Why Is The EU Parliament Pushing Fake Propaganda From Hollywood?
from the a-hollywood-story dept
What the hell is going on in the EU these days? The EU Commission put out a Medium post that literally mocked the public as an "angry mob" for raising legitimate concerns about the EU's proposed Copyright Directive. And that followed a bizarrely incoherent "Q & A" page put out by the EU Parliament's Legislative Affairs Committee (JURI), spewing pure nonsense about the Copyright Directive. In both cases, those involved were publicly mocked for this (to the point that the Commission even took down its post, but blaming others for misunderstanding it as the reason).
But now the EU Parliament is doubling down on this absurdity. Its official Twitter feed posted this bit of pure propaganda:
Your memes are safe 🙌
Freedom of expression is not affected 👌
It's all about fair payment to content creators 💶Watch to learn more about the #copyrightdirective ↓ pic.twitter.com/ztYzrl4sdH
— European Parliament (@Europarl_EN) February 27, 2019
If, for some reason, you can't read that, it says:
Your memes are safe 🙌 Freedom of expression is not affected 👌 It's all about fair payment to content creators 💶
And then urges people to watch a short video that is simply bullshit propaganda put forth by an industry association, called "Europe for Creators." Think about this for a second. Here is the official feed of the entire European Parliament -- which has not yet voted on the EU Copyright Directive -- posting corporate propaganda from a trade group, pushing misleading to outright false messages, in support of a bill that is designed to financially benefit that industry.
In what world is that okay?
MEP Julia Reda has gone through and highlighted many of the problems with the video in a detailed Twitter thread. To make it easier to read, I'm turning that thread into plaintext here:
This video by @Europarl_EN on the draft #copyright directive has sparked a lot of outrage, and rightfully so! First, the Commission called critics of the reform as a mob, now the Parliament chimes in.... The Parliament should maintain neutrality in its communication until the final version of the #copyright directive is adopted. The video not only creates the impression that the directive has already been agreed, there are several factual mistakes and problematic aspects:
In the beginning of the video a balloon is shown, carrying the “Europe for Creators” logo. It belongs to a controversial lobby campaign by a group of collecting societies, music publishers and record producers. The logo of Europe for Creators tries to rip off the logo of @EFF, possibly to create the impression that this is a civil society campaign. Advertisements for commercial interest groups have no place in a video of a political institution.
The video claims that the reform is directed at “large platforms”: In fact, the size of the platform does not matter for the application of #article13, merely whether it hosts “large amounts” of protected content. This can also be the case for a platform run by a single person. The video says a lighter regime applies to platfoms that have an turnover below 10 Million *or* less than 5 million unique visitors. This is just wrong. Actually, the lighter regime only applies if both criteria are met, and platforms are also younger than 3 years old.
Another false statement is that “there is no requirement for platforms to put filters in place”: Yes there is, as soon as a rightholder does not wish to offer a license, para 4 (b) and (c) require platforms to use an #uploadfilter in order to escape liability.
The video says “your memes are safe”: This is misleading. #Article13 says that member states should allow parodies, but the criticism is not that memes will be illegal, but that filters will block them automatically, because they can’t distinguish a parody from ©️ infringement.
At the end, @AxelVossMdEP says that any change to a copyrighted work is allowed under #Article13. It’s not. There’s a list of exceptions in Article 13 (5) that should apply: quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody & pastiche. Other transformative uses remain forbidden.
Reda then notes that, as a member of Parliament, she has submitted a request to inspect the internal documents that resulted in this video being made and published on the official EU Parliament Twitter feed. I actually think Reda could have gone even further. Beyond the flat out lies by Axel Voss in the video (saying 10 million Euros "or" less than 5 million uniques, and leaving out that those only apply to companies less than 3 years old), Voss also makes this odd statement, saying that if a company qualifies they are "a little bit exempted." How is one "a little bit exempted"? He's actually choosing his words carefully, because he knows that even if you qualify for all three conditions (which will only cover a very small number of platforms) you're not really exempted at all. You just have slightly less onerous conditions thrust upon you.
Of course, with elections coming up in just a few months, it does seem like the EU Parliament may regret this decision. Just skimming through most of the responses to this tweet, it doesn't seem to be convincing anyone of anything... other than that they want to vote the bums out in May.
You vote in favor of censorship, we vote you out.
— flatEarthIsNonsense (@NonsenseFlat) February 27, 2019
You’ll only break the internet, its interconnected communities, creativity & freedom of expression. You have no idea what you’re even doing. People won’t vote for you next election, nor will they stand for this if you let it go through. It will be a crime against human rights.
— Acorn (@Alittleacorn) February 28, 2019
This video is full of false and misleading information. Also, the directive has NOT been voted on. What is this video doing on the account of the European Parliament and why was it created on behalf of it? This is serious!#SaveYourInternet #deleteArticle13 #deleteArticle11
— Κόμμα Πειρατών Ⓟ (@PiratepartyGR) February 28, 2019
Thankfully, elections are coming. Let's make sure the next people sitting in those chairs will actually put citizens right's above lobbying interests.
— Carlos Martins (@ptnik) February 28, 2019
Even a cursory read of the drafts provided prove you are either ignorant or lying. Why are you ignoring the very real consequences of the proposed policy and instead clinging to some fantasy "intent" that will never occur? Stop fellating lobbyists.
— Steven Wittens (@unconed) February 28, 2019
All of the three statements are disputed, and I would like for the @Europarl_EN to stay neutral or to refrain from statements until there has been a debate and a vote during the plenary. This view does not represent the view of all Members of the European Parliament.
— Yana Toom (@YanaToom) February 28, 2019
So, the people that run the European Parliament approve of Article 13? Does that mean they're going to lean on most of the parliament members to vote the way they want them to?
— Jamie Foxworthy (@Jamie_Foxworthy) February 27, 2019
And there are a lot more like that. Indeed, I don't seem to see anyone actually praising the EU Parliament's decision to post this nonsense, which makes you wonder why they even bothered.
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: article 13, axel voss, bias, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, julia reda, lies, propaganda
Reader Comments
The First Word
“So that's what voters are now. An angry mob. If you are in the overwhelming majority of those that are tired of a tyrant minority aristrocrat independently writing laws solely in their own interests and you disagree with them then you are part of the angry mob.
Yes, we are an angry mob. Rightfully so. We want our governments to behave like a democracy. And we are tired of a small minority of IP extremists that don't believe in democracy writing all of our laws.
IP extremists don't believe in democracy. They steal from taxpayers every time taxpayer funded research is locked behind copy'right' paywalls or subject to patents so they clearly believe in theft (but not infringement) yet they claim that IP is all about protecting authors, creators, inventors, and musicians from intellectual 'theft'. When it's pointed out to them that no one has a moral entitlement to IP and that its purpose, if it is to exist, should only be to serve the public interest they then claim that IP is in the public interest and they even go so far as to say that publishers stealing from taxpayers is in the public interest. They claim that it's for the poor poor authors and creators and musicians yet it's always been big corporate conglomerates responsible for pushing these laws.
For instance it was Disney that pushed the copy'right' extensions. Not the poor poor artists.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We reached Peak Ajit Pai levels of political corruption.
Pushing an internet breaking policy against all expert protest, blatantly dismissing the opposition as fakes, and spreading all out propaganda from corrupt Corporations. It just can't be a coincidence that these are all exactly the same tactics that Ajit Pai used to repeal net neutrality. Either Ajit Pai has a double job, or the EU is simply taking a leaf from the Trump Administration to blatantly lie to their citizens without regard to the consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We reached Peak Ajit Pai levels of political corruption.
We all already know that voting doesn't change anything when all the parties are centrist or adopt centrist politics as soon as they are voted in. Banish the unbearable status quo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We reached Peak Ajit Pai levels of political corruption.
Not "sure" if Serious or "satire"???
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We reached Peak Ajit Pai levels of political corrupt
Law enforcement professionals can separate serious and satire when it comes to posts like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We reached Peak Ajit Pai levels of political cor
Asserts facts not in evidence. Especially when said authorities routinely go after people who make fun of them, a.k.a. satire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All of whom only make money if creators are under contract to legacy publishers, what a coincidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not true at all. Michelle Phan was rejected by the "legacy" industry and makes several million a year on YouTube, as do many other independent creators who will continue to thrive even after Article 13 becomes law.
Keep whining, toddlers...the tantrum is epic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...the reason that Article 13 won't affect Michelle Phan is that she's not in the EU, Johm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It won't impact her revenue anywhere, Toddler.
Keep whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Whining Mr. Winner wants the world to whimper. The world will not, and so he wails.
Toddlers throwing tantrums are usually trolls. In this case, though, I'll allow that this the Whining Mr. Winner is just that stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT! Hold the phone! You just admitted that indie creators ON THE INTERNET make several million a year, but your whole schtick is predicated on the fact that people can only make good money (or any money really, since you consider online content to be "garbage") by using the legacy studios. And before you deny that, I give you exhibit A from one of your posts farther down:
So, shill, what's it going to be? More lies? Or more lies? Because it's quite obvious you are incapable of telling the truth and will spin any lie, no matter how contradictory, if it will support your argument. Weasle your way out of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Note you said youtube: the platform with an already broken system that is regularly abused.
You are not helping your case.
On a related note, there are creators on many other platforms that will be affected. The internet is not just youtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money has corrupted politics to the point of not being just broken but to the point where any attempt to protest its abuses makes people the enemy of the state. I guess the dystopian future of megacorporations ruling the countries is already here and no longer confined to cyberpunk fiction books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Election in November, Election in November"
"What? Again? This stupid country!"
Vote Quimby, I mean Pirate Party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Election in November, Election in November"
They are centrist and rather reactionary like the rest of the government and actually propose more mild and consumer-hostile laws than the rest. Corporate whores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Election in November, Election in November"
The person Masnick is quoting in this article, Eva Braun, is from the "Pirate Party" lol.
Pirate Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Election in November, Election in November"
Good luck with that, whining toddler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Election in November, Election in November"
Good luck with that, whining toddler.
Man. Not a single creative bone in your body, is there? Might want to try out that thesaurus Thad linked you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So that's what voters are now. An angry mob. If you are in the overwhelming majority of those that are tired of a tyrant minority aristrocrat independently writing laws solely in their own interests and you disagree with them then you are part of the angry mob.
Yes, we are an angry mob. Rightfully so. We want our governments to behave like a democracy. And we are tired of a small minority of IP extremists that don't believe in democracy writing all of our laws.
IP extremists don't believe in democracy. They steal from taxpayers every time taxpayer funded research is locked behind copy'right' paywalls or subject to patents so they clearly believe in theft (but not infringement) yet they claim that IP is all about protecting authors, creators, inventors, and musicians from intellectual 'theft'. When it's pointed out to them that no one has a moral entitlement to IP and that its purpose, if it is to exist, should only be to serve the public interest they then claim that IP is in the public interest and they even go so far as to say that publishers stealing from taxpayers is in the public interest. They claim that it's for the poor poor authors and creators and musicians yet it's always been big corporate conglomerates responsible for pushing these laws.
For instance it was Disney that pushed the copy'right' extensions. Not the poor poor artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See response to
""This model could potentially undermine peer review, the process vital for ensuring the rigour and quality of published research. It could also increase costs of publication for researchers and funding bodies.""
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/02/26/0439230
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, @05:11PM (#807055)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ever wonder how much in consumption, payroll, and sales taxes are generated in a year by Disney?
Without that revenue, other taxes would have to be raised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No the wouldn't because the money would be spent else where. The only think can can damage tax revenue is people saving money and pulling it out of th economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disney's taxes.
Disney receives $381,525,727 a year from government subsidies. So it's got a long way to go before the taxpayers break even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disney's taxes.
Corporate welfare needs to stop.
I thought the wealthy abhorred socialism - lol, most use the term incorrectly as they think is it simply a pejorative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry mobs
Dissenters are always terrorists and shills according to authoritarians.
If someone is calling you these things it means they don't (maybe can't) care about your position. The question then is why?
Assuming they're not like POTUS, an old man with delusional beliefs and attitude polarization, it's probably something like their paycheck depending on their beliefs staying polarized.
That's the norm here in the states. I'd assume it's pretty common in the EU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Aristocracy *
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Indeed, I don't seem to see anyone actually praising the EU Parliament's decision to post this nonsense, which makes you wonder why they even bothered."
Exactly. I want to be very clear on this. IP laws have never been expanded due to public pressure. At most you have astroturfing groups pushing for them. IP laws have always been pushed by a very small minority of corporate interests. I have seen huge groups of people gather in protests against SOPA, for instance. I have never seen huge groups of people gather in favor of IP laws. IP has been extended, for example, due to pressure from Disney. Not from artists, not from the public. and Disney does not care about the artists, to even think that is ridiculous. They lobby only in their own interests.
This undemocratic nonsense is absolutely unacceptable. I want democracy. I do not want a small minority of corporate interests unilaterally writing our laws and bribing our politicians. IP extremists do not believe in democracy and they do not care for the poor poor artists and authors. They do not care to stop theft. They only want to steal from the public. This nonsense needs to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The pressure from the public is for stuff that costs money, which leads to pressure to monetize intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
Given how the main beneficiaries of this are Hollywood, who stand to take back a lot of the power they lost to smaller content creators online, and the established big silicon valley players in the online world who this basically grandfathers in as the sole arbiters of what content gets to be uploaded, as their competition is priced out of the market, you'd almost think this was an attempt by the EU to try and push confidence in some kinda Calexit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
Hollywood attracts top talent because their minimum wages are phenomenal, as in over $900 a DAY for actors, with all kinds of minimums for the other unions and guilds.
"Legacy" producers are required to pay their talent UP FRONT, and protecting the fruits of that labor is definitely a valid legal priority. Those wages they pay result in a lot of payroll tax revenue that governments like, revenue which is threatened by piracy or aggregation.
Masnick is whining like a spoiled toddler, his writing at about the same level. Almost amusing to watch if it weren't so pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
whining like a spoiled toddler, his writing at about the same level. Almost amusing to watch if it weren't so pathetic.
Excellent self-description, bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
LOL losing sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..
Losing Sucks!
Take it from "me", a Loser!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of th
Where do you fall on the spectrum? You contribute nothing to any conversation. It would be best if you just shut up and let the adults speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries o
They contribute more than the people they mock, and are more honest to boot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries o
what "the spectrum" do you refer to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
And because of that, they are extremely selective in who they hire. ONLY the top talent gets hired. Every other talent gets a giant f*** you. Yeah, sounds great.
They are required to do no such thing. Citations please.
Not at the expense of preventing anyone else from being able to make money on their own.
Ah ha! So you admit the only reason you, legacy companies, and governments are all gung ho for these laws is because you're all a bunch of greedy bastards who don't want to have to compete. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
Like the phenominal wages Fox paid the cast of Bones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
Please explain how piracy makes any difference in the tax payments that go to governments based on payroll.
Are you saying that studios pay actors less everytime something is pirated??? That $900 a day just turned into $9 a day? NO?? Then you are just full of crap and don't know what you are talking about.
Piracy GENERATES revenue, you know how much money those pirates PAY to their ISP and electric company in order to be able to pirate? It costs a lot of money to pirate successfully, where as an "actor" just needs to show up and often don't even need their own clothes (wardrobe provided).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
Online content creators are amateur night. Hollywood operates professionally. The two have very little in common. Start with their daily scale wages:
$900 SAG-AFTRA
$0 Online (or state minimum wages)
Jobs and tax revenue are a vital public interest. Memes and piracy are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
Start with their daily scale wages:
Got a source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
I need a source to prove that SAG-AFTRA requires that performers be paid up front? Look up "SAG-AFTRA scale" if you're really curious.
I'd think someone supposedly familiar with Hollywood would already know what "scale" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..
I need a source to prove that SAG-AFTRA requires that performers be paid up front? Look up "SAG-AFTRA scale" if you're really curious.
I will not do your research for you. Do you have a source, or no?
I'd think someone supposed familiar with Hollywood would be able to source their data when requested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of th
all i know is, the fact they need fooken unions should make something obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..
so basically you rob people and you deserve whatever you get
I’m glad we cleared that up lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
Really? Because some of those "amateurs" put the Hollywood acts to shame. Besides that, who are you to decide what is good content or not? Hollywood doesn't just come out of nowhere, that talent comes from somewhere. And one of those places is online.
So do online content creators. Your point?
You're right. But that doesn't make one automatically better than the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
Yeah, the 10-15 million viewers of top network shows, or the people who give half-billion dollar box offices to top films, couldn't agree more with the whining internet toddlers.
Ask the top celebrities how many of them are available for non-union work. Answer: ZERO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..
Funny how those multi-million dollar productions keep getting made and keep grossing massively despite this apparent epidemic of piracy.
I guess those are all just pipe dreams that won't come to exist or get any audiences unless Article 13 gets passed. Oh, what might have been, if the Marvel Cinematic Universe were able to exist. Alas, that the pirates made sure it didn't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of th
The music industry would not agree, nor would many writers of many bestsellers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries o
I did not realize you were in the music industry! My heart goes out to them for the failure of the MCU's soundtracks to come into existence, or the lack of existence of Beyonce's music, or Kanye West's music, or Britney Spears' music, or Eminem's tracks, or Nikki Minaj. It is too bad that these multi-million dollar productions failed to exist because of piracy. Such a sad day.
I also didn't realize that you were in the authorial realms! It's too bad that Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, and Robert Jordan were entirely unable to realize the existence of their bodies of literature because of piracy. Too bad that George RR Martin was unable to bring Game of Thrones to market due to piracy. Such a crying shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..
That wouldn't have anything to do with union rules would it? Being blackballed by the union would ruin their career in Hollywood or with the TV studios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
it's "try TO" not "try AND."
You sound illiterate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
You sound illiterate.
You sound bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
Yet I'm not bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..
And he's not illiterate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
Did your favorite dildo break? It's not the world's fault. Try not to be such a total douchebag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
You just started a sentence with a lowercase letter and omitted a comma.
It's too bad you have so much trouble making a living as a professional writer. All because of those filthy, filthy pirates, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....
As we all know, the quality of writing is a direct function of the revenue it generates. The previous poster should have just written "I'm a social-climbing idiot."
These toddler-tantrums are getting epic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..
These toddler-tantrums are getting epic.
Good that you're aware of your own presentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..
I believe you meant to say the revenue is a direct function of the quality.
No wonder you just repeat the words "toddler" and "whining" over and over. Best to stick to words you know how to use correctly in a sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of th
So "Sein Language" is one of the best books ever written?
I won't know the true revenue from my writing until I'm done selling the TV and film rights to the "legacy" industries...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries o
Thank you for clearly labeling your strawman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..
No, it's really not. Many people write high quality works for fun, but never sell it. Some even post it online for free. In fact, scientists and researchers have a tendency to do this very thing. Not to mention all major news and journalism outfits post at least some of their content online for free.
Besides, you are putting the cart before the horse. You can't generate revenue until you write something. You have no idea whether what you write will be good and generate lots of revenue until you write it and try selling it. By your assertion, high revenue produces good writing, but how do get high revenue if you haven't written anything?
Considering your sentence immediately prior is logically not possible, I would question who the idiot really is here.
Something's epic alright, and contains a B and an S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “These toddler-tantrums are getting epic.”
As always you are the king of low grade projection Jhon boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..
the quality of writing is a direct function of the revenue it generates
Funny, I thought one of your main arguments was that quality doesn't matter for copyright protection; it always commands revenue from even people who didn't want to buy or download it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You just see the results of successful hard work
People have votes, corporations don't. If corporations want to prevail over people, they need to work with propoganda (making people vote against their interest) and lobbying (making votes meaningless because all relevant parties will represent the interests of corporations rather than people). A great way of lobbying is selflessly providing the elected representatives of the people with talking points.
The EU actually has a European Commission with the sole purpose of doing all the hard work for the European Parliament and providing it with all its talking points including proposals for all of the laws the parliament passes. It's sort of the counterthesis to the Communist one-party system which is a comparatively blunt way of making the people's votes count for nothing.
It's also a bit more elaborate than the U.S. system where companies are allowed to just directly bribe politicians, often in the form of campaign contributions necessary for gaining relevant votes of the dumb public.
So if you see elected representatives spout nonsense directly in conflict with the interests of their electorate, there is a reason for it, a reason that can be expressed in terms of dollars or in this case Euros. They get their talking points conveniently predigested. Now you may think that the people deserve better and also should be paying someone to prepare the talking points in their interest. Unfortunately, the elected parliament members are already those supposed to prepare the talking points in the interest of the people paying their wages.
It's just easier for them to let someone else do that job, even someone who does not have at all the interests of the people in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You just see the results of successful hard work
People have votes, corporations don't.
They vote with their ill gotten gains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the scary thing is which body actually encouraged (and paid for it) to be posted? what did the members of the EU Parliament get for posting it? why have the rights of all citizens been removed and replaced by corporate interests, particularly those of the entertainment industries? why are these industries more important than every citizen and every other company, corporation and industry that uses the Internet? why must everything that the rich, the famous and the powerful remain hidden but even the slightest of things said or done by an ordinary person have to be known and spread everywhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It strikes me as ironic how so many people forgot how copyright started in the first place.
And where.
History is repeating itself because no one learned from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This one apparently. Most governments have gone so far beyond "regulatory capture" that they don't even try to hide who's interests they represent now. And it isn't their constituents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Their constituents want the tax revenue generated by producers, which includes payroll taxes on multimillion-dollar productions that will cease without protections against piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
multimillion-dollar productions that will cease without protections against piracy.
Please provide evidence that supports this assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The same evidence that says shoplifting hurts retail stores duh.
Mike writes like a tantrum-throwing toddler, and the commenters are a few levels below this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same evidence that says shoplifting hurts retail stores duh.
Please break down how shoplifting, which removes the physical product, is directly analogous to copying. Bonus points if you can do this without resorting to schoolyard insults and throwing tantrums, Mr. Winner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless one says digital content is worthless, piracy is akin to shoplifting.
Keep whining, toddler. Governments aren't listening.
Oh yeah, those games from pre-1923 works are gonna make it unnecessary to buy "legacy" products LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.thesaurus.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using thesaurus
1. Do a search for your word on DuckDuck Go.
2. Remove the tracking suffix
3. Add a bang control. It looks like: duckduckgo.com/?q=toddler+!t
4. And presto!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, I see you were not able to either break down the direct analogy, nor refrain from tantrums. How sad. I guess it was beyond your capabilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Labor has value even if the product is digital.
Theft of product is theft of the labor that went into the product, and it's a tax on legitimate purchases.
Keep whining, toddler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it is not, because the digital product is still just as available through legitimate channels. It is not in any way a tax on legitimate purchases.
It’s not a theft of labor, either, because no additional work on the part of producers is required to produce additional copies. You’re not depriving anyone of anything they were all but guaranteed to have otherwise by pirating.
That’s the thing: the flat cost of the “master copy”, so to speak, is irrelevant to whether or not something copied or stolen costs the producer anything. Nor is it generally relevant for what the value of a product is. The important thing is how much it costs to produce/ship additional copies, as well as what value the end product has. Consumers don’t care about flat costs. They care about reproduction costs, utility, quality, and scarcity. When you steal a physical good, you are increasing the scarcity of the good without compensation. This doesn’t happen with unauthorized copies of digital goods.
Regardless of whether it’s fair, legal, or moral or not, it’s not analogous to theft of physical items.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some of them definitely are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, huh?
Where I live, people who:
1) agree with Mike ALL THE TIME, and run code and scripts to block debate on controversial topics, and target speakers of words that cause ouchies, and
2)who think actively and mindlessly supporting the racist ADL-SPLC religion based reactionary discourse and other moral binaries and deplatforming initiatives of the One Percent is
3) a worthwhile substitute for intellect and critical thinking, we
4)vastly outnumber the dumb, "definitely some of them are” people who get flagged by the Great Defenders of First Amendment Rights of Corpirate Media, and who
5)thereby think flagging posts at TD is akin to running the underground railroad, saving a swastika hoax victim from an Israeli threatener, or ferrying Armenian/Rwandan /Guatemalan Genocide survivors across the Ganges River-or wherever the hell it is that "those people ” go when they get gassed/bombed /machete'd/ BOLOd /etc about something- counts as intellect.
Lastly, may I go on record stating that most of us good peeple wear brown, or black shirts, but with small rainbow lapel pins, and sensible shoes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's so weird! Where i live, some people like to make shit up and broadcast it (sometimes with with thoughtful-sounding noises) while claiming this constitutes "critical thinking". It's a hoot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its possible that you are experiencing "thought broadcasting, " which is a classic sign of schizophreniform narrative.
I would try to send a few well armed squad cars to your house, to do a wellness check, but its hard to send help to anonymous cowards, who obviously are in danger of listening to CNN, WaPo, and regarding it as "truth " instead of "noise broadcasting."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So impotent so sad
“Mike writes like a tantrum-throwing toddler, and the commenters are a few levels below this.”
You do realise you are the most prolific commenter in this thread right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you mean those multimillion productions that are not started until they have various tax concessions from governments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They don't get payroll tax concessions on the millions they pay in salaries, money which is then spent locally while the cast and crew are on location.
Ask New England about payroll taxes, the thing they forgot to calculate when denying a new stadium to the Patriots...at first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's WHOSE, not "who's."
You sound like an illiterate, whining toddler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You sound like an illiterate, whining toddler.
Yet another excellent self-description.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Cool story bro how's that opposition to Article 13 going?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Alive and well, based on the visible protests and mockery of the nonsense the EU keeps spouting in support of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet somehow it hasn't been defeated.
Good luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you! Good to see you support its defeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I need to add a #sarcasm tag for this literal-minded audience of toddlers, it would seem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is unfortunate that toddlers such as yourself are unable to recognize it, indeed. I will see you at the burning of Axel Voss in effigy, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you sure about the in effigy bit if article 12 passes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Article 12:
"Member States with compensation-sharing systems between authors and publishers for exceptions and limitations may provide that where an author has transferred or licensed a right to a publisher, such a transfer or a licence constitutes a sufficient legal basis for the publisher to claim a share of the compensation for the uses of the work made under an exception or limitation to the transferred or licensed right, provided that an equivalent compensation-sharing system was in operation in that Member State before 12 November 2015.
The first paragraph shall be without prejudice to the arrangements in Member States concerning public lending rights, the management of rights not based on exceptions or limitations to copyright, such as extended collective licensing schemes, or concerning remuneration rights on the basis of national law."
Unless I'm finding something different from what it actually is, I'm not seeing anything applicable to effigy's here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Finger slip, that should be 13 and in which case, would it be an effigy that gets burnt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, no, in that case, due to the restrictions on copying, we would need to use the original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bro you are the last person who should be taking shots are spelling ain’t that right Jhon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy needs to be stopped.
The public doesn't clamor for IP rights, just the tax revenue it generates.
The internet won't break for anyone but the thieves who steal content made by others. The louder they whine, the more ridiculous they sound, just like that "angry mob of thieves" government is talking about.
If there is an alternative that will STOP PIRACY, by all means present it. Otherwise, it is the pirates who chose to urinate in your freedom pool despite warnings that this was coming. Blame them .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody " clamors for the tax revenues" that I have ever heard. Please provide citation. Otherwise this should be regarded as what is is - bullshit. As are the statements following that one in your post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right, taxpayers don't want a solvent government, or socialist programs, etc., all of which require increased tax revenue. Citations must be provided!
I'm assuming disingenuity from the other side rather than actual stupidity here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The internet won't break for anyone but the thieves who steal content made by others.
Citation needed. I assume you won't provide one, since you or those who post like you are allergic to backing up assertions with... anything but restatements of the assertions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's an opinion, and any citation would be to other opinions.
I know your side of this debate is very desperate now that it's clear how badly they're LOSING, but that makes me the opposite, not really caring about all the whining other than to derive some amusement from how pathetic the pro-piracy "movement" is.
Reality is winning here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, it's Mr. Winner.
You sound desperate, Mr. Winner - just like the desperation in the tactics used by those in support of this censorious nonsense. Seems like your lies keep being called out. Too bad for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Article 13 failed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Article 13 is not yet law. The lies that are being spouted about it are getting increasing public backlash, because the public sees through their bullshit. The public sees through your bullshit.
Too bad your lies keep getting called out, Mr. Winner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well then it's a done deal for you! Congrats! Article 13 is not going to become reality!
You must be very proud of helping to achieve this outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good to see you came around. Please join me in lambasting those idiots who support the passage of this travesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I forget sarcasm is lost on the low-IQ crowd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. We all join you in lamenting your lack of IQ. Now, come along, brother, and let's tell the MEP's why Article 13 is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, MENSA was wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to miss that people can respond to sarcasm with more sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh yes, because citizens are so happy to just keep paying bigger percentages of their incomes in taxes. You're a moron.
Sorry, what was that? I couldn't hear you over the disingenuous claims you made that taxpayers want to pay more in taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They pay LESS in taxes when proper revenue from IP is collected.
Keep whining, toddler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep whining, toddler.
Yes, please keep whining, Mr. Winner. Your tantrums are occasionally amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now tell yourself how amusing Article 13 is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You, sir, are for entertainment purposes only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But somebody is collecting that revenue, and they are then paying taxes on it. So, I'm sorry but a citizen is still paying higher taxes.
Logic really isn't your strong suit, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually not, since many pirates use bitcoin, and many just devalue works by not charging for them. this is why Article 13 had to be passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow! You are very knowledgeable about the currency tactics of pirates! How did you come by this knowledge? Personal experience, I bet. I assume you've transacted pirated material using bitcoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, those who stole my work took bitcoin, after I cut off their other means of payment.
Not that it matters, since Perfect 10 lost its case against Visa, with the court saying that even if Visa knew it was processing payments for pirated material, they still weren't "in control of the infringing conduct." The Perfect 10 cases are the ones that made piracy flourish online.
I'd be against Article 13 if the other side would agree to hold webhosts, payment processors, and search engines liable under the old "notice" standard that used to apply. Even a ruling that payment processors commit unjust enrichment by making money off of theft would have stopped it.
The American courts are actually the indirect drivers of Article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, yes, yes, the stolen work. Which work was that again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait I thought you mad that they stole your email spam lists. Keep your story straight bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The American courts are actually the indirect drivers of Article 13.
No shit?
The Perfect 10 cases are the ones that made piracy flourish online.
Which Perfect 10 brought to begin with, so you can thank copyright enforcement for fucking that up for everybody. Thanks for breaking it, hero!
No, those who stole my work took bitcoin, after I cut off their other means of payment.
I thought your complaint was that the pirates were backed by somebody too difficult to take down, now you've got payment processors doing your bidding?
You ever consider keeping track of your story with a Notepad file? Or posting it on fanfiction.net?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Was I talking about pirates? No, I was not. Nice try at deflection. Your statement has nothing to do with legit people and companies paying taxes. But your statement would be an argument for reasons why pirates are able to get away with not paying taxes.
Or are you suggesting that these legacy studios are all pirates and not paying proper taxes on the revenue they take in? In that case maybe instead of passing supposed laws to combat piracy, we should crack down on legacy studios and force them to pay billions that they owe in back taxes. You know, actually I like that idea. Glad you thought of it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except the citizens pay LESS in taxes when "legacy copyrightholders" pay more, from increased sales due to elimination of PIRACY. Hence Article 13, which none of you are going to stop.
I know it sucks being so powerless. I'm sure your tantrum is quite cathartic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your tantrum must be lacking in catharsis, given despite it being writ large all over this page, you're still here, wailing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Schadenfreude is now a tantrum. Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for clearly labeling your strawman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your world view is myopic and childish. You lack the ability to see beyond the talking points of the music industry. You really ought to get out more. Or less. Either might work though the latter would be more satisfying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
More like I see that piracy is a cancer that needs to be stopped. The public may not care about IP, but they sure care about the tax revenue it generates.
The pirates are whining little toddlers....keep whining, NO ONE cares beyond that little cluster**** of thieves who contribute nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps I should start calling you Mr. Whiner. It's a little more on-the-nose than Mr. Winner, but it's appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regardless of which ad-hominem you use, Article 13 won't be stopped.
Keep whining, toddler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You ""whiny" Toddlers should Stop using ad-Homensms!
Aevery Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TFW Chip is the more inventive troll...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chips at least is self-aware, and honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, Chip, your such a script!
I am so happy that Frequent Flagger Thad wrote you, and how Mike just adores you as a binary bit of code; yet frequently misses how his comment flagging system is abused by ideologues, Aspergers types, and the ADL -Israeli -AIPAC flagging brigades.
Sigh
Chip is so old school derailing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TFW someone out-invents Chip, but only by delving into deep conspiracy theories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Womp Womp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is that a good thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Keep whining, toddler.”
He whined for the 37th time that day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How much tax revenue is being lost to piracy? You can argue that even if the pirate wouldn't have bought a copy if they'd had had to pay money that 1) it's still theft of IP, and 2) it robs the content owner of adding a new person to their rentable mailing lists. However, that doesn't apply to tax revenue: if the pirate would never have bought a copy, that act of piracy isn't reducing tax revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the pirate would never have bought a copy, then it's not a "potential sale" that is often used to justify it.
There is no ethical foundation on which piracy may rest. Article 13 is necessary to stop it. Those who don't like Article 13 should blame the pirates who created the need for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So your position is that the collateral damage opponents claim Article 13 will cause is overstated, and the actual amount of collateral damage won't be nearly enough to avoid enacting it? Or is your position that if companies can't comply with the law then it merely means that their business model is broken, and thus it doesn't count as collateral damage at all? If the latter, then what about non-profits like Wikipedia which host user generated content, and also private individuals whose content gets false positives by filters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Article 13 won't destroy Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are they granted an exception in article 13, because if they are required to filter all user posts for infringement, they cannot survive, because it covers words, photos, music and videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except for all the times when rightsholders demanded for payment on public domain stuff used in Wikipedia articles, of course. Gods you're pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
i thought it was just that collateral damage was funny, and everyone deserves to suffer over the actions of small minorities (big kegacy gatekeepers and supposed infringers).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You seriously have no idea how any of this works. That's not a question, rhetorical or otherwise. It's a statement of fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
haha. I said Nose. Does anyone have copyright on that?
Guys like Harvey Weinstein, Haym Saban, and other Hollywoid /Israeli gangsters fully support land theft, aka Israeli land grabs, and ethnic cleansing, then create pro-Semitic propaganda, and then, convince the world the "the real pirates ” are old grandmothers whose grand kids ran p2p, stoned teenagers, and wannabe rappers who cant afford the record /movie /other crap in the first place, much less have an actual market to sell it in.
The power of the paranoid delusion of anti -semitism is so great that the EU et al even debates this shit is that enormous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, so you are a racist. Thank you for making it clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might have noticed that what you call racism comes straight out of the ass of the ADL, one of the most racist organizations in the US, and straight into your mouth.
Take it up with them, and the flagger brigade。
That said, exactly how do they get morons like you to sqwawk it on cue?
And, Im surprised you didnt bring up conspiracy theories, like how a secretive and actual cabal of (ADL -SPLC ) control media.
Look at the flagged posts above, if you need evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you just literally crap your pants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I ment el Pope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly why has no one called me out for the use of a potentially derogeratory nym that is specifically Catholic?
POPE NOSE
Idiots cant discern anti -religion postures from actual racism, lol.
Maybe some flaggers are sensitive about shepherds and crooks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How much tax revenue is being lost to piracy?
Answer: None. Someone who doesn't pay for a song/move/book doesn't proceed to burn the money they would have spent, they spend it on something else.
Saying copyright infringement causes a loss of tax revenue is like saying that cooking at come reduces tax revenue because you're not paying for a meal at a restaurant; just because the money isn't being spent on one thing doesn't mean the money's not being spent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
saying that cooking at home reduces tax
Curse you writer's blindness...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People who cook at home don't do it with stolen food.
Those who lose money to piracy would have made more money selling out to a day job or whatever.
There is no justification for piracy, regardless, and zero-tolerance for it in Article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No justification for piracy
People who cook at home don't do it with stolen food.
No, but restaurants cook oysters caught without a license by oyster pirates which is how media pirates are so named (and not copyright infringers or media highwaymen)
And the justification for piracy is that the whole intellectual property thing (copyright, patents, etc) is a rent-seeking racket from the 15th century that only got into the US Constitution because it was written by a bunch of guilded freemasons.
And nowadays, patents, copyrights and even trademarks fail to serve the intent of our constitutional framers. You want to end media piracy, make the intellectual property system actually serve the public.
Until then...
Yo, ho, haul together,
hoist the colors high.
Heave ho, thieves and beggars,
never shall we die!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No justification for piracy
Would Black Flag Flying by David Rovicsbe a suitable anthem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Black Flag Flying!
It's certainly going on my playlist.
Our selection of good pirate songs is still pretty scant in the 21st century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Black Flag Flying!
Davis Rovics has quite a catalogue of Socio political commentary on Jamendo, Enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No justification for piracy
If you're against copyright, that's a separate issue. Article 13 is predicated on the notion that copyright infringement is illegal.
We already saw what Napster did to the quality of music. Piracy has also turned porn actors into prostitutes who use their films as calling cards to, as Masnick has talked about, "connect with fans."
Performers are protected by their unions, who ensure that you can't hire anyone without guaranteeing them a large amount of money. Want to hire a SAG-AFTRA member? Submit a copy of your script to the union, your insurance certificate, proof that you can afford to produce your work, and you also have to pay the union, who pays the talent. Break even one rule and you are up against lawyers who make the RIAA's seem like choir boys.
Producers need protection of the massive investment they make in creating works which are viewed by audiences in the tens of millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No justification for piracy
What about the protection for the small, indie producers? Hmm? Doesn't they count? What about the artist trying to sell his drawings on the internet?
It's clear as day that you can't reasoned with, because you have decided you are right no matter what.
You have NEVER backed up any of your statements with facts, you often claim that it's facts but as anyone can attest to - claiming something as a fact and providing evidence it is a fact is the difference between a liar and bullshitter vs someone that is actually interested in proving a point.
The thing is, people who refuse to consider the point of view of any other party in an argument has a special name - they are called fanatics and as the name implies, they can't be reasoned with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy turned porn actors into prostitutes.
In contrast to Hollywood, who assured that the non-porn talent had to perform sexually for their contracts anyway? The Weinstein affair is current news, as is #metoo. The casting couch apparently has never gone out of style.
In the meantime, yeah, we're seeing more indie projects that beat out studios by simply being willing to take risks outside of big studio best practices.
Really Anonymous Coward, the worst thing we pirates can do to the movies of big Hollywood is not watch them, and not distribute them. If we don't care, we don't talk about them. They cease to become a part of culture and then public interest dies.
Be glad pirates do their thing because they love the art, not because they despise the institutions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No justification for piracy
What specific language in Article 13 directly addresses illicit filesharing in particular and copyright infringement in general, such that the implementation of Article 13 will directly target “piracy” without going after activities that are currently legal under EU law? Make sure to cite the actual language of Article 13 alongside your interpretation of it. A single sentence without any citations (e.g., “pirates will run afoul of the licensing provisions of Article 13”) is not an acceptable answer.
(In other words: Answer the question as if you were in a classroom instead of a playground, you sweet summer child.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
First IP was about promoting the progress of the sciences and useful arts. It's clearly not doing that. Then they made it about compensating the poor poor poor artists. It's clearly not doing that either.
Now it's about increasing tax revenue. Wow, IP extremists are getting pretty desperate here.
The purpose of IP should not be to increase tax revenue. It should only be to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts and to serve a public interest by encouraging artists, authors, creators, musicians, researchers, engineers, inventors to create more stuff in the public interest. (and to claim that the constitution intended for IP to promote the progress through increased tax revenue is silly).
The government shouldn't pass laws to get us to pay for things just to generate tax. Perhaps the government should pass a law requiring me to pay my neighbor for the air I breathe so that I can pay taxes on it and the government can collect more tax revenue. Then my neighbor can do the same and pay taxes. No, if the government feels like it needs more taxes how about directly passing a tax on things people pay for instead of making people pay for something they wouldn't otherwise pay for just to increase tax revenue.
The absurd nonsense IP extremists are coming up with now to justify their agenda comes off as very desperate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you WANT torches and pitchforks?
I'm not sure if it's stupidity paired with dismissive arrogance or if they're actually trying to start riots, because continually dismissing people's objections as though they were just idiots while you make multiple obvious lies in a pathetic attempt to defend trying to blatantly screw them over is a great way to get an angry mob, or several.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you WANT torches and pitchforks?
Pirates are too lazy to riot.
Keep whining, toddler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you WANT torches and pitchforks?
I see you're too lazy to come up with an actual argument or a new insult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you WANT torches and pitchforks?
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do you WANT torches and pitchforks?
Sorry, you can't write that comment - it's copywritten. Now Mike's going to have to set up a comment filter for all these infringing phrases. Probably alter the terms of service... I'll pray he doesn't alter them further. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirates are too lazy to riot.
Pirates don't need to riot. Like the internet, they route around censorship like bad sectors. Less-desperate pirates will vector their ill-gotten booty toward public availability.
It's the public that needs to riot, or join the pirates.
And either of these are better for Hollywood than the third alternative, which is for everyone to just stop consuming its schlock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you WANT torches and pitchforks?
Is someone trying to incite a riot?
Time to report these comments to government. They don't usually wait until an actual riot ensues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you WANT torches and pitchforks?
EU governments apparently. But that would require you to have read the article to know that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do you WANT torches and pitchforks?
Wonder if law enforcement would see the EU as the cause of any riots, instead of the rioters themselves or those who would incite them.
Might as well show them this page and let them decide for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you WANT torches and pitchforks?
Do it you pussy. Or is this like all the local state and federal charges you were bombard this site with because someone hurt your feeling and you cried like a bitch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood doesn't have to "buy" government. It can send its female talent in to persuade it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
AC recommends prostitution of female SAG members for the purpose of swaying political opinion. News at 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Noting what happens does not constitute an endorsement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
AC attempts to backpedal on previous endorsement of utilizing sex to buy political votes. News at 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well now we know what johns job was before someone “stole” it lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Europe isn’t doing itself any favors with this, especially in regards to the people who treat the legitimacy of the European Union with skepticism. They’re playing into the hands of a lot of bad people with this move when what they should really be doing is enacting reforms to make the EU more accountable to and representative of its populace.
P.S. Please stop feeding the blatant trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Blatant trolls may be around, but we're running the thought equivalent of an extremely overstocked food pantry.
We hope they'll be overfed into either confusion or boredom, while hoping the sight of all the food will bring more hungry people that need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is really making me support Brexit and the further dismantlement of the EU out of spite. If the EU doesn't want to be my friend (that is if I lived in the EU and not in America) then I will become one of it's greatest problems, pushing for right wing governments to leave and tear down the farce of democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Indeed, I don't seem to see anyone actually praising the EU Parliament's decision to post this nonsense, which makes you wonder why they even bothered."
Sure but that's skewed because that's only the people who use the internet.. Of course they are all going to be pissed, it will totally suck for them. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"What the hell is going on in the EU these days?"
Well, besides this: unlimited immigration is splitting up the entire notion just barely ahead of entire prior cultures being wiped out.
You can't understand the break-up of Europe nor even the "draconian" new rules that are put in place despite popular protest without the obvious: a conspiracy that involves Rich globalist mattoids intent on ruling the entire world with divide and conquer, so you'll forever wonder, college-boy -- even though think you're an Insider on the plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "What the hell is going on in the EU these days?"
How's that Fox Rothschild defense fund coming along, blue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "What the hell is going on in the EU these days?"
Good, clever, snarky HIGHLY ORIGINAL comeback, Anonymous Coward.
Which One Percent funded, pro-corporate, pro-globalist, anti -democracy think tank, NGO /intelligence agency /crisis PR firm did you say you work for?
I am looking for original thinkers JUST LIKE YOU.
Signed -
Hasbara Cockroach Scout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "What the hell is going on in the EU these days?"
I am looking for original thinkers
Because you've never had an original thought of your own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "What the hell is going on in the EU these days?"
Hello, church lady. Any reason why you're intervening on behalf of another "unrelated" commenter?
You do realize your shining saint John Steele is going to be sentenced soon, don't you? Wouldn't be it devastating for copyright law if that happened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "What the hell is going on in the EU these days?"
Why was this truth censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "What the hell is going on in the EU these days?"
Based on the comment you're replying to, it was a fairly trollish response to a troll post. You can technically consider it all spam. My own response to Church Lady should probably get flagged and hidden - that would be entirely fair, since it doesn't really add to the conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…the hell does Matt Hardy have to do with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And once again, it's proven that supporting this copyright directive requires deliberately lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]