If MegaUpload is lying, I wonder just how many of their, apparently, millions of users would know about this case or care?
Microsoft got in trouble for killing Netscape in the 90s and that situation could be considered worse yet IE is still used by half of the Internet users out there.
Another example, Tom Cruise. He went nuts on Oprah and did his Scientology 'stuff' but that hasn't stopped him from being a box office draw.
Some of us care, but most of the people don't give a shit. Sad as that is.
I'll give you a point, but there is a fairly substantial difference between an Internet screen name and what you go by in the real world. But again...I give you the point.
If this wasn't on the Internet, perhaps on TV, the legal proceeding would likely remove the commercial from airplay, but because it was posted to the Internet it's free (as in not caged). Once it hit the Internet CONTROL over the video was lost.
It may be that UMG and Will.I.Am have a legitimate beef with the commercial and should sue MegaUpload if they have a case.
I ask this next question not to be adversarial but as I'm honestly ignorant. If this commercial WAS on TV, would UMG or Will.I.Am have the same ability to have the commercial pulled, prior to the case being heard in court?
it is unlikely that he would have done it to start with.
That's very unfortunate that this law would put a chilling effect on what amounts to a fan singing his favorite songs and posting them on YouTube so his friends can see.
What about all those aspiring young film makers who want to recreate their favorite movie in their back yard?
Are you suggesting that these kids should not be posting these videos to the Internet? Maybe it's just because YouTube is too open? What about on Facebook where it's only shared with some people?
While the creator might be able to claim fair use, what about the hosting site? Will they be protected too?
The new wording in SOPA may help these cases a bit, but as broadly written as this is, I can't help but feel that fair-use and safe harbor provisions will need to be beefed up/expanded to balance the equation and give normal every day users, the freedom to use the Internet for what it was designed for, the sharing of expression and ideas.
But if you are a large company who can absorb that liability to eliminate a competitor, why wouldn't you? It's just plain good business. It's been shown again and again that profit margins are more important than ethics/morals in corporate business today.
Before the comments about how this doesn't excuse piracy, you are right, it doesn't. Just as it doesn't excuse bad and apparently unnecessary law (SOPA/PIPA).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
Additionally, the flood defense plan would/should have been designed and in place well before the disaster took place. That's being proactive. What we've seen, almost exclusively, from the entertainment industry has been reactionary.
The flood has already happened and they are only now wondering what they can do to stop the water.
The OPEN Act is directly resulting from what they felt was overly broad SOPA. OPEN wouldn't exist if not for SOPA. At least OPEN is asking for public comment.
Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
It's not like digital media distribution (or 'piracy') is just suddenly new and these are the first laws to do anything about it. It's been about 12 years since Napster came on the scene. Granted it takes time for data to accumulate, but then where is the data? Studies could have been commissioned after the DMCA was enacted in 1998.
As for your analogy, sure some of the music industry may 'die' from this shift in technology and business models, but to suggest it's all on piracy is taking a very narrow view of the situation. It's like saying it's all the fault of Army Corp of Engineer's fault that they levy broke. Sure they might have done a better job of maintaining it, but it was the hurricane that caused the flooding. The fact that you live below sea level is on you.
Do you consider streaming music in the digital sales column? Even so, how do you calculate consumption? How do you know how I consume music? Much less how much of it I consume. Additionally you need to define 'consume'. I may purchase a song once, but listen to it hundreds of time. Is that one or hundreds of consumptions?
It's a fair debate, but if you are going to use this argument you need to define the variables or it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation on the subject.
In short a perfectly legitimate business/website would likely fail in the time that it took for everyone to realize that the accuser had no case. THAT is why we need proper due-process!
No I would argue that the reason you want this law to pass quickly and without reasonable review is because you know you really don't have a leg to stand on. Once the law is in place it's much more difficult to remove, regardless of the studies done.
Why don't the entertainment companies open their books from over the last 20 years where proper correlations can be made to economic changes, technology changes and real numbers used. I bet you'd find that the most popular P2P sites out there would be happy to provide their download numbers. Open cooperation would certainly expedite this study. And surely you'd want to expedite it if there really is 'significant harm'.
I can't even remember the last time I 'pirated' something but I sure as hell would be finding a non-US DNS server immediately. Why, if I'm not a pirate? Because I do NOT trust that the filtering would be ONLY unlawful sites. There is no due-process to determine if a site is unlawful or not. It's copyright holders who get to decide. And if such a law existed when Wikileaks was flaunting US government docs, why wouldn't the government have used this law to censor Wikileaks. Of course it would have been used that way.
I've never been to Wikileaks and I don't go hunting for pirate media, so you are right that a US DNS server wouldn't affect me, but I would still switch purely on principle! This is a FREE nation and I will fight to keep it that way.
Wow, do you actually read the articles or just the headlines?
The point that these kinds of studies SHOULD be done prior to ANY law being considered, regardless of what the law is about. Drugs are not introduced and THEN studies done into how safe and effective they are.
You could argue that my analogy doesn't work because sometimes drugs are given the OK and then they find problems later. Well I'd argue that in many of those cases the drug was fast tracked through with biased studies.
Hey lookie there, that's just what the entertainment industry is doing!
If the studies backup the claims, then fine, but as of right now, the evidence isn't there. It's all anecdotal and in some cases, completely fabricated.
Calling for a study to see if piracy is really the problem that the entertainment companies of the world claim it is, isn't pro-piracy, it's just intelligent policy.
You've hit the nail on the head. There are MANY variables to why media purchases have reduced, while no one has been quite dumb enough to say it's 100% because of piracy, the exclusion of the other factors makes it seem as if it's all due to piracy. I'm betting that if a true independent study was actually done (not likely) we'd find that piracy is actually a small fraction of the true profit losses.
Of course then we'd hear, "It's still bad that people are pirating!" Well sure, just as it's bad that people rob banks and steal tires off peoples cars, but we don't try to pass draconian laws that infringe on the rights of the people to stop them.
Funny thing is that the accountants of these media companies expect there to be a certain amount of loss. They factor it in. Every industry has some business they have to write off annually.
I'd be really curious to know how much that has changed for the media industry and if piracy has always been in that bucket. My guess is that there has always been a certain amount of piracy written off every year.
(for you ACs) I'm not suggesting that this justifies piracy, but rather that it unjustifies the hyperbole and extreme lobbying and laws like SOPA/PIPA.
With all the new 3D BS, I'm just waiting for the movies to be released on disk and going to RedBox now. My home theater setup isn't even top of the line these days and it's still a better experience. The theater experience has been mortally wounded, it's just taking time to die. 3D won't prevent it, it just may delay it a bit longer, but not much. It'll be like going to a play in the future. Bigger towns and cities will have one to two good theaters, for that premium experience, but the rest will close up shop. And the movie industry will still blame piracy, as we all sit at home watching movies on our 60+ inch TVs (in 3D too, if we want).
You use a common tactic here, to suggest that any downward turn in sales is attributed to piracy. The problem is that there is NO evidence to back you up. If there is, please share it with the group, with citations.
Low ticket sales over the last decade couldn't possible be due to the proliferation of affordable home theater equipment, or perhaps due to the reduction in disposable income, because of the recession (people are trying to keep their houses, not keep the entertainment industry making record profits).
Additionally the movie theaters are hurting, not the movie studios. Movie theaters make a majority of their profits on concessions, so when Hollywood keeps making the movies more expensive for the theaters to show (requiring them to raise prices) movie goer's are having to reduce their concession spending to offset the movie costs. In the real world the value of the dollar is losing value, so we have to cut some extras out. When going to a movie, the movie cost is firm, we can't negotiate that, the concessions are easily ignored. THAT is why many theaters are hurting, not because of piracy. Oh yea, and 3D makes that even worse.
On the post: Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too
Re:
Microsoft got in trouble for killing Netscape in the 90s and that situation could be considered worse yet IE is still used by half of the Internet users out there.
Another example, Tom Cruise. He went nuts on Oprah and did his Scientology 'stuff' but that hasn't stopped him from being a box office draw.
Some of us care, but most of the people don't give a shit. Sad as that is.
On the post: Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too
Re: Re: And it's about control again
Do they have the same take-down abilities, granted by law, that they have through the DMCA on the Internet?
On the post: Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too
Re:
On the post: Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too
And it's about control again
It may be that UMG and Will.I.Am have a legitimate beef with the commercial and should sue MegaUpload if they have a case.
I ask this next question not to be adversarial but as I'm honestly ignorant. If this commercial WAS on TV, would UMG or Will.I.Am have the same ability to have the commercial pulled, prior to the case being heard in court?
On the post: Apparently Congress Wants To Pretend No One Is Really That Concerned About SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's very unfortunate that this law would put a chilling effect on what amounts to a fan singing his favorite songs and posting them on YouTube so his friends can see.
What about all those aspiring young film makers who want to recreate their favorite movie in their back yard?
Are you suggesting that these kids should not be posting these videos to the Internet? Maybe it's just because YouTube is too open? What about on Facebook where it's only shared with some people?
While the creator might be able to claim fair use, what about the hosting site? Will they be protected too?
The new wording in SOPA may help these cases a bit, but as broadly written as this is, I can't help but feel that fair-use and safe harbor provisions will need to be beefed up/expanded to balance the equation and give normal every day users, the freedom to use the Internet for what it was designed for, the sharing of expression and ideas.
On the post: The Very Real Risk Of Overly Broad Censorship Under SOPA
Re: Re:
On the post: Congressional Research Service Shows Hollywood Is Thriving
Before...
On the post: HADOPI Wants To Research File Downloads: Shouldn't It Have Done That First?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
The flood has already happened and they are only now wondering what they can do to stop the water.
On the post: HADOPI Wants To Research File Downloads: Shouldn't It Have Done That First?
Re: Re: Another clueless troll. The shock. /irony
On the post: HADOPI Wants To Research File Downloads: Shouldn't It Have Done That First?
Re: Re: Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
As for your analogy, sure some of the music industry may 'die' from this shift in technology and business models, but to suggest it's all on piracy is taking a very narrow view of the situation. It's like saying it's all the fault of Army Corp of Engineer's fault that they levy broke. Sure they might have done a better job of maintaining it, but it was the hurricane that caused the flooding. The fact that you live below sea level is on you.
On the post: HADOPI Wants To Research File Downloads: Shouldn't It Have Done That First?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a fair debate, but if you are going to use this argument you need to define the variables or it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation on the subject.
On the post: SOPA Supporter: If You Use DNSSEC You Can Ignore SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re:
On the post: HADOPI Wants To Research File Downloads: Shouldn't It Have Done That First?
Re:
Why don't the entertainment companies open their books from over the last 20 years where proper correlations can be made to economic changes, technology changes and real numbers used. I bet you'd find that the most popular P2P sites out there would be happy to provide their download numbers. Open cooperation would certainly expedite this study. And surely you'd want to expedite it if there really is 'significant harm'.
On the post: SOPA Supporter: If You Use DNSSEC You Can Ignore SOPA/PIPA
Re:
I've never been to Wikileaks and I don't go hunting for pirate media, so you are right that a US DNS server wouldn't affect me, but I would still switch purely on principle! This is a FREE nation and I will fight to keep it that way.
On the post: HADOPI Wants To Research File Downloads: Shouldn't It Have Done That First?
Re: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the network admin!"
The point that these kinds of studies SHOULD be done prior to ANY law being considered, regardless of what the law is about. Drugs are not introduced and THEN studies done into how safe and effective they are.
You could argue that my analogy doesn't work because sometimes drugs are given the OK and then they find problems later. Well I'd argue that in many of those cases the drug was fast tracked through with biased studies.
Hey lookie there, that's just what the entertainment industry is doing!
If the studies backup the claims, then fine, but as of right now, the evidence isn't there. It's all anecdotal and in some cases, completely fabricated.
Calling for a study to see if piracy is really the problem that the entertainment companies of the world claim it is, isn't pro-piracy, it's just intelligent policy.
On the post: The Good And The Bad Of The New OPEN Bill From Wyden And Issa
Re: Re:
Of course then we'd hear, "It's still bad that people are pirating!" Well sure, just as it's bad that people rob banks and steal tires off peoples cars, but we don't try to pass draconian laws that infringe on the rights of the people to stop them.
Funny thing is that the accountants of these media companies expect there to be a certain amount of loss. They factor it in. Every industry has some business they have to write off annually.
I'd be really curious to know how much that has changed for the media industry and if piracy has always been in that bucket. My guess is that there has always been a certain amount of piracy written off every year.
(for you ACs) I'm not suggesting that this justifies piracy, but rather that it unjustifies the hyperbole and extreme lobbying and laws like SOPA/PIPA.
On the post: The Good And The Bad Of The New OPEN Bill From Wyden And Issa
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Good And The Bad Of The New OPEN Bill From Wyden And Issa
Re: Re: Re:
Low ticket sales over the last decade couldn't possible be due to the proliferation of affordable home theater equipment, or perhaps due to the reduction in disposable income, because of the recession (people are trying to keep their houses, not keep the entertainment industry making record profits).
Additionally the movie theaters are hurting, not the movie studios. Movie theaters make a majority of their profits on concessions, so when Hollywood keeps making the movies more expensive for the theaters to show (requiring them to raise prices) movie goer's are having to reduce their concession spending to offset the movie costs. In the real world the value of the dollar is losing value, so we have to cut some extras out. When going to a movie, the movie cost is firm, we can't negotiate that, the concessions are easily ignored. THAT is why many theaters are hurting, not because of piracy. Oh yea, and 3D makes that even worse.
On the post: A Bunch Of RIAA Label Artists Endorse MegaUpload... As RIAA Insists It's A 'Rogue' Site
Old news
Next >>