for most creators it's a need to create that drives them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, good! Back to the old topics and spins!
This is the key factoid. Ignoring the bull in between two points, your intent is to claim brilliant foresight for Techdirt, though vague on persons and methods: "In other words, innovators solved the music piracy problem in the UK, as we always said would happen."
It's a prediction for start, and doesn't imply they're turning to legal ways...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"but a significant 22% believe they won't."
Because have read of pirates being JAILED and are rightly fearful. More jailed would cause this figure to rise, the first to drop.
Right along with my prior comment, news of actual consequences now being applied is having effect.
In sum, you (and whatever "study") dodge all mention of higher enforcement as most likely cause, again claim credit for simple expansion of network bandwidth that's really the only enabler for more streaming, legal or not, and then crow that you've been right all along -- dropping mention that Techdirt has advocated outright piracy for 20 years, heedless of the law.
The Typical Techdirt Twist. It'll fool anyone new here (which I doubt there is) into thinking Techdirt promotes new ideas and methods, but in fact it's just a den of pirates promoting easy old ways of simple content theft.
Few and crap topics of late have led to more than merited dumps by the fanboys on this feeble old anti-copyright spin, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Nah, that troll was Hamilton. The rest of your statement still applies, though!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Indeed, why not? It has become a toxic teratological clusterfuck thanks to your bosses, the MAFIAA.
Also, you lost your entire argument the moment you used the word theft to describe copyright infringement.
"Since artists still have to pay their bills, they will adapt naturally, but that would be like using FEMA and the Red Cross to justify arson."
Oh no, it would be like using a professional that doesn't produce quality stuff that people want going out of business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Psychological disorder probably. But I wouldn't be surprised if money is involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh, good! Back to the old topics and spins!
Also, some people will pirate regardless, they'll never give you any money no matter what you do. So, it's a good idea not to waste your time on them, attacking people who want to give you money but you make it unlikely/impossible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "but a significant 22% believe they won't."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Getting appropriate responses
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So an involuntary free trial is okay for government to impose on a rightsholder?
The market can simply punish those who don't provide free excerpts. Still no justification for theft and every incentive for a small creator to focus exclusively on a wealthy audience or write for a large "evil" company who will protect them and pay them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So an involuntary free trial is okay for government to impose on a rightsholder?
The market can simply punish those who don't provide free excerpts. Still no justification for theft and every incentive for a small creator to focus exclusively on a wealthy audience or write for a large "evil" company who will protect them and pay them.
You think YouTube doesn't pay its creators?
They're the ONLY outfit who properly rewards content, and why they will thrive as the others lose content.
YouTube pays 68 percent of the money it makes on ads to creators. It's why YT videos are such a great source of information. Also thanks to YT, no one needs any "sampling" (theft) to "get the word out" about their work.
What exactly is wrong with copyright enforcement anyway? The immunity granted the intermediaries is actually quite strong. You have to almost be a Napster before you can be held liable. Just ask Perfect 10.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So an involuntary free trial is okay for government to impose on a rightsholder?
The market can simply punish those who don't provide free excerpts. Still no justification for theft and every incentive for a small creator to focus exclusively on a wealthy audience or write for a large "evil" company who will protect them and pay them.
You think YouTube doesn't pay its creators?
They're the ONLY outfit who properly rewards content, and why they will thrive as the others lose content.
YouTube pays 68 percent of the money it makes on ads to creators. It's why YT videos are such a great source of information. Also thanks to YT, no one needs any "sampling" (theft) to "get the word out" about their work.
What exactly is wrong with copyright enforcement anyway? The immunity granted the intermediaries is actually quite strong. You have to almost be a Napster before you can be held liable. Just ask Perfect 10.
So because someone else has the luxury o doing something aa hobby, I have to as well? This is involuntary distribution unless I have the right to control my work instead of you controlling my work.
[ 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: Re:
Depends on where you like, and there's more people on the subcontinent than there are in the US. If they like it, and they make money, why are you trying to demean them, just because you fragile ego might be hurt when reminded that the US is not always at the to?
If you want to get on to subjective value rather than objective, it's shaky ground given the amount of utter crap churned out by American corporations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You have, but... it's not officially documented anywhere, is it? I don't see anything about this on each story page, the main page, the "About Us" page, on any of the contact pages... so, don't be surprised when people don't know this. I've seen you say it many times and I'm still unsure in the details (are guest posts covered?).
In a world where everything is copyrighted forever by default (and where some countries don't even let authors fully opt out), we should really want explicit identification of public-domain content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
YouTube creators have noted that YouTube ad revenue is notoriously unreliable, not because of an unreliable number of views but because the standards for monetization are unclear, and YouTube has a tendency to change them and tell no one. It was a whole big thing. They called it the Adpocalypse. It made the news. How did you not hear of it? In any case, for creators I watch, they note they don't have a good revenue stream anymore from YouTube. It never recovered, and they can no longer predict if a video will get any ad revenue.
At this point, most creators literally can not make any ad revenue, as YouTube has limited ad sharing to YouTubers with high levels of viewership. YouTube got tons of content before they shared any revenue, and they still get tons of content by users who now can not earn revenue. Because the drive to create is not about money. Its about sharing information.
The issue with enforcement is its had a high cost financially, and little returns either financially or in piracy reduction, and is easily contrasted with the shown decreases in piracy and increase in revenue with the introduction of services and practices that are pro consumer.
If the goal is to either reduce piracy or increase revenue, copyright enforcement is not succeeding, and other techniques have been shown to work. That's why Techdirt shits on copyright enforcement. Well that and the censorship.
You seem to think enforcement is targeted at platforms, and that its goals are about revenue and piracy. They aren't, largely. They are targeted at users, and are about rent seeking and control. The biggest places we see copyright enforcement these days outside of user targeting mass shakedown 'lawsuits', is DMCA take downs. Techdirt has spent years highlighting abuse of this system explicitly by accusing people of infringement and take down material the accuser admits is non-infringing content they don't like.
But because of a very weak (potentially toothless) anti abuse mechanism, there is no penalty for this behavior. Combined with abuse of the legal system to shakedown dead people and Alzheimer patients for relatively small sums and that studies suggest that enforcement is ineffective as an anti-piracy measure, enforcement seems, economically, a bad option for rights holders.
What is the value of enforcement efforts for creators if they generate no additional revenue (or at least, no revenue in excess of the cost) and do not reduce piracy? How much is that value lessened if there is an alternative means of accomplishing those goals that is both cheaper and proven more effective?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's called mechanical licensing, and it's why Marilyn Manson could do all those god-awful cover versions of songs.
Why is it always the copyright maximalists who insult the creative output of others? It's almost as if they're not actually about creativity at all...
They're the ONLY outfit who properly rewards content, and why they will thrive as the others lose content.
So... you're now agreeing with the premise of the article that innovation in licensed services is a good thing?
Do you even know what you're talking about?
YouTube pays 68 percent of the money it makes on ads to creators. It's why YT videos are such a great source of information. Also thanks to YT, no one needs any "sampling" (theft) to "get the word out" about their work.
What?
So now you're a fan of YouTube, which is the kind of innovation we're talking about in this post that shows that innovation is a good way to beat piracy. So you're agreeing with us and yet think you're disagreeing.
Fascinating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or maybe we would have, as the victim of a C&D or lawsuit. Maybe Techdirt has already reported on the would-have-been-next-Disney getting smacked down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For starters, Bollywood has an pint of creativity, whereas Hollywood has only an ounce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It favors the copyright holder—which is a large corporation more often than not—to an absurd degree. It offers few, if any, meaningful punishments for people who abuse the system. It can stifle free speech when the DMCA notification system is followed to the letter by everyone but the party accused of infringement. If copyright enforcement were a balanced and fair process for the accused, regardless of their guilt, people might not dislike the idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Money is not a metric by which you can judge quality of output or whether that output is more “creative” than the output of another artist, group, or country. Even crappy movies can make a boatload of money under the right circumstances—just look at Batman v Superman.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All of their other posts read like that, too—half of each comment sounds like he is agreeing with the post (and other commenters), while the other half sounds like he is disagreeing. They read like someone showing off cognitive dissonance in real time or something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I most certainly will not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Getting appropriate responses
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I must admit that I am in no way qualified to critique the artistic contributions of the commercial output of one movie industry over another - I wouldn't dare, as I don't understand the language spoken and sung in Bollywood movies for a start. Do you?
Okay, how many French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, Russian, Czech, Italian, South African (and I don't mean District 9), Zimbabwean, Australian, Egyptian, Mandarin, Taiwanese, Japanese or Swahili language movies have you seen? Care to judge whether their contribution to global culture is greater than the output of Hollywood?
But I would maintain that, with your blinkers on, you are equally unable to see that your criteria for "creative contribution" are inherently biased by your own culture. Look outside your borders and smell the (cafeinated, if you like) beverages from elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't work at or own Denuvo do you?
Cause that would explain a lot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What I care about is enabling inventors to prosper without huge
Or compare it to a rugby guy who has been doing NFL reaction videos. It's as much about him experiencing the videos as the videos themselves. No, moreso, because people wouldn't be watching the clips, if that were all he was posting. His channel's exploded, and has pre-clip ads, but he's not making much from that. Who gets the profits from his creative works? Corporations*, mostly. Who protects him? Who advocates for his creative freedom? Not you, AC. You want him stripped of earnings because he "stole" the videos - and he doesn't even host them, just puts them up while recording so we can see what he's reacting to.
You, by your logic, want him to stop "stealing", shut down his video series, abandon the success he has found there, and pay...not original artists. Not artists at all, since these are mostly videos of old, forgotten football games, and not entire games, at that. It isn't the fellow youtubers whose video compilations he is watching. More exposure's good for them.
Check him out, his videos are great stuff. Just search for 'rugby guy reacts', to find his channel. And keep in mind who's getting the lion's share of his ad revenue, rather than him.
You know what the artists in both cases lacked? A huge capital investment in getting all the permissions from copyright holders, before creating their art. Or publishing, whatever. In neither case is the art valuable enough to invest in, in advance, and while the RR artist didn't ask for money at all (thus (C) would preclude her/him from posting it at all), the Rugby guy started out with little to no ad revenue, and wanted to make some - but how could he pay in advance for something he didn't see coming?
Those are just two artists whose works copyright holders would want gone. Or maybe just working for them, so they can add hundreds of dollars that would have gone to him to their private vaults.
You, AC, want Rugby Guy to lose revenue for his "theft". The only artist being hurt is him. The only artist losing money is him. Copyright laws make it so that he must lose that money to the owners of the original content. Who are almost all, if not entirely, not artists. The artists in the football clips get nothing for their efforts, in terms of (C) payments.
In short, no artists benefit from the ad revenue being off the performance art of Rugby Guy. If one does (and best I can tell, there's only the theme song he uses to account for it, the song's artist), it ain't much. Pennies out of the dollars he's not getting.
Copyright holders such as the RIAA, MPAA, and the NFL, to name a few want this status quo to continue. So do you. You want this guy to have to pay, and pay, and pay some more to entities that do not create art.
Those with the proclivity to abuse the law are the ones who are spending big money to re-write the laws to favor themselves, and then use those laws to suppress artists who do not conform to their business model. The ones who do conform aren't going to be making big money without the publishers, anyway.
If I check a book out of the library, or buy it from a used book store, the author gets nothing from me or the sale. I have done plenty of both, "costing" all those authors money in "lost revenue", even though when I did so, I couldn't have afforded new copies, and would not have purchased any of them at all.
I guess buying used books makes me a pirate, too. Now those who shill for the corporate copyright model we currently have can lecture me about how my used-book piracy is stealing from authors, right? Right?
Whoever it was who claimed to be an author in this thread can comfort themselves with the khowledge that I will likely never download anything by them to read for free, and therefore am unlikely to ever read anything at all by them. In fact, if I know who they were, I'd be certain to not read anything of theirs, other than via purchase of used books - and then only if they're already an author I like.
I do have authors who I spend new-book money on. Each and every one of them I encountered via non-author-payment transactions described above. Authors who demand I purchase a pig in a poke because "artists deserve to get paid, because copyright!" can keep the pig and the poke. You'll never lose money due to piracy by me, and you'll never make a dime from me, either.
Doesn't make you happy to know that you'll never lose a sale to me due to piracy on my part? Of course, you'll never make a sale to me, either. If I read something of theirs for free, OTOH, I might have been interested, but at least they haven't had to endure the horror of knowing I read their art for free, before I became a customer, which since I didn't, I couldn't.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Maybe the corporations need to find a justification to bill non-customers for non-purchase of works they have never even seen, to make up for that lost revenue, then write that into copyright law, too. Of course, then indie artists would end up having to pay for the revenues lost from non-sales due to non-exposure, along with the rest of the customer market. You won't be a scofflaw and object to paying, will you, Author-chan?
Metallica's not getting turned off, if I hear it on the radio, but I'm not buying anything of theirs, either, given their taking the corporate side on the topic. Any author-chans want to sign up to join them on my list? I promise to not consume anything produced by verified members. At all. Unless, of course, you are willing to pay me to check it out, since my time's valuable, too, and your work(s) may turn out to be a waste of it, but I deserve to get paid for time invested in your product, if I didn't enjoy it.
Or is that the bottom line for all author-chans, that they want my money up-front, no refunds, and if their crap turns out to be crappy, I'm out my time, as well. That's the model that crappy writers use. Good ones can sell more books to people who read a book or two for free, first. Bad ones worry about how piracy is hurting their sales, and then they wonder why they aren't selling more.
So the copyright shills can continue to support the major cash flows of copyright corporations, because apparently, blind sales are all they have for income. Or maybe they think that their repeat customers would steal from them, if they could legally. Neither authors who expect me to pay for the privilege of experiencing their Great Art for the very first time, nor businessfolk who view all their customers as potential thieves deserve my business, nor anyone else's.
And they have no support for artists like Rugby Guy at all. Content creators like that are thieves, after all, unlike those who create derivative works in ways that are acceptable under the current system.
Are all of you headquartered at a Buggy Whip Manufacturers' Support Society office, or something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An appropriate anthem
Keep The Black Flag Flying
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What I care about is enabling inventors to prosper without huge
This is about using the indie artist as a false front for bad actors on the copyright issue, all of whom spend loads of money rigging the game to their own benefit. That /especially/ applies to those who are (or claim to be) indie artists making it sound as though indie artists will all be abused, if the corporations aren't supported on copyright.
Too late, sunshine. Indie artists are already getting abused - by the very organizations you shills support.
If you have no sympathy for other indie artists, who are getting abused by the very system you extol the virtues of, then you, good shills, deserve none in your role as indie artists.
And I hope you get what you deserve, in abundance, and at every opportunity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, and I never said it was. I only provided rebuttal to your proposal that downloading something means it has value.
True, and I'm sure there's an impact in many markets where those that provide samples/demos/rentals/etc. gain an advantage over those that don't.
Again, I never said it was. Also it's not theft, it's infringement. We should have copyright protection, and we should have copyright enforcement. However, its current implementation is bad. The point of the article wasn't "copyright bad," it was "if you provide your material in a form that the consumers desire, they are much more likely to acquire the content legitimately than they are via piracy. Rightsholders should take note."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh, good! Back to the old topics and spins!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I’m sure your dad works for Nintendo, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pot, kettle, black.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iYfStBZ2w8w
It is a truly horrific story perpetrated right in public by the British government. Who will be next? How can you be silent about this and ridicule the speaker who underwent what amounts to torture? You will ignore journalists being tortured? You know if this stands eventually they will come for all of us, including you and me. You first, of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take 7 minutes and watch this and then tell me you are not outraged and disgusted.
Yes I agree Tucker reminds me of Morpheus too, but watch the British reporter speak. I believe him. And if you believe him, and are silent, god help you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I did, I'd likely then tell you the actual reason the guy was arrested, and all the pesky little facts that propaganda sources like Fox won't tell you. Because, you can't get the angry morons rallying behind someone who is literally trying to stop Muslims from getting a trial while claiming the opposite if facts get in the way.
"I believe him"
Of course, but that doesn't mean he's telling you the truth. Fox's remit is to get you angry, not to inform you.
I'm not going to watch the clip, but does the interview tell you that "Tommy" (not his real name) is a career criminal who was jailed for contempt of court, while under a suspended sentence for the same act, when he has trying to prevent a fair trial from going ahead that was already in session? Those facts tend to get left out by his fans.
There's plenty of debunking out there, Snopes is a good one for giving a full breakdown of why this happened and how the original reports cam out, but there's others
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tommy-robinson-arrest/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You care enough to threaten me with violence. Pretty sure that is a felony in some states.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[i][b][citation needed][/b][/i]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A shame that you prefer such a metric rather than one of quality, but such is the way of Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Have you fact checked those words, by any chance?
"You know if this stands eventually they will come for all of us, including you and me"
Only ones who are contempt of court and attempting to do things that will trigger costly retrials of the men he's trying to remove free process from. I wouldn't believe a word this asshole says about what he had happen to him while under arrest, since it was lie that got him there to begin with.
Just another right-wing agitprop activist trying to get the bigots angry against their own country's legal system and go vigilante. Truth is not something these people trade in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If and when I see any evidence that corroborates his claims of “torture”, I will gladly reconsider my stance. Until then: Fuck him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you saw a career criminal who has been trying to rile up bigots make up a story to make his fans even angrier?
"What a traitor you are to your own countrymen."
Violent racist thugs and criminals are people I happily will not accept within that group just because they share the same passport.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Suuuure you have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are other sources that give you a better background, but since the man is known liar, I'm not going to take his emotional testimony as anything other than . an attempt at riling the troops up again. The whole case is a criminal somehow getting support for breaking the law because he said "Muslims" a lot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now you have advanced to openly fantasizing about shooting me. Hey Mike, think you can do something about this psychopath who wants to make sure the last thing that goes through my head is a bullet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How's that meme go? 'Watch out, we've got a tough guy here.'
If I thought for a second that they were anything more than a blowhard(among other things) they might be of concern, putting forth admiration for a law and situation where they get to murder someone for simply entering their house, and where a gun is worth murdering someone over, but as it is they're just showing how warped an individual they are(as, serious or not, Ken White's Goatfucker Rule would apply) and/or throwing out the usual tripe in a failed attempt to make themselves out to be 'tough' and 'manly'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How's that meme go? 'Watch out, we've got a tough guy here.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No wonder you watch Fox, things with actual facts must pain you as they force you to think beyond the stereotype.
"given the facts of the situation"
I've not seen any facts. I've seen the claims of a known liar, played out on a right-wing propaganda station, and zero evidence to back him up.
I'll be happy to change my mind if such facts appear, but so far it looks like you're being played by a known conman.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How's that meme go? 'Watch out, we've got a tough guy here.'
Wow are you off base, you socialist foreigner.
Try again you jingoistic joke, though it's telling(and rather funny) that your first response was a laughable assumption that someone who disagrees with you simply must be from another country, rather than, oh I dunno, someone who doesn't wistfully talk/think about blowing someone's brains out to 'defend' their guns and/or someone stepping foot in their house.
Well, at least you're an entertaining blowhard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, prove there is real abuse. So far, all you have is the word of a con man and criminal with a record of deliberately trying to cause problems around him. Who was in jail because he openly disobeyed the law and in the process jeopardised a trial that may have cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds to reschedule. Who is now trying to gain sympathy because nobody with knowledge of the facts can argue he was improperly imprisoned.
I'd happily defend anyone actually being abused like he claims, but I have no reason to believe a single word of it based on the track record of him and his supporters. It's far more likely that he's trying to act the victim, and knows the words to say and where to say them to get people who don't know the facts all hot and bothered.
Which detracts attention from people who are actually being abused, by the way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If evidence of someone actually being victimised comes to light, I will take up their cause. This is not it, from what I can see. No matter how good an act he puts up for the audience on Fox, I need facts.
A shame that "he claims to be from the same country as me" is apparently good enough for you to take up their cause if they put up a good enough sob story, but that's not me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"even for your countrymen"
My countrymen are better served by not talking word of bigots and charlatans without evidence, especially those who have tried to deny others their day in court. I'd rather not let the hatred of people like Robinson remove the rights from others (as he attempted to do) lead the conversation.
I'll wait until somebody with reliable facts can have an adult argument, and not be swayed by the ranting of someone who gets his sole knowledge of the case from a talking head show the other side of the world with a reputation for lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That mans words are not to be trusted so independent witnesses required.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, sounds like a genuine Fox viewer at least.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I dunno, you seem like an ammosexual from where I sit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So what? If I had no morals or ethics and I could get on TV by whining about some shit I made up to get right-wing sentiment (and money) on my side, I would do that shit in a heartbeat. Until some form of evidence corroborates his claims, fuck him.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Wow, racist much? (Yes, the answer is yes.)
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fun.
Almost everyone finds sex to be fun. (Exceptions include the asexual, those with a physical or mental disability which detracts too much from the experience, and those too young to have the physical facility to enjoy it yet.)
Some people find work itself to be fun. (For some specific types of work, different depending on the person.)
Some people find "being appreciated by others" to be fun. (I think someone else in this discussion mentioned "fame" as a motivation.)
Some people find spending money to be fun.
Some people find just lying around doing nothing to be fun. (At least some of the time.)
Some people find provoking angry or otherwise upset responses out of other people to be fun.
Some people find helping people to be fun.
There is almost nothing which is not considered to be fun, or otherwise enjoyable, by someone out there.
There are basically only two motivations to do anything; omitting a long philosophical discussion, they can be roughly described as "in order to survive" and "for enjoyment". There are a lot of things which can be fed into by the desire to survive; there are a lot more things which can be fed by the desire to enjoy oneself.
If you fail to consider "enjoyment" in your model of people's motivations, it should be no surprise that your model doesn't correspond to reality very well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sharing in the 1980s vs. sharing in the 2010s
Sharing norms and by that copyright infringement norms appear to be based on what content providers can restrict by force and be tolerated by the public.
In the 1980s, mix tapes were an accepted part of music culture, where today music play rights are restricted to one end user. They tried to DRM music to limited plays or time limits, at which point the public ceased using supporting media types and circumvented it by going straight to sources of DRM-scoured files.
iTunes originally allowed a limited number of downloads per file. It has since relentes that limit. There is logic to the notion that pirate activity measures the degree to which the public rejects the providers' terms-of-use of culture.
And given the providers try to further restrict thos TOS by force using DRM, it follows that piracy and sharing would continue by force as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]