I'm not talking about taking credit, I'm speaking of wrongful appropriation. Where is the widespread outrage over pirate sites where some users unlawfully distributing copyrighted works? I have seen no popular uprising.
And in your world view, because it is morally wrong to covet thy neighbour's wife, we need to modify our prostitution laws and apply them to all forms of intercourse, because it's morally wrong on some grounds.
I mean, people fucking without paying, all the prostitutes will go broke! Think of their children and their education they are paying for! You'll kill the economy.
Morality not the issue with regards to copyrights, you've already been told it is the right to copy, not the right to monetize.
If you want to give it away, you're welcome to it. If you want to sell, you're welcome to it.
The reason other's give your stuff away? Already stated time and time and time again. You are not going to magically turn back the time.
Morals or not. You seem like a damn Catholic trying to guilt people into believing. How's that loyalty working out for you thus far? After all, you spend 5yrs and 2 million dollars of blood, sweat and tears.
Get it yet? Morals are not the issue. It's morally wrong to fuck your neighbour's wife, or he to fuck yours, but it's not illegal!
Wrong. Applied to COMMERCIAL infringement, no one squeals.
Applied to non-commercial infringement for stupendous amounts of money ($750 - $150 000 per incident) is what makes us squeal.
Again, reform is required. Just as prohibition was rampant, the law was broken, didn't work, and needed reform.
Naturally those who benefit from the law don't want such things, because they are afraid.
What if the bootleggers were smart and bought up a lot of drinking establishments and then when the law was finally overturned, they had a market? What if instead of pushing specific beer brands on people because of it being your cousin, you offered people good beer, got your cousin some help with making his beer good, and created a happy environment where people paid reasonable taxes (unlike Canada) on booze and were free to choose what they wanted?
Would that not benefit everyone?
Nah, let's restrict, enforce, lock it down and drive people away. Then wonder why no one wants to support us, despite many still doing it.
These "balanced" questions are so damn loaded they don't acknowledge or care about collateral damage.
Let's say I want to reduce drinking and driving problems, so I ban the sale of alcohol at bars and restaurants. Have I stopped drinking and driving? Nope, they can get it else where and still drive!
What's my collateral damage? I've disabled through enforcement that which didn't do what I thought it would, but was balanced by my view because you can still drink at home. However, now people who walk or take the bus or a taxi can't drink while out, despite there being no chance of them becoming drunk drivers (shy of stealing a car or taking over the bus or taxi).
That is NOT balance.
Why not do what the police and volunteers have been doing - organizing later buses, coordinating with establishments for taxis, volunteer drivers on holidays, etc..
Yes, those don't kill off DUI's completely, but they help reduce it.
That's a balanced enforcement.
You already have such a balance, but you haven't offered the other means to get home. Oh sure, you're current method of robustness involves the people leaving the bars, walking 6 blocks to the bus that takes them 3x the time to get home because it goes way out of their way.
Yes, that's something people will jump to! See the stupidity in such an idea of "balance of enforcement" because that is not what you mean.
You want "balance" where nothing copyrighted is shared without the rights holder's permission - which is impossible because of licensing, infrastructure, pricing, and some who just won't care and will share regardless.
Meanwhile you deny that the system needs improvement. "Walk those 6 blocks, just think, you'll get exercise. If it is -46C like it was last yesterday morning, dress warm."
You just don't get it, you're thinking it is an enforcement issue.
The issue does NOT NEED enforcement if you listen and improve what exists.
I already outlined those 6 steps. That's how you maintain a fair and balanced approach.
You and the industry did NOT follow all of those steps.
iTunes/Spotify/Amazon are NOT FOLLOWING ALL of those steps.
Until you do, AND STOP PUSHING DRACONIAN "ENFORCEMENT" measures you won't see your rights respected.
Psy didn't push draconian enforcement policies, he didn't even go after people with his current legal rights. He did well, very well.
The fair and balanced approach is to go after commercial infringers (NOT CREATORS OF TOOLS SOME USE TO INFRINGE NON-COMMERCIALLY). Then stop the exploitation in various markets. Why is a CD $30 in Australia but $15 here? How is that fair and balanced?
You want fair and balance, you have to give it! Copyright, as it exists, is NOT fair and balanced.
You want your kids to have a good life, teach them a damn trade and invest the money you earn for yourself and them.
If you think the only enforcement is through draconian laws, then fuck it, go after Microsoft because their OS allows the majority of the computer users to connect to the web, which the USER CHOOSES to use to download content (copyright or not).
Then go after Apple, Dell, Samsung, HP, etc.... all the computer manufacturers because Microsoft's Windows doesn't run on air. Then go after the cable manufacturers and fiber manufacturers, and installation technicians, don't forget all the router companies, ISP's, satellite companies, HDD manufacturers, technicians who install them...
because in your view, all of them COULD be used BY THE USER to infringe upon your "rights" to a TEMPORARY monopoly, despite the rest of the fucking planet telling you that how YOU UTILIZE your "rights" (aka distribute) is NOT what they want!
But hey, why listen, why not just figure out ways to lock it down like a politician because you don't understand a) the true intention of the law, b) how the law has been manipulated to void the benefits to society it once intended to protect, c) you don't want to listen to what people want and prefer to tell them what they want and complain when they figure a way around your wall, you built and support.
Can you stop repeating you spent 2mill/5yrs on a movie?
The more you repeat, the more annoying you become and the less sympathy you obtain.
If your movie is good, people will buy it. If you want more to buy it, don't lock it down, and offer unique, actually scarce goods and you'll make even more money.
Are such motels illegal? Are motels being shut down based on suspicion and being accused of raking in millions of dollars from prostitution? Are strip clubs going after these motels claiming billions lost in revenue?
Not a good analogy. Those sites WOULD exist, just as www.distrowatch.com exists, linking to distro's of GNU/Linux and Unix and OpenBSD. Free - linking to works! Sustaining themselves!
Distrowatch makes a living with non-infringing content. The Pirate Bay would as well. The reduced traffic would mean reduced bandwidth costs as well, which would offset the loss of revenue due to loss of traffic.
But we're all at a loss as to why you don't want to accept it is the users who are infringing and the reasons have already been stated (not "dirty freetarded pirates"), the legal services (some are good) are not at the robust, adequate, easy level they need to be.
Follow my steps, watch piracy drop. But you cannot do it half-assed. Not just for the USA! Every damn country, don't give me that license BS, don't lock it down, realize that most people on the planet (who has the largest populations - India and China) do not necessarily have laptops/desktops - they have MOBILE devices (hence the bluetooth and that touch/swipe thing requirement).
Again, look at what people use, market to that unrestricted, and watch the revenue skyrocket!
No, you don't need to pay me for this service, just listen to the damn customer!
More like he's already answered it for the umbrella of copyright in general, which applies to any art, authors or not.
The only people screwing authors over on copyrights are the publishers.
Again you seem like this:
YOU: "Mike is murder wrong? Does it make us feel unsafe?"
MIKE: "Yes, of course, though I don't have the data to give you a quantifiable, absolute proof with regards for safety. However, there's no excuse for murder"
YOU: " You didn't answer my question, is murdering via death row wrong?"
MIKE: "WTF?"
I am beginning to see why the "Googles" (aka the techies who create technological advances outside of the Entertainment industry) don't enjoy sitting at any tables with you.
That explains a lot of the SOPA problems too, all the RIAA BS of "Just talk to us" - just like you're doing now.
Mike answered your questions, you just keep rehashing and rewording and trying to get what you really want: "We know you hate copyright."
If you truly believe that, in spite of what he has already said which is counter to that, why keep bugging him?
That's for ALL content! Not just copyrighted content!
If you shut that down, you shut down all access to all content. You kill those who cannot afford or do not desire to "play ball" with corporations.
They'd love that, as they are heading down the same path as Edison's MPPC. The public won't like it and won't stand for it. Hollywood and music Labels don't care, just as MPPC didn't care.
And you think that's fare?
We've already said that if you simply listened your copyrighted content would be dramatically reduced in percentage on the sharing sites.
And you also fail to acknowledge these sites setup a system that's wide open and barely pays for itself.
I think the Pirate Bay trial proved that, despite the accusations of IFPI/RIAA/MPAA. But hey, if trials (biased as they were) could not produce the evidence you say exists, then you must know something everyone else doesn't and can't find.
Shut down those sites and not only do you see a drop in your piracy, a drop in LEGAL sharing, you'll see a drop in LEGAL PURCHASES!
I don't see how you can handle that, but I'm sure they'd blame it on piracy.
Prohibition does not work when the majority of the people disagree with you. I don't see how you can defend that.
Beating people into submission by illegally threatening them does not work in your favour. Locking things down to the point of hindered usage compared to what's freely available, does not work in your favour.
I don't see how you can defend your actions when the people have spoken, listen to your damn customers and they will remain your customers and grow in number.
Continue down the control-freak path and watch your Castles Made of Sand slip into the sea!
Your argument indicates you don't fully understand what is happening.
Does every computer user write viruses? So should we block all computer users from using computers?
No!
Does the computer manufacturer share in the responsibility for those to develop viruses using said computer?
No!
So the people running sites like The Pirate Bay have USERS who share infringing content and do not make any money from doing so, aka the user of the computer who writes the virus.
The legitimate users share legitimate content, such as the latest story they wrote or distribute their favourite flavour of GNU/Linux.
They don't make any money either. They also do NOT pay for the privilege to share! Period!
The ad revenue, like YouTube, allows users, all users, to share content free of charge!
Some will share copyrighted content for a multitude of reasons which were addressed in my points.
You do not go after the computer manufacturers or even Microsoft for exploits people find or viruses people (users) write.
Yet you think it is OK to go after The Pirate Bay?
And your next argument is shot down by this: If 90% of all computer users were writing exploits and viruses, would you then be able to sue the manufacturers or Microsoft?
Again, NO!
No! No more than you can sue Ford for the DUI's people have while driving a Ford vehicle, even if it was 90% of the time!
You might think it would be "ok" to make breathalyzers mandatory, but now you've restricted because of the actions of people without looking at why!
Available transit (taxis, buses, etc..)?
You may not get the analogies, because it is difficult to relate perfect digital copies where no one is deprived of the ability to generate their own copies, but try to understand:
Those sites are wide open, they are sharing only what USERS put up!
Address the points, fail to accept and you won't reduce piracy. Fail to adapt and you won't reduce piracy. Fail to listen and you won't reduce piracy.
You'll never completely eliminate it, but you can reduce it.
Have you ever had a bad experience with union workers? Someone with so much protection they feel invincible? I have.
Lots of great workers out there, unions and not, but the best way to deal with ones who do what you don't like is to NOT be restrictive and enforcing. Instead, treat them as humans (which they are), treat them with respect (which they will earn after they receive it), and you'll see the difference.
In other words:
0) Accept that some material will be shared, regardless of whatever you do
1) Accept that these "sites dedicated to infringing activities" are actually not that, but simply a tool which SOME USERS choose to infringe with
2) Accept that a robust system should be one free of unnecessary locks, restrictions, and inconveniences
3) Accept that people will pay, even though free is available, if there are good reasons (easier to use, has full selection, supports multiple formats, supports all available devices, supports artists fairly not just corporate copyright holders, does not have windowed restrictions, does not have unskippable lectures about "piracy devastating the industry" or commercials, is not region/country encoded/license restricted in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, and finally IS REASONABLY PRICED to the point where it's almost an unthinkable financial decision, like buying penny candy)
4) Accept that such a system must be open to ALL (not just corporate copyrighted works) artists
5) Designed so youth who are not eligible for credit cards can make purchases with cash via kiosks which through CD/DVD/USB disk/Bluetooth/that Andtroid swipe/touch thing - can transfer the files to any device
iTunes is restrictive, so is Amazon, so is any other system requiring a credit card. Do not expect youth to have to walk to a store that sells iTunes gift cards, buy them, walk back home, then download (assuming they are even allowed to register without a credit card) their content.
MAKE IT SIMPLE! It has to be ultra easy for ANYONE!
I used to get cash for my BDay, as a teen I loved going to the music store to buy it, no sign up, no credit card, no "you must play this on Sony walkmen only", nothing! Just "Here's your tape, have a good day."
That IS all possible.
And YouTube handles most of those parameters, when NOT subjected to regional locks and such.
So you're almost there, it just means getting OFF the control-freak high horse and making it easier.
I don't care what Lowery and his trichordist "we already have robust systems" rants go on about, because he doesn't address the flaws.
You do NOT have robust systems, systems always up, easy to use, nonrestrictive, full selection - yes that means UMG or Warner or DefJam or FavouredNations or Network or any indie or independent artist without a label - ANYONE!
That's your robust system you want. So easy to use, walk to machine, get content. No registration, cards avail at local stores, especially variety stores, just like phone cards, then let them go to town and buy!
He would be charged with harassment that's why and no judge in their right mind (bought out by entertainment groups or not) would do anything but throw the book at this guy.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1978 Sonny Bono Act had fucking nothing to do with filesharing as technically, it wasn't even heard of beyond the few who had computers.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
REx25
FTFY.
On the post: Copyright Alliance Invents New History (And New Meanings For 'Big' And 'Little') To Condemn Antigua
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And in your world view, because it is morally wrong to covet thy neighbour's wife, we need to modify our prostitution laws and apply them to all forms of intercourse, because it's morally wrong on some grounds.
I mean, people fucking without paying, all the prostitutes will go broke! Think of their children and their education they are paying for! You'll kill the economy.
On the post: Copyright Alliance Invents New History (And New Meanings For 'Big' And 'Little') To Condemn Antigua
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want to give it away, you're welcome to it. If you want to sell, you're welcome to it.
The reason other's give your stuff away? Already stated time and time and time again. You are not going to magically turn back the time.
Morals or not. You seem like a damn Catholic trying to guilt people into believing. How's that loyalty working out for you thus far? After all, you spend 5yrs and 2 million dollars of blood, sweat and tears.
Get it yet? Morals are not the issue. It's morally wrong to fuck your neighbour's wife, or he to fuck yours, but it's not illegal!
On the post: Copyright Alliance Invents New History (And New Meanings For 'Big' And 'Little') To Condemn Antigua
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights and Enforcement
Applied to non-commercial infringement for stupendous amounts of money ($750 - $150 000 per incident) is what makes us squeal.
Again, reform is required. Just as prohibition was rampant, the law was broken, didn't work, and needed reform.
Naturally those who benefit from the law don't want such things, because they are afraid.
What if the bootleggers were smart and bought up a lot of drinking establishments and then when the law was finally overturned, they had a market? What if instead of pushing specific beer brands on people because of it being your cousin, you offered people good beer, got your cousin some help with making his beer good, and created a happy environment where people paid reasonable taxes (unlike Canada) on booze and were free to choose what they wanted?
Would that not benefit everyone?
Nah, let's restrict, enforce, lock it down and drive people away. Then wonder why no one wants to support us, despite many still doing it.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Rights and Enforcement
And dramatically reduce your copyright duration, or expect others to come after you for stealing their ideas.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Rights and Enforcement
Let's say I want to reduce drinking and driving problems, so I ban the sale of alcohol at bars and restaurants. Have I stopped drinking and driving? Nope, they can get it else where and still drive!
What's my collateral damage? I've disabled through enforcement that which didn't do what I thought it would, but was balanced by my view because you can still drink at home. However, now people who walk or take the bus or a taxi can't drink while out, despite there being no chance of them becoming drunk drivers (shy of stealing a car or taking over the bus or taxi).
That is NOT balance.
Why not do what the police and volunteers have been doing - organizing later buses, coordinating with establishments for taxis, volunteer drivers on holidays, etc..
Yes, those don't kill off DUI's completely, but they help reduce it.
That's a balanced enforcement.
You already have such a balance, but you haven't offered the other means to get home. Oh sure, you're current method of robustness involves the people leaving the bars, walking 6 blocks to the bus that takes them 3x the time to get home because it goes way out of their way.
Yes, that's something people will jump to! See the stupidity in such an idea of "balance of enforcement" because that is not what you mean.
You want "balance" where nothing copyrighted is shared without the rights holder's permission - which is impossible because of licensing, infrastructure, pricing, and some who just won't care and will share regardless.
Meanwhile you deny that the system needs improvement. "Walk those 6 blocks, just think, you'll get exercise. If it is -46C like it was last yesterday morning, dress warm."
You just don't get it, you're thinking it is an enforcement issue.
The issue does NOT NEED enforcement if you listen and improve what exists.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: RExmany
You and the industry did NOT follow all of those steps.
iTunes/Spotify/Amazon are NOT FOLLOWING ALL of those steps.
Until you do, AND STOP PUSHING DRACONIAN "ENFORCEMENT" measures you won't see your rights respected.
Psy didn't push draconian enforcement policies, he didn't even go after people with his current legal rights. He did well, very well.
The fair and balanced approach is to go after commercial infringers (NOT CREATORS OF TOOLS SOME USE TO INFRINGE NON-COMMERCIALLY). Then stop the exploitation in various markets. Why is a CD $30 in Australia but $15 here? How is that fair and balanced?
You want fair and balance, you have to give it! Copyright, as it exists, is NOT fair and balanced.
You want your kids to have a good life, teach them a damn trade and invest the money you earn for yourself and them.
If you think the only enforcement is through draconian laws, then fuck it, go after Microsoft because their OS allows the majority of the computer users to connect to the web, which the USER CHOOSES to use to download content (copyright or not).
Then go after Apple, Dell, Samsung, HP, etc.... all the computer manufacturers because Microsoft's Windows doesn't run on air. Then go after the cable manufacturers and fiber manufacturers, and installation technicians, don't forget all the router companies, ISP's, satellite companies, HDD manufacturers, technicians who install them...
because in your view, all of them COULD be used BY THE USER to infringe upon your "rights" to a TEMPORARY monopoly, despite the rest of the fucking planet telling you that how YOU UTILIZE your "rights" (aka distribute) is NOT what they want!
But hey, why listen, why not just figure out ways to lock it down like a politician because you don't understand a) the true intention of the law, b) how the law has been manipulated to void the benefits to society it once intended to protect, c) you don't want to listen to what people want and prefer to tell them what they want and complain when they figure a way around your wall, you built and support.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The more you repeat, the more annoying you become and the less sympathy you obtain.
If your movie is good, people will buy it. If you want more to buy it, don't lock it down, and offer unique, actually scarce goods and you'll make even more money.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
RExmany
You equate exclusive rights to a temporary monopoly over the ability to create copies of a piece of work to taking a life, a criminal offense?
Wow.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not a good analogy. Those sites WOULD exist, just as www.distrowatch.com exists, linking to distro's of GNU/Linux and Unix and OpenBSD. Free - linking to works! Sustaining themselves!
Distrowatch makes a living with non-infringing content. The Pirate Bay would as well. The reduced traffic would mean reduced bandwidth costs as well, which would offset the loss of revenue due to loss of traffic.
But we're all at a loss as to why you don't want to accept it is the users who are infringing and the reasons have already been stated (not "dirty freetarded pirates"), the legal services (some are good) are not at the robust, adequate, easy level they need to be.
Follow my steps, watch piracy drop. But you cannot do it half-assed. Not just for the USA! Every damn country, don't give me that license BS, don't lock it down, realize that most people on the planet (who has the largest populations - India and China) do not necessarily have laptops/desktops - they have MOBILE devices (hence the bluetooth and that touch/swipe thing requirement).
Again, look at what people use, market to that unrestricted, and watch the revenue skyrocket!
No, you don't need to pay me for this service, just listen to the damn customer!
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only people screwing authors over on copyrights are the publishers.
Again you seem like this:
YOU: "Mike is murder wrong? Does it make us feel unsafe?"
MIKE: "Yes, of course, though I don't have the data to give you a quantifiable, absolute proof with regards for safety. However, there's no excuse for murder"
YOU: " You didn't answer my question, is murdering via death row wrong?"
MIKE: "WTF?"
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That explains a lot of the SOPA problems too, all the RIAA BS of "Just talk to us" - just like you're doing now.
Mike answered your questions, you just keep rehashing and rewording and trying to get what you really want: "We know you hate copyright."
If you truly believe that, in spite of what he has already said which is counter to that, why keep bugging him?
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
REx25
If you shut that down, you shut down all access to all content. You kill those who cannot afford or do not desire to "play ball" with corporations.
They'd love that, as they are heading down the same path as Edison's MPPC. The public won't like it and won't stand for it. Hollywood and music Labels don't care, just as MPPC didn't care.
And you think that's fare?
We've already said that if you simply listened your copyrighted content would be dramatically reduced in percentage on the sharing sites.
And you also fail to acknowledge these sites setup a system that's wide open and barely pays for itself.
I think the Pirate Bay trial proved that, despite the accusations of IFPI/RIAA/MPAA. But hey, if trials (biased as they were) could not produce the evidence you say exists, then you must know something everyone else doesn't and can't find.
Shut down those sites and not only do you see a drop in your piracy, a drop in LEGAL sharing, you'll see a drop in LEGAL PURCHASES!
I don't see how you can handle that, but I'm sure they'd blame it on piracy.
Prohibition does not work when the majority of the people disagree with you. I don't see how you can defend that.
Beating people into submission by illegally threatening them does not work in your favour. Locking things down to the point of hindered usage compared to what's freely available, does not work in your favour.
I don't see how you can defend your actions when the people have spoken, listen to your damn customers and they will remain your customers and grow in number.
Continue down the control-freak path and watch your Castles Made of Sand slip into the sea!
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your argument indicates you don't fully understand what is happening.
Does every computer user write viruses? So should we block all computer users from using computers?
No!
Does the computer manufacturer share in the responsibility for those to develop viruses using said computer?
No!
So the people running sites like The Pirate Bay have USERS who share infringing content and do not make any money from doing so, aka the user of the computer who writes the virus.
The legitimate users share legitimate content, such as the latest story they wrote or distribute their favourite flavour of GNU/Linux.
They don't make any money either. They also do NOT pay for the privilege to share! Period!
The ad revenue, like YouTube, allows users, all users, to share content free of charge!
Some will share copyrighted content for a multitude of reasons which were addressed in my points.
You do not go after the computer manufacturers or even Microsoft for exploits people find or viruses people (users) write.
Yet you think it is OK to go after The Pirate Bay?
And your next argument is shot down by this: If 90% of all computer users were writing exploits and viruses, would you then be able to sue the manufacturers or Microsoft?
Again, NO!
No! No more than you can sue Ford for the DUI's people have while driving a Ford vehicle, even if it was 90% of the time!
You might think it would be "ok" to make breathalyzers mandatory, but now you've restricted because of the actions of people without looking at why!
Available transit (taxis, buses, etc..)?
You may not get the analogies, because it is difficult to relate perfect digital copies where no one is deprived of the ability to generate their own copies, but try to understand:
Those sites are wide open, they are sharing only what USERS put up!
Address the points, fail to accept and you won't reduce piracy. Fail to adapt and you won't reduce piracy. Fail to listen and you won't reduce piracy.
You'll never completely eliminate it, but you can reduce it.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lots of great workers out there, unions and not, but the best way to deal with ones who do what you don't like is to NOT be restrictive and enforcing. Instead, treat them as humans (which they are), treat them with respect (which they will earn after they receive it), and you'll see the difference.
In other words:
0) Accept that some material will be shared, regardless of whatever you do
1) Accept that these "sites dedicated to infringing activities" are actually not that, but simply a tool which SOME USERS choose to infringe with
2) Accept that a robust system should be one free of unnecessary locks, restrictions, and inconveniences
3) Accept that people will pay, even though free is available, if there are good reasons (easier to use, has full selection, supports multiple formats, supports all available devices, supports artists fairly not just corporate copyright holders, does not have windowed restrictions, does not have unskippable lectures about "piracy devastating the industry" or commercials, is not region/country encoded/license restricted in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, and finally IS REASONABLY PRICED to the point where it's almost an unthinkable financial decision, like buying penny candy)
4) Accept that such a system must be open to ALL (not just corporate copyrighted works) artists
5) Designed so youth who are not eligible for credit cards can make purchases with cash via kiosks which through CD/DVD/USB disk/Bluetooth/that Andtroid swipe/touch thing - can transfer the files to any device
iTunes is restrictive, so is Amazon, so is any other system requiring a credit card. Do not expect youth to have to walk to a store that sells iTunes gift cards, buy them, walk back home, then download (assuming they are even allowed to register without a credit card) their content.
MAKE IT SIMPLE! It has to be ultra easy for ANYONE!
I used to get cash for my BDay, as a teen I loved going to the music store to buy it, no sign up, no credit card, no "you must play this on Sony walkmen only", nothing! Just "Here's your tape, have a good day."
That IS all possible.
And YouTube handles most of those parameters, when NOT subjected to regional locks and such.
So you're almost there, it just means getting OFF the control-freak high horse and making it easier.
I don't care what Lowery and his trichordist "we already have robust systems" rants go on about, because he doesn't address the flaws.
You do NOT have robust systems, systems always up, easy to use, nonrestrictive, full selection - yes that means UMG or Warner or DefJam or FavouredNations or Network or any indie or independent artist without a label - ANYONE!
That's your robust system you want. So easy to use, walk to machine, get content. No registration, cards avail at local stores, especially variety stores, just like phone cards, then let them go to town and buy!
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
REx20
Each viewpoint, when presented without insults/ad hom/logical fallacies, would enlighten everyone else, even with opposing view points.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>