I know it's not going to add anything to the conversation (such that it is) but you are a fucking moron.
Seriously, your mastery of truthiness has raised the bar for ignorance worldwide.
I would go through line-by-line and show you your logical *and* factual errors, but honestly, after 400 comments you still haven't gotten it and more eloquent people than I have already pointed out your epic asshattery.
Pirating stuff costs entertainment companies profits they're entitled to for producing the product.
No one, no one, no one is *entitled* to a profit. If I make a sweet little sculpture from bird shit, I'm not *entitled* to a profit because I created it. I have the chance to make a profit if I can give someone a reason to give me compensation (via money, sexual favors, fame, Trident Layers gum, etc) for my effort.
In summary, thinking like yours is what is making the creative world go right to shit.
PS- Would you like to purchase a sculpture I made from bird shit? C'mon, I deserve to get paid.
I bought one in 2002 and it still works. I saw The Bourne Identity in 2002 but now don't care to see it.
A film has a limited time to be valuable.
Yes, but a *very* quick look online shows that thousands of people are still sharing that movie, so not only is it still worth watching to them, but it's worth breaking the law to share it with others. We, in the sane world, call those people True Fans. Not even the threat of legal action will stop them from making it easier for more people to enjoy that movie. From your side of the coin, they are "pirates" or "thieves". I don't care what business you're in, if you turn on your most enthusiastic fans, you will fail. (with the possible exception of Apple fans, who seem to get shit on by Apple at every turn and come back for more. Maybe Steve Jobs poops ice cream or something, I dunno. :P )
But all over TechDirt people are making cheap links between art forms and non-art forms to rationalize their argument.
I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I am not focusing on the micro-level of art vs. non-art because it doesn't matter. I am drawing parallels from other businesses that have been made obsolete (or, perhaps, just more efficient) because of advances in technology. I know it sucks to be on the pointy end of this technology advancement, but rest assured it will be better for society as a whole. That's basic economics.
Right and Wrong have very little to do with economics. It's wrong to lay off an employee who has been working for the company for 20 years only to replace him with a recently-graduated kid for half the pay. But it makes since, from a business standpoint. Although clearly not *everyone* is doing it, the fact remains that copyright infringement is not going away. It's just not. Ever. So, you can alienate your fans and sue them until you're out of money, you can use file sharing to your advantage, or you can get a new job doing something else. Thems the breaks.
How are they being creative to survive?
Techdirt has shown many examples of artists experimenting with new ways to make a living in the digital world (in fact, as I type this twitter popped up and told me they are having a seminar on exactly this subject) however, I don't know if there is a simple search to hunt them down, or if you have to scroll through past articles manually.
I have to say, it is nice to have a civil discussion about this topic. :)
The letter calls the company's newest laser "a highly dangerous product with the potential to cause blindness, burns and other damage to people and/or property."
It's a 5W laser. It can permanently blind someone at a mile if it hits their eyes for more than a quarter of a second. I'm pretty sure looking at the dot it makes on a matte wall at a few feet will blind you. It burns skin instantly.
It *is* dangerous. I can't wait for the reports of tons of kids with $200 going blind, or blinding drivers on the highway.
PS- I really want one, but would probably blind myself.
I think $10 for a CD is very fair; counting for inflation, that puts an album at less than it cost in the days before CD ($7-8), or exactly where it always should have been.
Who the hell listens to music on CDs? Why are they still selling CDs??
And $10 for a CD? If there are more than 10 songs on that CD, then it's *more expensive* to buy the album online than the CD in stores-- that means adding plastic **lowers** the price. The world has gone mad.
25 Secondary infringement: permitting use of premises for infringing performance.
(1) Where the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work is infringed by a performance at a place of public entertainment, any person who gave permission for that place to be used for the performance is also liable for the infringement unless when he gave permission he believed on reasonable grounds that the performance would not infringe copyright.
So, if he thought he had all right right licenses, i.e., the believed on reasonable grounds that the performance would not infringe, then he's all clear, yes? :)
Man, am I late to this game on this one. Question for you, David:
Which scenario is more harmful to an artist?
A) A non-music related business (eg., a hairdresser) plays music which nets them 1 paying customer, however no one who was involved in the creation of said music is paid.
B) A business does not play music.
Think about it. No really, *think*. (That is to say, don't parrot what you've been trained to say in the face of reason.)
I don't know of any creative person who would consider their work as fast food meals or screwdrivers or hammers, as some posters have compared.
The "creative" person who had the arguement with the teenager compared his work to a screwdriver.
Temporal works, like songs and movies, lose their value over time and exposure. Hammers, on the other hand, can be "owned" and used over and over again without devaluation.
I think you have that backwards, my friend. I can listen to a song or read sheet music over and over and over without it falling into disrepair. However, there is a finite amount of time I can use a hammer before it breaks, oxidises or becomes otherwise unusable.
Furthermore, I can copy a digital good nearly infinitely without the need of many resources, however if I were to attempt to copy a hammer, I would need its raw matierals and a way to process them every time. (This is the root of the IP vs Real Property issue, btw)
(BTW TechDirt is not a creative work. It's simply Mike M commenting on someone else's journalistic efforts.
Your opinion is noted. However, as far as copyright law is concerned, Mike's posts are copyrightable, even though he chooses to release them to the public domain.
The essence of the original debate is NOT that file sharing ain't a form of stealing (it is, simply because the rules under which we're supposed to live by say it is--all else is rationalization)
The laws we are "supposed" to live by say that theft and copyright infringement are different-- otherwise the **AA would be going after people for theft, yes? Calling it stealing is simply a cheap way to link a negative idea to another action. Like saying that strip miners are raping the earth. Well, they're *not* actually raping the earth.
it's that an intellectual property can no longer be "owned," as Chris pointed out, and creative people are threatened because the familiar ways of earning a living are quickly becoming obsolete.
There was a time when people were actually paid to bring ice to people's homes. When at home refrigeration became affordable, those men and women suddenly found themselves facing unemployment. Should those businesses have formed a group called the Retail Ice Association of America (RIAA) and lobbied to outlaw refrigerators because they "deserve" to get paid? Of course not. So why is it different with a song, a book, or a movie? (Hint: it's not.)
For the artists out there, how are you making a living? t-shirts? Lunch with fans? Custodial work (alongside the hard working BruceLD)? Are you producing hammers, burgers or something else?
This, I can't answer for you. The reality is that there is no one size fits all answer. As it turns out, it is going to take creativity to make a living being creative. :)
Creating content is not the point. Creating content and getting it to as many people as possible, *that* is the point.
A bargain was made in the belief that content creators needed incentive to create, so we limit *who* can distribute it in an effort to have *more* to distribute.
The bargain has been changed repeatedly in such ways that it no longer performs its original function. (in fact, the exact opposite)
Well, Troll McTrollerson, if you'd have followed the link and read the article you'd know that she can't purchase the sheet music because she has no credit card, and her parents don't approve of her theater aspirations, so they refuse to buy it for her. (I'm not sure I believe it, but that's all we've got to go on.)
All that nonsense about Starbucks, etc., is just silly.
Furthermore, if Elenor worked, I bet she'd expect to get paid *once*, as do most people without entitlement issues.
I don't appreciate the RIAA and MPAA tactics, but the law is on their side... as well as the ethical and moral grounds.
A bad law *should* be ignored, and if you *honestly* believe _any_ group of corporate lawyers has the ethical and moral high grounds, you are a very, very misguided person.
The **AA is, in one stroke, taking *far* more money from artists (around 85%+ of album sales) than a file sharer ever could *and* locking up your and my culture for the better part of a century. Moral and ethical high grounds? Please.
Also, as has been noted, you sound more than a little touched in the head when you can't tell the difference between stealing and infringement. If "stealing is stealing" then the RIAA et al. would be going after people for theft, would they not? Exactly.
What the post from "THE" Jason Robert Brown shows is that he is just as misguided as Metallica: When the gravy train starts to become obsolete, lash out at the symptom instead of the cause. Yet, he has the moral high ground? Ha.
What matters is that YouTube had specific and red flag knowledge of infringement of Viacom's works and did nothing about it.
I don't understand how you don't get this, it seemed pretty simple. The original lawsuit *from Viacom* listed videos that *Viacom* uploaded because an authorized video looks exactly like an unauthorized one.
What the courts *rightly* said is that it is not a Service Provider's responsibility to hunt down unauthorized content, and even if the Service Provider knows that there is a very high chance that there is unauthorized content, they are not *required* to act on that data until the copyright holder tells them to.
If I were Google, I'd take down *all* Viacom connected videos, because there's no way for Google to know which are authorized and which are not, and Viacom clearly wants Google to err on the side of caution.
You dumb bastard. It's not a schooner, it's a sailboat.
blocking out content goes against their business model, and will only be done under duress.
I dunno, I think Hulu is willing to bend over backwards to appease the backward-looking content providers. To the point where it might just cause them to fail.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few good points
Seriously, your mastery of truthiness has raised the bar for ignorance worldwide.
I would go through line-by-line and show you your logical *and* factual errors, but honestly, after 400 comments you still haven't gotten it and more eloquent people than I have already pointed out your epic asshattery.
On the post: How Many 'Significant Blows' Against File Sharing Will It Take For File Sharing To Actually Decrease?
Re: Re: Re: The Party Pooper
No one, no one, no one is *entitled* to a profit. If I make a sweet little sculpture from bird shit, I'm not *entitled* to a profit because I created it. I have the chance to make a profit if I can give someone a reason to give me compensation (via money, sexual favors, fame, Trident Layers gum, etc) for my effort.
In summary, thinking like yours is what is making the creative world go right to shit.
PS- Would you like to purchase a sculpture I made from bird shit? C'mon, I deserve to get paid.
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Just curious...
A film has a limited time to be valuable.
Yes, but a *very* quick look online shows that thousands of people are still sharing that movie, so not only is it still worth watching to them, but it's worth breaking the law to share it with others. We, in the sane world, call those people True Fans. Not even the threat of legal action will stop them from making it easier for more people to enjoy that movie. From your side of the coin, they are "pirates" or "thieves". I don't care what business you're in, if you turn on your most enthusiastic fans, you will fail. (with the possible exception of Apple fans, who seem to get shit on by Apple at every turn and come back for more. Maybe Steve Jobs poops ice cream or something, I dunno. :P )
But all over TechDirt people are making cheap links between art forms and non-art forms to rationalize their argument.
I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I am not focusing on the micro-level of art vs. non-art because it doesn't matter. I am drawing parallels from other businesses that have been made obsolete (or, perhaps, just more efficient) because of advances in technology. I know it sucks to be on the pointy end of this technology advancement, but rest assured it will be better for society as a whole. That's basic economics.
Right and Wrong have very little to do with economics. It's wrong to lay off an employee who has been working for the company for 20 years only to replace him with a recently-graduated kid for half the pay. But it makes since, from a business standpoint. Although clearly not *everyone* is doing it, the fact remains that copyright infringement is not going away. It's just not. Ever. So, you can alienate your fans and sue them until you're out of money, you can use file sharing to your advantage, or you can get a new job doing something else. Thems the breaks.
How are they being creative to survive?
Techdirt has shown many examples of artists experimenting with new ways to make a living in the digital world (in fact, as I type this twitter popped up and told me they are having a seminar on exactly this subject) however, I don't know if there is a simple search to hunt them down, or if you have to scroll through past articles manually.
I have to say, it is nice to have a civil discussion about this topic. :)
On the post: Can Laser Maker Be Blamed For Blogs Comparing Laser To Star Wars Lightsabers?
Re:
It's a 5W laser. It can permanently blind someone at a mile if it hits their eyes for more than a quarter of a second. I'm pretty sure looking at the dot it makes on a matte wall at a few feet will blind you. It burns skin instantly.
It *is* dangerous. I can't wait for the reports of tons of kids with $200 going blind, or blinding drivers on the highway.
PS- I really want one, but would probably blind myself.
On the post: How Many 'Significant Blows' Against File Sharing Will It Take For File Sharing To Actually Decrease?
Re: fair prices?
Who the hell listens to music on CDs? Why are they still selling CDs??
And $10 for a CD? If there are more than 10 songs on that CD, then it's *more expensive* to buy the album online than the CD in stores-- that means adding plastic **lowers** the price. The world has gone mad.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is this how angry dude's are formed, when a Dark Helmet goes supernova and then collapses in on his self?
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re:
(1) Where the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work is infringed by a performance at a place of public entertainment, any person who gave permission for that place to be used for the performance is also liable for the infringement unless when he gave permission he believed on reasonable grounds that the performance would not infringe copyright.
So, if he thought he had all right right licenses, i.e., the believed on reasonable grounds that the performance would not infringe, then he's all clear, yes? :)
On the post: How Many 'Significant Blows' Against File Sharing Will It Take For File Sharing To Actually Decrease?
TPB
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Dave, Dave, Dave.
Which scenario is more harmful to an artist?
A) A non-music related business (eg., a hairdresser) plays music which nets them 1 paying customer, however no one who was involved in the creation of said music is paid.
B) A business does not play music.
Think about it. No really, *think*. (That is to say, don't parrot what you've been trained to say in the face of reason.)
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re: Just curious...
The "creative" person who had the arguement with the teenager compared his work to a screwdriver.
Temporal works, like songs and movies, lose their value over time and exposure. Hammers, on the other hand, can be "owned" and used over and over again without devaluation.
I think you have that backwards, my friend. I can listen to a song or read sheet music over and over and over without it falling into disrepair. However, there is a finite amount of time I can use a hammer before it breaks, oxidises or becomes otherwise unusable.
Furthermore, I can copy a digital good nearly infinitely without the need of many resources, however if I were to attempt to copy a hammer, I would need its raw matierals and a way to process them every time. (This is the root of the IP vs Real Property issue, btw)
(BTW TechDirt is not a creative work. It's simply Mike M commenting on someone else's journalistic efforts.
Your opinion is noted. However, as far as copyright law is concerned, Mike's posts are copyrightable, even though he chooses to release them to the public domain.
The essence of the original debate is NOT that file sharing ain't a form of stealing (it is, simply because the rules under which we're supposed to live by say it is--all else is rationalization)
The laws we are "supposed" to live by say that theft and copyright infringement are different-- otherwise the **AA would be going after people for theft, yes? Calling it stealing is simply a cheap way to link a negative idea to another action. Like saying that strip miners are raping the earth. Well, they're *not* actually raping the earth.
it's that an intellectual property can no longer be "owned," as Chris pointed out, and creative people are threatened because the familiar ways of earning a living are quickly becoming obsolete.
There was a time when people were actually paid to bring ice to people's homes. When at home refrigeration became affordable, those men and women suddenly found themselves facing unemployment. Should those businesses have formed a group called the Retail Ice Association of America (RIAA) and lobbied to outlaw refrigerators because they "deserve" to get paid? Of course not. So why is it different with a song, a book, or a movie? (Hint: it's not.)
For the artists out there, how are you making a living? t-shirts? Lunch with fans? Custodial work (alongside the hard working BruceLD)? Are you producing hammers, burgers or something else?
This, I can't answer for you. The reality is that there is no one size fits all answer. As it turns out, it is going to take creativity to make a living being creative. :)
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re: Re: Online Libraries
That would just be financial suicide, doomed to failure.
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re: Re: He Doesn't Compete
Seconded. All in favor say "Aye". :)
On the post: Prince: No Music On The Internet; The Internet Is Over
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Never liked it anyway
On the post: Prince: No Music On The Internet; The Internet Is Over
Re: Re: Re: Never liked it anyway
On the post: Prince: No Music On The Internet; The Internet Is Over
Re: Never liked it anyway
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re: Re: It's really simple ......
A bargain was made in the belief that content creators needed incentive to create, so we limit *who* can distribute it in an effort to have *more* to distribute.
The bargain has been changed repeatedly in such ways that it no longer performs its original function. (in fact, the exact opposite)
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re: Really???
All that nonsense about Starbucks, etc., is just silly.
Furthermore, if Elenor worked, I bet she'd expect to get paid *once*, as do most people without entitlement issues.
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re: Illegal is Illegal
A bad law *should* be ignored, and if you *honestly* believe _any_ group of corporate lawyers has the ethical and moral high grounds, you are a very, very misguided person.
The **AA is, in one stroke, taking *far* more money from artists (around 85%+ of album sales) than a file sharer ever could *and* locking up your and my culture for the better part of a century. Moral and ethical high grounds? Please.
Also, as has been noted, you sound more than a little touched in the head when you can't tell the difference between stealing and infringement. If "stealing is stealing" then the RIAA et al. would be going after people for theft, would they not? Exactly.
What the post from "THE" Jason Robert Brown shows is that he is just as misguided as Metallica: When the gravy train starts to become obsolete, lash out at the symptom instead of the cause. Yet, he has the moral high ground? Ha.
On the post: Would You Believe The RIAA Doesn't Agree With The Judge In The Viacom/YouTube Ruling?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't understand how you don't get this, it seemed pretty simple. The original lawsuit *from Viacom* listed videos that *Viacom* uploaded because an authorized video looks exactly like an unauthorized one.
What the courts *rightly* said is that it is not a Service Provider's responsibility to hunt down unauthorized content, and even if the Service Provider knows that there is a very high chance that there is unauthorized content, they are not *required* to act on that data until the copyright holder tells them to.
If I were Google, I'd take down *all* Viacom connected videos, because there's no way for Google to know which are authorized and which are not, and Viacom clearly wants Google to err on the side of caution.
On the post: Would You Believe The RIAA Doesn't Agree With The Judge In The Viacom/YouTube Ruling?
Re:
blocking out content goes against their business model, and will only be done under duress.
I dunno, I think Hulu is willing to bend over backwards to appease the backward-looking content providers. To the point where it might just cause them to fail.
Next >>