Re: Nope, misplaced enthusiasm by a weenie specialist.
"First, where's the limit?"
Who cares? You are not interested in this material anyway so this should have absolutely zero effect on you.
"Don't give away the ending? That'll be violated by someone who just has to be a big shot for fifteen seconds of fame."
That is certainly a possibility but in your book it's already a done deal and somehow I can already sense you trying to figure out what their punishment should be.
"2nd, I don't want to see a movie being made."
This simply means you are not the audience they are seeking. Don't take it personally. Personally, I don't like fashion shows, but they hold them all the time. That's not a problem for me since I choose not to be a part of the audience.
Make your own choices for you, and quit sniveling about the choices others make for themselves. There are things others enjoy that you simply have no interest in, so be it.
" Techdirt does not ever say piracy is acceptable. Only that it is inevitable"
First off, you missed the ", so profit from it!" at the end.
Citation requested
I love how this is all based on the lack of moral character of the ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE PLANET rather than a business model issue. I really have to wonder WTF you must be thinking to believe that everyone else is at fault because they won't buy shiny plastic discs anymore - which by the way, is the least convenient format to come around since eight track tapes.
You convince yourself the whole world is to blame, I'm sure you'll find a cure all for it soon.
By the way, when industry insiders do the leaking of material the whole Us vs. Them thing kind of goes out the window doesn't it?
So, to bring it all the way back around to your point, the lack of moral character you claim of others, is actually universal, apparently. Therefore your fight is not just against everyone else, it is literally against everyone!
So the content industries decided to unilaterally opt out of the whole Public Domain part of the Copyright monopoly they were granted?
You know - the part where we lose our culture because they want to lock up a movie in a vault for 10 more years so they can resell the exact same content in the new format the technology industry has brought about but if I want to change my own previously purchased version to the new format I have suddenly become a criminal?
Every single extension to copyright that has ever been enacted since 1709 is a reprehensible abomination of the very rights that were granted to allow the SHORT TERM monopolies for the content industry!
From what I can tell, Techdirt does not ever say piracy is acceptable. Only that it is inevitable. So, rather than discuss or try to engineer ways to reduce piracy through draconian laws and DRM etc., TD tries to explain and show how to meet the customers demands (CwF+RtB) for example. Piracy exists because the customers demands are not being met in an efficient manner. I posted this elsewhere on TD but it is really the exact same answer everyone in the content industry doesn't seem to understand - which is perplexing in and of itself because there are no prohibitive costs to doing business in a consumer friendly manner...
Try using this statement as the crux of the IP "war":
When what the public actually wants is to be able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price.
If you fail to understand the market then you will fail in that marketplace. The statement above is a clear cut explanation of what the customers want and if you took the time to fully understand that you would see how the infringement issues, piracy, unauthorized file sharing and all the other boogeymen could be taken care of in short order by the content creators themselves if they would just provide their content in such a way that "the public is able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price."
The solution is actually within their capabilities, yet they are unwilling to accept such an easy road to resolution because the concept of satisfying the customer is not something they understand.
Case in point: I bought an album X from the music group Y in the year 19XX. The musicians got paid, the music execs got paid, the distributors got paid. So why the hell does it matter to any of them if I convert MY album to a different format because I now own different hardware? Furthermore, why is it any of their business at all - it's MINE! I ALREADY PAID FOR IT! The music company and I are only connected by this transaction, which was completed years ago. Leave me ALONE so I can enjoy the music I PAID for!
Reduce copyright to 10 years and provide me content people want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price.
Piracy will still exist but I suspect it will be greatly reduced without lining the pockets of the lawyers, clogging up the courts and with little to zero collateral damage of any innocent parties. All of that money stays in the pockets of the industry. It really sounds almost to good to be true!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Punitive v. Non-Punitive Damages
"...the minority telling the majority what to do. If that is your best defence, you have already lost."
This sounds exactly like what "we the people" are complaining about when it comes to content and IP companies and their associated groups; copyright law, the entire patent system, and other forms of suppression in which "we the people" are being sold out by our government representatives who are failing us on a catastrophic level to the point that virtually none of the culture we experienced in our lifetime will ever be a part of the public domain while we are alive.
"Change the laws if you don't like them." doesn't work when the public cannot possibly pay their own representatives enough money to make them actually represent US instead the entertainment industry. The industry has far deeper pockets thanks to Houdini like accounting practices so morbid that even the 15th highest grossing film in history has never, and will never, show a dime in profit.
The scale is far out of balance I seriously doubt that it could ever be corrected under the current government structure and political practices.
Re: Re: Yet "DRM" enforcement is stronger than ever!
This simply won't work - who the hell gives away those invaluable shiny plastic disks! They are literally worth their weight in gold - if you doubt this to be the case, you haven't seen some of the "damages" awards that the paytards like to wave around like like a hooker with a negative pregnancy test!
This statement is absolutely hilarious coming from someone who routinely denies any facts that are brought up to support an opposing point of view, yet rarely - if ever - uses any actual facts in their arguments.
Try using this statement as the crux of the IP war:
When what the public actually wants is to be able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price.
If you fail to understand the market then you will fail in that marketplace. The statement above is a clear cut explanation of what the customers want and if you took the time to fully understand that you would see how the infringement issues, piracy, unauthorized file sharing and all the other boogeymen could be taken care of in short order by the content creators themselves if they would just provide their content in such a way that "the public is able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price."
See what I did there? The solution is actually within their capabilities, yet they are unwilling to accept such an easy road to resolution because the concept of satisfying the customer is not something they understand.
Case in point: I bought an album X from the music group Y in the year 19XX. The musicians got paid, the music execs got paid, the distributors got paid. So why the hell does it matter to any of them if I convert MY album to a different format because I now own different hardware? Furthermore, why is it any of their business at all - it's MINE! I ALREADY PAID FOR IT! The music company and I are only connected by this transaction, which was completed years ago. Leave me ALONE so I can enjoy the music I PAID for!
If I wanted the content creation company in my life more I'd invite them over for dinner.
I simply can't understand why the site is still up - this is clearly within ICE's realm - these pirates and freetards must be stopped at any and all costs!
"...they are not suddenly starving or without a roof over their heads because the domain was seized."
Even if I am starving and without a roof over my head, violating my First Amendment rights COULD NOT POSSIBLY qualify as a justified action per:
The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
Just because you suspect that I possibly violated the law, and you even have reasonable cause to bring forth legal action, until due process has taken place in a court of law, my rights are inalienable and your violation of my rights is beyond reprehensible.
Really, OOTB? You seem to have some sort of man crush on Mike. The amount of attention you pay to everything he does is borderline obsessive compulsive. However, if you want to get on him for a typo or odd sentence in his writing, then it might behoove you to proofread your own writing before hitting the [Enter] key. Try reading this out loud, word for word:
"That's why even when he's got story and position correct, still likely some error to hoot at, as here."
"If you put someone in a cage for years, they are going to have almost nothing to do, chances are they might 'sing a song' while in their cage, and the middlemen could claim the copyright on that and put the next person who copies it in the cage next to them.."
You left out the follow up...when the next person is put in the cage next to them, then, when the original captive sings the middle man can bust them for a public performance!
The part I find somewhat amusing is that the books' credits fail to mention Mike Masnick as the author of the article. It only references Mike - you know - because there is only one Mike! So, if I wanted the unneeded permission, of the original author, of the original article, I simply have to find "Mike".
The willfully ignorant AC sucks so bad in these comments my monitor has collapsed inward! I have to change pages to get it back to the original flat screen I started with this morning.
I thought trolls were bad enough but an obtuse troll is practically a new dimension in the troll realm!
Re: Re: Re: Why focus on how "little" money he got?
"Infringement is selling the copyrighted works of others."
Are you sure you want to stick to this as your personal definition of infringement?
So, if I were to download something, like a movie or music album and watch it or listen to it by myself without ever selling it or making it available for others, then, by your own definition, I am NOT infringing? Since you say I'm not infringing then I am NOT a pirate or a thief, either.
Thank you for your clarification, your definition will be referenced for future use also!
I think I just needed another cup of coffee. Being a validation tech I end up seeing if things make sense first, and because I knew it no longer did it just went right by because of the lack of irony, I guess.
Still passionate for life but this would have cracked me up years ago when it was true!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Wooooo!
On the post: Sharing Behind-The-Scenes Photos For A Movie On Twitter: Good Marketing Or Criminal Behavior?
Re: Nope, misplaced enthusiasm by a weenie specialist.
Who cares? You are not interested in this material anyway so this should have absolutely zero effect on you.
"Don't give away the ending? That'll be violated by someone who just has to be a big shot for fifteen seconds of fame."
That is certainly a possibility but in your book it's already a done deal and somehow I can already sense you trying to figure out what their punishment should be.
"2nd, I don't want to see a movie being made."
This simply means you are not the audience they are seeking. Don't take it personally. Personally, I don't like fashion shows, but they hold them all the time. That's not a problem for me since I choose not to be a part of the audience.
Make your own choices for you, and quit sniveling about the choices others make for themselves. There are things others enjoy that you simply have no interest in, so be it.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: Where do you stand?
First off, you missed the ", so profit from it!" at the end.
Citation requested
I love how this is all based on the lack of moral character of the ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE PLANET rather than a business model issue. I really have to wonder WTF you must be thinking to believe that everyone else is at fault because they won't buy shiny plastic discs anymore - which by the way, is the least convenient format to come around since eight track tapes.
You convince yourself the whole world is to blame, I'm sure you'll find a cure all for it soon.
By the way, when industry insiders do the leaking of material the whole Us vs. Them thing kind of goes out the window doesn't it?
So, to bring it all the way back around to your point, the lack of moral character you claim of others, is actually universal, apparently. Therefore your fight is not just against everyone else, it is literally against everyone!
Good luck with that! Fight the good fight!
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Me and everybody else ..
You know - the part where we lose our culture because they want to lock up a movie in a vault for 10 more years so they can resell the exact same content in the new format the technology industry has brought about but if I want to change my own previously purchased version to the new format I have suddenly become a criminal?
Every single extension to copyright that has ever been enacted since 1709 is a reprehensible abomination of the very rights that were granted to allow the SHORT TERM monopolies for the content industry!
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Where do you stand?
Try using this statement as the crux of the IP "war":
When what the public actually wants is to be able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price.
If you fail to understand the market then you will fail in that marketplace. The statement above is a clear cut explanation of what the customers want and if you took the time to fully understand that you would see how the infringement issues, piracy, unauthorized file sharing and all the other boogeymen could be taken care of in short order by the content creators themselves if they would just provide their content in such a way that "the public is able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price."
The solution is actually within their capabilities, yet they are unwilling to accept such an easy road to resolution because the concept of satisfying the customer is not something they understand.
Case in point: I bought an album X from the music group Y in the year 19XX. The musicians got paid, the music execs got paid, the distributors got paid. So why the hell does it matter to any of them if I convert MY album to a different format because I now own different hardware? Furthermore, why is it any of their business at all - it's MINE! I ALREADY PAID FOR IT! The music company and I are only connected by this transaction, which was completed years ago. Leave me ALONE so I can enjoy the music I PAID for!
Reduce copyright to 10 years and provide me content people want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price.
Piracy will still exist but I suspect it will be greatly reduced without lining the pockets of the lawyers, clogging up the courts and with little to zero collateral damage of any innocent parties. All of that money stays in the pockets of the industry. It really sounds almost to good to be true!
On the post: Internet Troll Jailed In The UK For Being A Jerk Online
Re: Police State.
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Punitive v. Non-Punitive Damages
This sounds exactly like what "we the people" are complaining about when it comes to content and IP companies and their associated groups; copyright law, the entire patent system, and other forms of suppression in which "we the people" are being sold out by our government representatives who are failing us on a catastrophic level to the point that virtually none of the culture we experienced in our lifetime will ever be a part of the public domain while we are alive.
"Change the laws if you don't like them." doesn't work when the public cannot possibly pay their own representatives enough money to make them actually represent US instead the entertainment industry. The industry has far deeper pockets thanks to Houdini like accounting practices so morbid that even the 15th highest grossing film in history has never, and will never, show a dime in profit.
The scale is far out of balance I seriously doubt that it could ever be corrected under the current government structure and political practices.
On the post: Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable
Re:
Come on, what's and evil arch villain suppose to live in?
A condo on Titan?
On the post: US Gov't Continues Indicting People For File Sharing; 5 Indicted For NinjaVideo
Re: Sad
"...but, but, but think of the JAILED children!"
On the post: Article About 'The Menace Of The Software Pirates' From 1985
Re: Re: Yet "DRM" enforcement is stronger than ever!
On the post: The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try using this statement as the crux of the IP war:
When what the public actually wants is to be able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price.
If you fail to understand the market then you will fail in that marketplace. The statement above is a clear cut explanation of what the customers want and if you took the time to fully understand that you would see how the infringement issues, piracy, unauthorized file sharing and all the other boogeymen could be taken care of in short order by the content creators themselves if they would just provide their content in such a way that "the public is able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price."
See what I did there? The solution is actually within their capabilities, yet they are unwilling to accept such an easy road to resolution because the concept of satisfying the customer is not something they understand.
Case in point: I bought an album X from the music group Y in the year 19XX. The musicians got paid, the music execs got paid, the distributors got paid. So why the hell does it matter to any of them if I convert MY album to a different format because I now own different hardware? Furthermore, why is it any of their business at all - it's MINE! I ALREADY PAID FOR IT! The music company and I are only connected by this transaction, which was completed years ago. Leave me ALONE so I can enjoy the music I PAID for!
If I wanted the content creation company in my life more I'd invite them over for dinner.
On the post: RIAA Sending DMCA Takedowns On *FREE* Music Being Distributed Directly Off Universal Music Website & Promoted By The Artist
Re: So Universal Music is a rogue site?
On the post: Dear Sweden: Will You Tax Hard Drives And Give Me A Cut Every Time Someone Visits Techdirt?
Re: How it all began
On the post: Puerto 80 Appeals: Asks Court To Recognize That Trampling The First Amendment Is Substantial Harm
Holy dictatorship Batman!
Even if I am starving and without a roof over my head, violating my First Amendment rights COULD NOT POSSIBLY qualify as a justified action per:
The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
Just because you suspect that I possibly violated the law, and you even have reasonable cause to bring forth legal action, until due process has taken place in a court of law, my rights are inalienable and your violation of my rights is beyond reprehensible.
On the post: ISP Sued For Revealing Info On US-Based Critic Of Thai Laws
Re: Re: Dangling? = Mike's slap-dash, no-edit writing.
"That's why even when he's got story and position correct, still likely some error to hoot at, as here."
Hey kettle, this is the pot, you're black!
On the post: Does The Punishment Fit The Crime? Is Manslaughter An Equivalent Crime To Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: is it worse...
You left out the follow up...when the next person is put in the cage next to them, then, when the original captive sings the middle man can bust them for a public performance!
On the post: You Can Copy Our Articles All You Want... But Please Don't Claim The Copyright Belongs To You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The willfully ignorant AC sucks so bad in these comments my monitor has collapsed inward! I have to change pages to get it back to the original flat screen I started with this morning.
I thought trolls were bad enough but an obtuse troll is practically a new dimension in the troll realm!
On the post: BART Bosses Say Phone Shutoff Will Only Be Used In 'Extreme Situations' Going Forward
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every time I've ever made fire it was always the real kind that actually burns things.
Enlighten me on this "artificial fire" thing, please?
On the post: ICE Arrests Another Person For Allowing Access To Streams From Elsewhere
Re: Re: Re: Why focus on how "little" money he got?
Are you sure you want to stick to this as your personal definition of infringement?
So, if I were to download something, like a movie or music album and watch it or listen to it by myself without ever selling it or making it available for others, then, by your own definition, I am NOT infringing? Since you say I'm not infringing then I am NOT a pirate or a thief, either.
Thank you for your clarification, your definition will be referenced for future use also!
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re: Wet Blanket
Still passionate for life but this would have cracked me up years ago when it was true!
[Sense of humor, re-engaged]
Next >>