Blindingly obvious. They're afraid that an industry with its head so far up its own ass would simply sink all their money into killing the career of every single politician who would do anything they'd feel that threatening.
Journalists read stupid trollshit, mistake it for a scoop.
So they scoop up the trollshit and plaster it on headlines.
Then they're angry and humiliated, and they're so ashamed that they're much more willing to lynch the troll than to own up to their mistake.
Censorship bad. Reporters not checking sources, bad too.
An obvious solution is to host advanced, disruptive tech and models outside the system. Since the decrepit world order is still publicly limiting itself by rules that tautologically declare that they don't concern some places, we can exploit that mechanic. Hype the "unbreakeable, unlimited, unregulated Free Net", it's always possible to pass packets to/from a network to another, even if you have to burn the tcp packets to CDROMS and send responses by punch cards in bottles on sea currents.
Getting to the point. Auto-fed CNC machines, pulling instructions from the 'Net and replicating tech patented everywhere but where it's ignored, with enough public hype to make it matter to those whose careers still live and die by votes that they won't dare martyr people for making tools. Then selling things priced at their marginal production cost. Then let seven billion brains freely figure out how to make things more efficiently, that should work slightly better than a rigged market that spends all its resources to figure out how to screw the other parts of itself.
Then we'll buy ALL OF THE MONEY in Bitcoins. Yeah, that'll happen.
Why not make it distributed peer-to-peer? And on top of TOR / FreeNet / I2P? And a stateless service that keeps no logs whatsoever? Why have to register at all?
Now that would shake things up a little. "hosting servers", did Kim Dotcom teach nothing to anyone?
Yeah, the base tech may be a good idea, but as long as there are targetable points of failure, the system's not good enough.
They can legislate all they want, there isn't enough money in the world to pay market prices for all copies of recorded music there are already.
The fact that it's technically possible, and as easy as we know, to copy music (or generally, data) for $0, that exchanging all civil liberties for monitoring every copy operation on all computers everywhere is simply not sustainable. First, the technology costs money, and that makes devices without that tech less expensive. The basic economic argument it that someone, somewhere, will make them, because they're cheaper and better. Second, a tech that works well enough to prevent copying, or tattle on illegal copies, is still quite a long way away, if it's even technically possible at all. Third, even if that tech was working, and well enough to actually sue people over their results, countries that condemn their people to poverty for copying data will be made up of poor people, who won't be able to afford what they make even if they work at making something. That is the definition of a non-sustainable economy.
So, it's a matter of competitivity, ultimately. Countries that abolish or ignore intellectual property rights will be making so much more money in productive endeavors, that they will outright buy those that masturbate their money between lawyers because of retarded laws.
As long as countries exist as social structures, at least. Maybe I'll live to see the day where all nations will be replace by a panoptic, distributed swarm system where everything is transparent, in direct and absolute democracy.
Yes. Yes they are. Also, they're evil. They capitalize on human idiocy, and result in children's tears very literally.
The whole business model of those productions is to slap together any sort of video that's long enough and package it in a way that resembles the packaging of better works enough to confuse idiot elders into buying them, believing they are the Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks movies.
What it says to anyone knowing enough is that NetFlix is now the bargain bin, and a possible target a lawsuit under whatever that dishonest practice is called in legalese.
Of course it's completely moronic of the big producers not to distribute their content through Netflix. They're trying to shut it down for the reasons we all know. So they're cutting out their content supply, the clients of Netflix would be driven back to buying physical supports.
Of course, that's not going to happen. So they'll blame piracy, and push for Internet-killing laws. Again.
I want to see a billion-dollars group made of people who succeeded at creating movies by crowdfunding. It would be the Internet Film Academy, and deliver prizes to the best actors and movies and such, in a yearly webcast ceremony. Then it would spin-off the Internet Movie Pictures Association, lobbying in the whole world for the abolition of copyright by simply buying the laws.
The business model, the marketing, the ads, the method, it is information in itself. I'm sure there are Amanda Palmer supporters who simply had a couple grand lying around and bought a vinyl+turntable pack more to support the message than to actually listen to the music, it happens all the time with modern art.
On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright
Of SuperPACS
On the post: Fake Sandy Tweets Spark Widespread Debate About The Limits Of Free Speech
No, it's really simple.
So they scoop up the trollshit and plaster it on headlines.
Then they're angry and humiliated, and they're so ashamed that they're much more willing to lynch the troll than to own up to their mistake.
Censorship bad. Reporters not checking sources, bad too.
It's THAT simple.
On the post: Sticking It To The (Camera) Man: Inventor Develops License Plate Frame That Defeats Red Light Cameras
Globalize it
Who's going to stop that, then?
On the post: Why Hardware Patent Trolls May Be The Next Big Problem
Micronations?
Getting to the point. Auto-fed CNC machines, pulling instructions from the 'Net and replicating tech patented everywhere but where it's ignored, with enough public hype to make it matter to those whose careers still live and die by votes that they won't dare martyr people for making tools. Then selling things priced at their marginal production cost. Then let seven billion brains freely figure out how to make things more efficiently, that should work slightly better than a rigged market that spends all its resources to figure out how to screw the other parts of itself.
Then we'll buy ALL OF THE MONEY in Bitcoins. Yeah, that'll happen.
On the post: Governments Using, Also Fretting, Encrypted Communications App
Why is he even hosting it?
Now that would shake things up a little. "hosting servers", did Kim Dotcom teach nothing to anyone?
Yeah, the base tech may be a good idea, but as long as there are targetable points of failure, the system's not good enough.
On the post: So What Can The Music Industry Do Now?
It's the direction of history
The fact that it's technically possible, and as easy as we know, to copy music (or generally, data) for $0, that exchanging all civil liberties for monitoring every copy operation on all computers everywhere is simply not sustainable. First, the technology costs money, and that makes devices without that tech less expensive. The basic economic argument it that someone, somewhere, will make them, because they're cheaper and better. Second, a tech that works well enough to prevent copying, or tattle on illegal copies, is still quite a long way away, if it's even technically possible at all. Third, even if that tech was working, and well enough to actually sue people over their results, countries that condemn their people to poverty for copying data will be made up of poor people, who won't be able to afford what they make even if they work at making something. That is the definition of a non-sustainable economy.
So, it's a matter of competitivity, ultimately. Countries that abolish or ignore intellectual property rights will be making so much more money in productive endeavors, that they will outright buy those that masturbate their money between lawyers because of retarded laws.
As long as countries exist as social structures, at least. Maybe I'll live to see the day where all nations will be replace by a panoptic, distributed swarm system where everything is transparent, in direct and absolute democracy.
On the post: Netflix Provides 'Knock-offs' After Contract With Disney Ends
They're knockoffs.
The whole business model of those productions is to slap together any sort of video that's long enough and package it in a way that resembles the packaging of better works enough to confuse idiot elders into buying them, believing they are the Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks movies.
What it says to anyone knowing enough is that NetFlix is now the bargain bin, and a possible target a lawsuit under whatever that dishonest practice is called in legalese.
Of course it's completely moronic of the big producers not to distribute their content through Netflix. They're trying to shut it down for the reasons we all know. So they're cutting out their content supply, the clients of Netflix would be driven back to buying physical supports.
Of course, that's not going to happen. So they'll blame piracy, and push for Internet-killing laws. Again.
I want to see a billion-dollars group made of people who succeeded at creating movies by crowdfunding. It would be the Internet Film Academy, and deliver prizes to the best actors and movies and such, in a yearly webcast ceremony. Then it would spin-off the Internet Movie Pictures Association, lobbying in the whole world for the abolition of copyright by simply buying the laws.
On the post: Is It A Problem If People Only Discover A Musician Because They Have A Cool Kickstarter?
But the model IS content
Next >>