Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
from the hello-1st-amendment dept
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen may not have mentioned copyright in her Congressional testimony or television interviews, but her focus on artificial intelligence (“AI”) and content moderation have a lot of implications for online copyright issues.
For the last decade, Hollywood, the music industry and others have been pushing for more technical solutions for online copyright infringement. One of the biggest asks is for Internet companies to “nerd harder” and figure out algorithms that can identify and remove infringing content. They claim content filters are the solution, and they want the law to force that onto companies.
And they have been successful in parts of the world so far. For example, the recent European Union Copyright Directive placed a filtering mandate on internet platforms. Hollywood and the record labels are pushing the U.S. to follow suit and make platforms liable for copyright infringement by users. They want NIST to develop standards for filtering software, and they are using the power of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office to push for legislation and/or voluntary agreements to create more filters.
There is one huge problem with all of this: the technology does not exist to do this accurately. What the Facebook whistleblower made clear is that even the most sophisticated AI-based algorithms cannot accurately moderate content. They make tons of mistakes. Haugen even suggested that a huge part of the challenge is the belief that “nerding harder” will work. She blamed Facebook’s mantra to solve problems through technology as the main reason they are struggling with content moderation.
Copyright presents a unique context challenge to algorithms. It’s not easy to automatically determine what is copyright infringement and what is not. Even under today’s existing systems, about a third of takedown requests are potentially problematic, requiring further analysis. Most of these erroneous takedowns are done by algorithms. This analysis can be extremely complicated even for the American judicial system – so much so that the Supreme Court recently had to clarify how to apply the four-part fair use test. In court, each fair use case gets a very individual, fact-based analysis. Current AI-based algorithms are not close to being able to do the needed analysis to determine copyright infringement in fair use cases.
So why is there a big push from Hollywood, the movie industry and others on this? They are smart enough to know that algorithmic solutions are not close and may never be able to handle filtering for infringement accurately.
The reason is they do not want filtering technologies to be accurate. They want filtering technologies to over-correct and take anything that might be infringing off the internet. Congress cannot directly legislate such an overcorrection, because it is a clear violation of the First Amendment. But they might be able to introduce legislation that creates a de facto mandatory filtering requirement. Mandatory filtering legislation imposed via changing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512’s platform liability regime would lead companies to “voluntarily” implement over-correcting filtering solutions — or otherwise face a constant barrage of losing lawsuits and legal bills for any and all alleged infringement by users. And this could create an end run around the first amendment if a court decided that the company was “voluntarily” implementing.
At this point it is important to recognize the types of activity that we are talking about here: transformative works of creativity, pop-art, criticism and parody. This includes teens sharing lip sync TikToks and videos of your little kids dancing to a song. But fair use doesn’t apply to just the creative arts. It also includes collaborative efforts on an internet platform to develop cybersecurity solutions that require reverse engineering and allows teachers to share materials with students on online education platforms. Documentarians depend heavily on fair use, and efforts to distribute documentaries online would face stiff challenges.
All of these important capabilities would be severely at risk if we forced filtering requirements onto internet platforms via threat of liability. If we let Hollywood and music industry elites and the Members of Congress who do their bidding get their way, the rest of America will lose out.
Josh Lamel is the Executive Director of the Re:Create Coalition. This article was originally posted to the Re:Create Coalition blog.
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: ai, copyright, dmca, dmca 512, filters, hollywood, mandates
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Unfortunately, those who currently occupy Congress are demonstrably not very bright and far too many are technologically illiterate. Hollywood has lots of money, and Citizens United makes it possible for them to "buy" the attention of those that are supposed to represent "we, the people." The Founding Fathers expected successful, well-educated, rational men to seek elected office. 230++ years later we have blowhards, liars, science-deniers, and assorted other buffoons. With sufficient money, Hollywood can easily influence these fools. I'm surprised Hollywood hasn't already framed copyright violation as a left-wing, communist, anti-Christ, non-white, gay conspiracy to overthrow the government, raise taxes, generously support the poor and homeless, provide Medicare-for-all, and lower the percentage of alcohol in beer to something negligible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They’re smart enough to know that they don’t want to piss off the people who really help pay their campaign finances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh that is so unfair.
You Americans now have Joe Biden.. the absolute pinnacle of American values, technological literacy and international issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you really think he's not a huge improvement over the bumbling imbecile from before, you're a fucking moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Better than Trump" isn't such high praise, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If you really think he's not a huge improvement over the bumbling imbecile from before, you're a fucking moron."
That's not what he said.
I humbly submit to you that just because an administration happens to be better than a grifting would-be dictator and bigot who left office in the wake of a failed coup after spending four years worth of selling out US foreign interests to other sovereign powers...doesn't by default mean it hits the treshold of good. Not even going to go deeper into some 600k americans needlessly dead of Covid almost entirely due to his actions.
With the previous office holder trying to give Putin a reacharound every time both were on camera together Biden has a lot of leeway before he starts roaming into territory of what the american citizenry, after four years under Trump, might consider abnormal or unacceptable.
And I'd be very surprised if Biden isn't making good use of that.
In particular the democratic party is leaning towards its trusty old financiers - Hollywood - and that's been pretty obvious every time IT has come up since Biden took office, with every bill tailored to cater regulations towards the copyright cult and other vested monopolistic interests. It's just that no one cares given that the republicans are so deep in the asylum by now the democrats can do almost whatever they like without their base objecting too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood is betting on anything that will give them the power to take control of the internet, have every single site they dont like taken down and kept down and stop us from using the internet except in ways that suits! I'm not sure if people cant see what these fuckers are up to, dont wanna see what they5 up to or just dont care! That us until we've lost the net with no way to get it back!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It very unlikely they will be able to take control of the internet and it will be very hard to take down every single site they dont like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"It very unlikely they will be able to take control of the internet and it will be very hard to take down every single site they dont like."
More to the point, if the copyright cult ever gets exactly what they want and it can be meaningfully enforced, it will be impossible to have an internet at all, because no network provider will be able to afford the legal fees or be able to operate without breaking several fundamental laws just by existing.
What they can do, however, is to make sure more and more normal traffic migrates into the darknets as the burdens of staying on the open net become untenable. And that to some extent is what I see happening.
Once law becomes unacceptable to the majority of businesses the result is never that the majority of businesses cease their practice, it is that the law will become circumvented as the default of ordinary business practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tik tok has an agreement with music companys to use any music owned by sony, warner ,emi music etc what hollywood is every big website to have to pay a fee or ask permission to use video clips ,but fair use allows anyone to use content for parody ,reviews or short clips for political discussion .
if someone started using clips like tik tok with music they would probably get dmca notices very quickly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have demanded and gotten multiple systems that they have abused at every level.
For all of their screams the sky is falling they still manage to line the campagin coffers.
It would be nice if evidence was actually required before they did these things, but we can't have that.
Instead society has to pay the bill to create a system that will always be flawed & the legalized extortion still moving through the courts.
Those benefiting can't even be charged a fee for being wrong, yet we can threaten to bankrupt people if they DL some content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'If you're not signed with us you deserve to lose your content.'
If the goal was to only take down content that clearly infringed and wasn't covered by fair use then the push for mandatory or 'strongly suggested' filters would be absurd and cause massive damage, yes.
If however you're not only fine with 'collateral damage' but consider that a desirable outcome then pushing for filters known to be flawed makes perfect sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution?
We need to turn it back on them. Use their overcorrecting content filters to take down THEIR legit stuff, just like how Metallica got self-owned.
What stupid Hollyword execs don't realize is that remixing, memeing, sharing and lipsynching all drive traffic to the original. Remember the Hitler parodies clips from the movie Downfall?
Eliminating public (re)use prevents that viral thing the kids are always talking about. Remember Quibi? You couldn't make screengrabs, so no memes, no parodies, no nothing. The app died due to Katzenberg's hubris, but it sure wasn't helped along by being unshareable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution?
"Use their overcorrecting content filters to take down THEIR legit stuff, just like how Metallica got self-owned."
What's funny is how Metallica themselves have completely changed their position over the years. They freaked out in the initial phases of Napster fearmongering, but the backlash from their fans made them realised they were wrong. Now, it's possible to listen to all their albums in a majority of free streaming sites, they upload entire live gigs to their website soon after they've happened, they have lots of live tracks on YouTube, etc. Like the industry itself - as soon as they stopped freaking out about how people actually listen to music and embrace it, they've done a lot better than they had if they had simply blocked new media and insisted everyone buy CDs like it's 1993.
"What stupid Hollyword execs don't realize is that remixing, memeing, sharing and lipsynching all drive traffic to the original."
Or... they realise that the majority of their output is so disposable that people won't bother to seek out the original source. There's plenty of movies this isn't true for, of course, but when a level playing field means that all the attention goes on to a Korean TV show instead of what they want to promote, maybe it's not surprising that they want to return to a time when they controlled all marketing opportunities directly.
"The app died due to Katzenberg's hubris, but it sure wasn't helped along by being unshareable."
It died because it didn't really fit a niche directly, and was not flexible enough to find one naturally. The concept was fairly poor, then what really killed it was that they wanted everyone to access it through mobile... then got killed when COVID meant that people were at home and wanted to use other devices that they hadn't planned for instead. It was probably doomed to failure, but if they'd have designed it with the capability to run on the devices that users wanted instead of what Quibi wanted, it might have stood a chance. Because Quibi wanted to dictate how it was used, it was doomed even outside of the pandemic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution?
Or they did once upon a time. Modern Hollywood produces such garbage that most of the time the angry reviews, memes, parodies and out-of-context clips and screengrabs are far more entertaining than the movies they are made of.
There are even cases where I'd rather read the crazy Twitter fights over a movie rather than watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solution?
"Modern Hollywood produces such garbage"
Hollywood of every era produced a lot of garbage, and if you have forgotten that I advise you to have a look back at what was actually released on an average week.
The only thing that's really changed in that regard is that as technology has made it way easier to produce and distribute movies, a lot more are being made, but you're being extraordinarily lazy if you refer to all independent and foreign made movies as "Hollywood", which makes zero sense as a blanket label in that context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it's exceedingly clear at this point that Hollywood is betting on these mandates "working" precisely because they're not expected to work. This way they can continue to hold service providers and "Big Tech" responsible every time they demand a DMCA-based takedown of HBO.com at the request of HBO. And because said companies have consistently bent over backwards to cover for Hollywood's mistakes instead of telling Chris Dodd et al to go pound sand, Hollywood knows it can keep making demands for which there are no solutions, and no one will hold them accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've said something similar before here on TD, but now I'll get specific.
If such laws come to pass, then it should be easy for each ISP, platform, lower-level infrastructure player, et al to simply pull the plug on the personal site(s) of each and every yo-yo voting for this crap. (Ditto for the prez, if he/she did not veto it.) Simply say "We're sorry, but we can't take the chance that you, or your representatives, might sue us for some violation that you made into a law." Keep 'em off the 'net until the bogus law is rescinded in some fashion.
Now repeat that process for each and every asshole in the MafiAA that is pushing (read: bribing the hell out of Congress) for such a law. In fact, if the above mentioned players were to do this now, it wouldn't be long before the goons changed their tune. After all, collateral damage gives Zero Fucks.... or so I've heard, anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a mandatory filter can't do a fair use analysis, preventing such speech from being posted, wouldn't that be prior restraint?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The workaround is that it isn't the government doing the filtering, so it can't be a first amendment issue. IANAL so I don't know how well it might work but it seems like it would be an uphill climb to have such a law invalidated on prior restraint grounds. Not to say impossible, but doesn't sound like an open and shut case to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sure that would be the claim. And if filtering was entirely voluntary, or if the filters could make a legitimate fair use analysis, I might agree with it.
However, if the filtering is required by law and the net effect of filtering is "you can't ever post this, even if your post would be legal," that sounds a lot like prior restraint to me.
IANAL either, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, civil case law is still government exercising its power. Just like how racially discriminatory housing covenants got struck down that really shouldn't give them a pass by existing jurisprudence. But cynically high ranking judges are masters of motivated reasoning and rationalization best illustrated by the Slingbox case. "How dare you take pains to comply with the letter of the law!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
riaa
tried many times to Customize the music, so only those that Paid for it AND had the proper player Could listen to it.
The biggest problem is the consumer can Buy the unit to play, and then record To another medium, with the speaker system, at the Very least.
If it can be Played it can be copied. movies and music.
It wont matter what or HOW they do things. If it can be played someone will record it.
If they want to be stupid, the underground will Flourish.
Sell at 1/2 price and make Bucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: riaa
Then you can always sue the recording company that produced the gadget that allows storing the analog audio signal as a digital file. All analog-to-digital converter vendors can easily be sued for this feature.
Respectable companies will refuse to implement features that are being misused in the marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: riaa
"Then you can always sue the recording company that produced the gadget"
No you can't, the Betamax case in the 70s settled this. After which you somehow watched an entire generation of creative new works be created and distributed in ways that your insane mind would have made impossible, some of which informs the incompetent work you create.
"Respectable companies will refuse to implement features that are being misused in the marketplace."
Everything of any usable value can be misused. I know that someone who has failed to create anything of usable value wishes that they didn't exist, but they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: riaa
These practices are never making any of the stuff "impossible", given that there's always option to purchase a license to the material. Maybe your feeble organisation doesn't have the required money to purchase the rights to the hollywood movie productions, but that doesn't mean its absolutely impossible thing to do.
Your failure to protect against misuses is well documented in techdirt pages, so you might need to reconsider your approach to product development.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not possible this will work
Automatic filtering to find prohibited copying cannot work. 1) As many have pointed out, much copying is protected under the copyright laws (parody is an example). Automatic filtering systems may be improved to where they can detect a copied melody, but they will not detect parody even if there are dramatic improvements in AI. 2) Many copies are secretly posted by marketers working for the copyright holder to build social media buzz. Automatic filters can't detect that either.
Why do copyright holders want a system that will fail? These guys are the champions of nuisance lawsuits. They like hard to prove causes of action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To wit: Viacom employees uploaded videos of material owned by Viacom to YouTube, some of which later served as part of the foundation for Viacom’s lawsuit against YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the story of Kim Dotcom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not possible this will work
Filters not working is a feature, not a bug. Anything to hamstring the competition. Ideally, they'd want all UGC sites banned outright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: not possible this will work
Yes. That's why we have companies, so that they optimize these techniques which are difficult to get working. Cheap products are given more leeway for not implementing top-notch copyright filters, but if you put a high price tag on your product but still sell broken copyright filter, then your solution needs to be properly optimized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: not possible this will work
Once again, tp needs to invent a fictional reality in order for even he to make sense of his own insane ramblings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can’t optimize—or even create—an automatic copyright filter that can’t discern context. You couldn’t even stop yourself from ripping off Scott Cawthon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's steps how to do it:
1) first follow copyright's laws requirement to BLOCK ALL CONTENT.
2) Then carefully allow only those things where licenses have been secured
3) done..
See, this process always works properly, you don't even need to deal with fair use or other such issues.
I followed the above process that is guaranteed to work. Its still questionable if Scott Cawthon owns the material. But such issues are not needed when I have a license to the material (from someone else than Scott)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, yes, you think nobody but corporations should be allowed to make anything creative and the rest of humanity should be tossed into the Sun at your earliest convenience. Christ, go shit up Gab or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Noone else but corporations are able to create anything creative, given that it just takes such large amount of work. Even small companies are in significant disadvantage when they cannot absorb large work amounts. Hobbyists have no chance of doing anything worthwhile. If these hobbyists are trying to do something creative, they just cause more damage than they're worth. You witnessed this yourself when you claimed that Scott Carlson owns the material. Basically the hobbyist who created and licensed the model is causing damage when the licensing story isn't using strictest and most onerous licensing practices possible. To fix this problem, everyone need to move from sloppy practices to the copyright maximalist position.
see copyright maximalist stuff is actually fixing the issue you complain about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counterpoint: the furry community. Now go fuck yourself with an inanimate carbon rod.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They could still be in the damage-causing phase of their project...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don’t even know what you’re saying any more; I suggest you seek help for your obvious mental health issues, which may include early onset dementia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you might have trouble reading. maybe if you went back to primary school to learn alphabet again. You basically missed the most important part of the message, i.e. absorbing large work amounts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He can read fine, you're just astonishingly dumb, if you actually believe the things you type. I know it's not your fault but you could choose to keep it to yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s honestly been kind of sad to watch tp devolve from a semi-coherent nutter to someone whose obvious mental illness is causing them to lose touch with reality. I hope they get the help they need soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you're still disgruntled that your copyright status isn't good enough that riaa/mpaa would consider it acceptable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I rest my case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why would a random Finnish idiot be so eager to defer his rights to a foreign corporation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To get your software accepted by vendors in different continents, the developer needs to listen concerns of foreign companies. Basic pattern that makes your software acceptable by different players is that it actually implements the rules that those players consider important. So if RIAA/MPAA thinks following copyright is important activity, our software needs to implement copyright rules or else it has no chance in RIAA's software evaluation process. We just choose the most important players in each area and implement the rules that they broadcast all over internet. This makes our software more successful than what our competitors can do. Its a basic survival strategy in the competitive environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA and the MPAA don’t control who can use what software—i.e., they literally can’t make a small business, a large corporation, or an individual person stop using foobar2000, Notepad++, VLC Media Player or literally any other open source software.
Please seek help for your early onset dementia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its all about what products are available in supermarket shelf. RIAA and MPAA are global players and thus control what products are available for purchase. If my software product gets shelf placement in 120,000 shops around the world, it no longer matters what individual users choose to use. Everyone will anyway have access to the product, simply because RIAA executive considers our copyright story to be better than our competitors.
If few pirates reject our software because it implements copyrights properly, it's no match to the power of 120,000 shop's shelf placement opportinities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, they don’t, or they could stop me from using open source software.
Please seek help for your early onset dementia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't required. If you refuse to play ball, they'll just choose another client. There's over 7,8 billon people on the planet, they simply don't need you as a client.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"There's over 7,8 billon people on the planet"
...and none of them want to buy your incompetent shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but you don't even have a replacement for space-x. I do.
You don't think space-x price tag is slightly steep? You get the same experience if you subscribe to the meshpage shuttle experience.
Now, it's just question whether you consider elon musk and space-x incompetent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please seek help for your early onset dementia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
""RIAA and MPAA are global players"
No, they're not. Individual members of those organisations are, but the associations are purely American, which is easily verified by looking at what their names mean,
"If few pirates reject our software because it implements copyrights properly, it's no match to the power of 120,000 shop's shelf placement opportinities."
...and people who tell you that your product is worthless mean more than those, even as your insane idea of copyright means way less products available in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
this shows that you don't understand how "promote the progress of science and useful arts" actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it shows that you think only your work, or any work created by a corporation, qualifies for that description. The world beyond those limitations disagrees.
Please seek help for your early onset dementia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
nope. Promote progress of science and useful arts s actually very simple. Copyright replaces requirement to obtain compensation from your work with ownership of the work which allows copyright owner to prevent rest of the world from using the material without compensation. This means authors will need to create and finish their work on the promise that compensation will be available once the work is fully finished. This means the hard work wlll be done with a high risk that compensation is not actually available. But society benefits when authors actually finish their products, even if author never receives money for it. Thus society is often using authors as free slaves. Copyright is just a modern version of slavery. Work is being done without compensation. Society benefits from the work. Progress of science and useful arts is promoted.
This pattern never filters out works that weren't created by corporations. So your position is wrong. Society similarly uses work done by corporations and taking it without compensation. 90% of all startups that create copyrighted works are bankrupt after 5 years of operating, so the above pattern is working exactly like described.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m sure that on some planet, everything you said there makes complete and perfect sense. Your problem is, this is Earth.
Please seek help for your early onset dementia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's a rocket for you, so you can leave the puny earth and join us in our planet: https://meshpage.org/237
See, there are always solutions to the this kind of problems. But I guess you can't even get the rocket to leave earth, given that your gaming skills are not top notch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That isn’t a real rocket, nobody wants your software, and you need professional medical help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's why it's significantly cheaper than what space-x can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Space-X sends actual people to actual space.
Please seek help for your early onset dementia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sending actual people to virtual reality very cheaply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No you’re not.
Please seek help for your early onset dementia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're sending people into fits of laughter as they read your words and compare your inferior product to the better stuff that's already available from way more productive and talented people. But, it's true that this costs nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sadly your more productive and talented people are running with outdated software, when they didn't bother to upgrade their technology stack to use more modern webassembly based bleeding edge tech stack. Basically the limits in their chosen computing environment means that they're locked into inferior solution forever, at least until they rewrite their whole code-base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I'll place my bets on the future of the industry with the thousands of people creating software that generates billions of dollars in content - rather than the one-man band who can't get anyone to collaborate with him, and spends his free time claiming that the site he failed to promote would be world-changing if only his competition was made illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This only works if you somehow manage to include random collection of people into same group, but somehow still exclude me from the group. There isn't good reasoning why I should be excluded from the group of thousands of people creating software.
This construction of yours which excludes one person from larger group is called "bullying" and we don't really like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This only works if you somehow manage to include random collection of people into same group, but somehow still exclude me from the group"
Yes, I'm referring to the people who have made successful careers in this type of media. Your constant whining is due to the fact that you're not part of this group.
I'm sorry that your restaurant specialising in turd sandwiches is a failure, but there's no reason not to exclude you from the Michelin guide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But then your group wouldn't include thousands of people. There isn't anyone (but criminals) who have managed to make successful careers out of copyrighted works all alone. Your claim that thousands of people can pull this off isn't actually true.
Given that your claim of the size of the group has turned out to be inflated claims, I call the bullshit and declared this issue already resolved (and I won)...
Sure, itch.io has thousands of people offering games, but how many successful careers are there in that group? People get money amounts of $2 etc from years and years of work, so the group where successful career didn't come from copyrighted works seems to be larger. (and thus I should be bullying your smaller group)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But then your group wouldn't include thousands of people."
You're correct. Any discussion of business tends to focus on the businesses that have succeeded, not the thousands that failed in any given period.
"Sure, itch.io has thousands of people offering games, but how many successful careers are there in that group?"
More than there would be if there wasn't a free platform to distribute, even if idiot leeches like you seem to think that using someone else's property for free should cause instant success?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I divide the group of people like this:
1) people like bill gates who are extreamly wealthy
2) people like minecraft's authors who got their software sold to group (1).
3) people like me who got a product ready, but aren't yet successful
4) people like you, who never got a product ready, but are very loudly announcing their excellence in the blogosphere
5) pirates and criminals deserve another group
6) murderers and robbers are in one group
7) war criminals who murdered thousands or millions of people
That's about the classification that should be used. Can you explain which level in the classification you're at? Maybe I need to lower your status, if you're not in the group (4) like I expect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fun thing is that it doesn't matter where I am. I'm a consumer, not a developer. I get my software legally from people who are competent at what they do and meet my needs as a user. Most businesses fail, I just laugh at you because you're not only the loudest to whine about it, but most clearly the architect of your own failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're demanding other people to do things that you wouldn't do yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, as you do yourself every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still I'm not requiring moon to be different for every observer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That wouldn't work. You know, keeping it inside just increases the pressure until it explodes. We already tried that approach for over 15 years, and it has some benefits, but in the long term, it's not successful approach. It's better to leave responsibility to continue the approach to techdirt listeners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet you clearly haven't exploded. It's your fault for not keeping it inside long enough. Don't you believe in copyright and life + 70 years? Copyright would want you to keep it inside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is why publishers do not need authors, labels do not need bands and pop stars, and Hollywood and TV studios come up with their own story lines, almost never.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, what you're saying is to reverse the decisions of your corporate heroes over the last few decades and return to a system where copyright has to be registered and is not automatic, and thus allow others to not be forced to play a guessing game?
I agree with you here. It wouldn't be perfect in terms of fair use, etc., but it would be an improvement. Go convince major corporations to change things! We believe in you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone else Tero Pulkinnen is shitting up another thread to fuel his pipe wet dreams of impossible enforcement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You shouldn't call things impossible too early in the process. Nazis and holocaust was also possible, even though no-one really considers it useful. Giving stuff "impossible" -label shouldn't be done without careful consideration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nazism supporter. Thanks, Tero, for once again shooting your own foot so comprehensively that nobody should ever use Meshpage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]