It's not different. A link is not infringing. It's the content that the link goes to that's infringing, but it's harder for the MPAA to go after the actual content, so they go after the links even though the links aren't infringing.
This is why they just go after Google rather than thousands of sites that actually host infringing content. Google tells them where it is so they attack Google.
It's fair to make an urban/rural distinction here. Even though they have the same population, Ferguson is not some isolated small town. It's a suburb of a major urban city. That's not to say racism isn't a part of it, but it's not ALL of it.
You know what I do when I find a website with shoddy reporting and baseless FUD pieces - I stop reading it and find something better to do with my time.
What I don't do is revisit it every day for months on end just to point out to everyone that it's shoddy reporting and baseless FUD.
The only problem with Google and Hollywood is that searching for a movie brings up Rotten Tomatoes, which tells you just how bad most of their movies are. They're not even worth pirating.
Sorry, HBO, but Netflix has already gone and done what you should have done years ago.
When HBO started was innovative. You could watch movies unedited without commercials. They opened up a new market for standup comedy that didn't censor the comedians. They even created original programming that got the public's attention. They got people to pay to watch TV after 30 years of it being free. These are all things Netflix has pioneered in the last decade.
Most of the content on Youtube isn't part of ContentID and isn't making money for the creators, so it's not all of Youtube that's generating that income. Just a smale slice of it.
There are valid points on either side, but TechDirt's position is that only one side is ever given voice - at least when it comes to lawmakers - the side with a vested financial interest that's using their financial might to shape laws and opinions.
There is a healthier debate for and against current copyright law at TechDirt than anywhere else I've found, and that debate is stimulated by taking a minority view, which happens to be asking what is ultimately best for culture, progress, and the people, and not just the bottom line of some industry.
And TechDirt only advocates this view because of the piss-poor reaction these industries have had to technological progress. I doubt, like most people, that TechDirt cared much about copyright until the internet made it everyone's problem.
Someone might consider your bias to be equally extreme, and you stating your position as "anti-piracy" doesn't make any difference.
While I've seen several commenters calling for the abolishing of all copyright, all I have ever seen from TechDirt is acknowledging that copyright law is in need of very serious reform, and it makes a pretty good case as to why.
There's a big difference between wanting laws to change and wanting to break the law. Techdirt wants the former but your futile attempts to peg it as "pro-piracy" is just a feeble (and pointless) attempt to make it look like it advocates the latter.
Why do people come here and try to out this website as having some sort of secret infringement agenda, as if unveiling it's nefarious plans would make any sort of difference? Is it a way to simply discredit everything TechDirt says because it's officially biased?
And why, after making valid points, do you insist on finishing up with unrelated slander and name calling, as if making a valid point wasn't victory enough.
Wouldn't the law be better applied by forcing the actual content owner to delist the content from Google (a very easy thing to do), rather than forcing Google to delist it?
At least then the impetus is on the offender, and not some unrelated third party.
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal
Re:
This is why they just go after Google rather than thousands of sites that actually host infringing content. Google tells them where it is so they attack Google.
On the post: Judge: The Supreme Court Has Said Aereo Must Die, So Go Die
Re:
On the post: A Tale of Two Riots: 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' Vs. 'Bring Out The BearCat'
Re: Double Std yes -- but there are reasons
On the post: Marvel Goes DMCA Crazy Over Leaked Avengers 2 Trailer, Then Puts It On Its Own YouTube Page
On the post: Copyright Law Stifling Free Speech And Artistic Criticism
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re:
What I don't do is revisit it every day for months on end just to point out to everyone that it's shoddy reporting and baseless FUD.
On the post: Google Continues To Try To Appease Hollywood, Though It Is Unlikely To Ever Be Enough
On the post: Google Continues To Try To Appease Hollywood, Though It Is Unlikely To Ever Be Enough
Re: Bull
On the post: HBO Decides It's Finally Time To Go It Alone
When HBO started was innovative. You could watch movies unedited without commercials. They opened up a new market for standup comedy that didn't censor the comedians. They even created original programming that got the public's attention. They got people to pay to watch TV after 30 years of it being free. These are all things Netflix has pioneered in the last decade.
On the post: YouTube Has Paid $1 Billion To Copyright Holders Via ContentID; What Happened To Stories About It Destroying Content?
Re: $1 Billion
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is a healthier debate for and against current copyright law at TechDirt than anywhere else I've found, and that debate is stimulated by taking a minority view, which happens to be asking what is ultimately best for culture, progress, and the people, and not just the bottom line of some industry.
And TechDirt only advocates this view because of the piss-poor reaction these industries have had to technological progress. I doubt, like most people, that TechDirt cared much about copyright until the internet made it everyone's problem.
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re:
While I've seen several commenters calling for the abolishing of all copyright, all I have ever seen from TechDirt is acknowledging that copyright law is in need of very serious reform, and it makes a pretty good case as to why.
There's a big difference between wanting laws to change and wanting to break the law. Techdirt wants the former but your futile attempts to peg it as "pro-piracy" is just a feeble (and pointless) attempt to make it look like it advocates the latter.
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: New Mafiaa
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re:
Does it matter either way? No!
Why do people come here and try to out this website as having some sort of secret infringement agenda, as if unveiling it's nefarious plans would make any sort of difference? Is it a way to simply discredit everything TechDirt says because it's officially biased?
And why, after making valid points, do you insist on finishing up with unrelated slander and name calling, as if making a valid point wasn't victory enough.
On the post: Seat Belt Violation Greeted With Spike Strip, Smashed Window And Tasering
Re:
On the post: John Oliver Takes On The US Government's Legalized Theft Programs, Asset Seizure And Civil Asset Forfeiture
Re: Re:
On the post: John Oliver Takes On The US Government's Legalized Theft Programs, Asset Seizure And Civil Asset Forfeiture
Re: Oliver is not just good, he's good for us.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Hits The NY Times
Re: Re: Why can't people go to the source?
At least then the impetus is on the offender, and not some unrelated third party.
Next >>