Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Mar 2012 @ 4:52pm
Re:
That so totally misses the point that I think you hit another country with that shot so I can't be bothered to pick it apart. One statement struck me as really really funny in a disconnected from reality kind of way:
So what you're saying is that the content owners will never stop pirating. OK throw the pirates in jail, lets seem them steal content from behind bars without access to the internet.
A great plan. That might even actually stop "piracy" (well probably not in Europe since the European Court of Human Rights largely considers removing internet access from a prisoner to be inhumane but there you go).
Except for one small thing.... The US usually has about 1% of it's population in jail or around 3 MILLION people and the system is groaning at the seams. According to a quick search about 80% of the US population uses the internet and industry figures claim about 16% of US users are "pirates" of some kind.
So in summary your wonderful plan is to lock up around FOUR MILLION people on top of the 3 million the system already can't cope with.
Were you going to write a cheque for the difference? Or is your plan to let out all the violent offenders to make way for the clearly far more heinous "crime" of infringement and shoot the rest?
If not, try re-reading the article and connecting it to reality.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Mar 2012 @ 11:10am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh I get it, all you have to do is ask people to "do better"
I really don't get that there are consumers who are willing to buy something, and that there are people who refuse to sell it to them. Forget about piracy for a second and please explain to me how this is an intelligent choice?
Among other reasons I think it's because to them it's a binary equation. There's "piracy" and "non-piracy" and nothing in between. The idea that turning a large block of infringers into customers is as simple as selling the product in a way people want simply doesn't occur because in their mind that's giving ALL "pirates" what they want. That's what you get for brainwashing yourself with the mantra "All pirates are entitled freetard thieves that should be shot without trial" 20 times each morning.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 3:46am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 35%
Well, I'm curious what "again" has to do with a "first" assignment but we'll gloss over that one because I'm far more curious how you can NOT "twist" words that (likely deliberately) don't have an obvious meaning in the first place. Any interpretation of the sentence including yours is "twisting the words" since the literal interpretation makes zero sense in context.
It must be nice to have a semantic point you can argue rather than addressing the point of the article which was the vague but scary-sounding claims and innuendo blatently apparent in the actual transcript quotes.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 5:11pm
Re: Re: Re: 35%
But acquiring means a-c-q-u-i-r-i-n-g.
Yes it does
acquired
past participle, past tense of ac·quire (Verb)
1.Buy or obtain (an asset or object) for oneself.
2.Learn or develop (a skill, habit, or quality).
and
mu·sic/ˈmyo͞ozik/
Noun:
1.The art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.
2.The vocal or instrumental sound produced in this way.
Since the only combination of those 2 definitions that makes any sense is "Learning the art/science of music" and it's clear that's not what he meant, let's just accept that he was using implication and innuendo rather than clear meaning shall we?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 4:59pm
Re:
You should focus on what he wrote: "...music acquired...".
Let's try that and just for the hell of it let's use the entire sentence instead of just focussing on 2 words:
I think we're now at a point where about 35% of music acquired is actually being paid for, so the rest is being taken for free.
For a start "music aquired" actually doesn't mean anything and therefore could mean anything from "music learnt" (heard?) through "rights to music obtained" to "all recorded media of any kind changing hands". Of course the implication he's making is "recorded media that should be purchased and isn't".
Which brings us onto the start of the sentence where he says "I think we're....". "I think" strongly suggests "I don't actually know and I just made this number up because it sounds scary" especially when no-one, least of all the labels, seems to have any solid figures of how much "piracy" actually takes place that isn't based on conjecture and shaky data like how many torrents exist in the world and or a guessed percentage of internet traffic. For all I know he could be lucky and right, but a number pulled out of thin air is still a number pulled from thin air. Given the arrogance usually displayed in other statements from this organisation I'd lay a wager that if he'd even had some sort of internal report on which to base the number the sentence would have started "Figures show that..." or similar. You know what they say; 98.682% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Of course the reference at the end of the sentence to "taken for free" in a way that suggests he meant "stolen" does make me wonder if his definition of "music" is "Stuff that the oranisations I represent record and nothing else counts" since much recorded music can be quite legally "taken for free" and would therefore distort the validity (such as it is) of the 35% claim anyway. That kinda leaves the claim a/ likely imaginary and b/ either sumpremely arrogant or deliberately misleading.
Yes, you were right, it was a good idea to focus on what he wrote....
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 4:19pm
Re: Re: Re:
Good job avoiding the point entirely.
The point was Sherman's bad english in either using the verb "aquired" for something intangible like music, or alternatively mis-defining the noun "music" to be "a recording media capable of holding sound data", right?
I suppose he could have been using "aquire" in the sense of "learn or develop the skill of making music", but then it still wouldn't have made sense now would it?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 2:37pm
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah sorry making sweeping claims without any logic or facts behind doesn't do it for me either. If you can offer evidence of a direct corellation between the "declining market" for music and all or most companies in the music industry shrinking, merging or failing then I might buy it. Otherwise it's like a telecoms company bitching that there's a "declining market for phones" just because they only make analogue phone systems and more people buy IP-based systems these days.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 11:09am
Re: Re:
...like you do when you don't have a good point
That and picking some tangential, usually tiny and out of context part of the article to rave about while carefully missing/avoiding the point as well as ignoring any calls for factual evidence of whatever it being raved about.
Actually the style is so similar to the quoted inserts of the piece I'd be somewhat tempted to wonder if they are the same person.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 3:14am
Re: Re: Re: Banning Guns ...
Americans are the problem not the firearms.
...if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year, they had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?
-Toby Zeigler
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Mar 2012 @ 11:48am
Any antenna, no matter the size, infringes copyright if works are transmitted from one place to another place.
By that rationale, streaming it to a home screen from your PVR over a wireless network is infringing or indeed showing it ON a screen since a screen throws off a signal strong enough to be received in "public" quite some distance away.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 3 Mar 2012 @ 4:17am
Re:
once you add a third party to the game, it pretty much becomes a public performance.
So when I capture a broadcast signal storing it on a hosted server via a VPN tunnel it's illegal because there's a 3rd party being paid for service, but when I do the same thing to another property and server I own it's not? Yeah that makes sooo much sense. Or perhaps you're going to claim both are illegal because the ISP that carries the VPN tunnel is a 3rd party service providor involved?
Or if one were to rent a DVR, which is essentialy what Aereo are doing, again you would claim it's illegal?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Mar 2012 @ 10:42am
Re: Nash Bargaining problem
Oh my! That's the most fantastic argument I've heard for absurd copyright terms EVER!
"We have to have long copyrights otherwise artists would be assassinated"
Priceless. I wish I could hit funny more times. Oddly enough it's also about the most coherent argument for long copyright terms I've ever heard too.....
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Mar 2012 @ 10:34am
Re: Re: Re: Uh no-- balance is possible and desirable
Bob is a little confused about all this
Yep, and about the police thing too - when I was younger, all the local markets had a stall selling copied videos and I never knew of one what was arrested or vanished from his pitch over the years. As I got older I knew loads of people with the ability to copy "macrovisioned" tapes because after a while you didn't even need the inline widget to remove it as video recorders improved. No-one got arrested because no-one really cared.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Mar 2012 @ 10:22am
Re: Re: Re:
The pirates don't get anything then because no big production movies would be made. There wouldn't be anything worth viewing.
Your snobbery is showing again. Why is it that "cost lots to make = must be good"? As if price is value?
Personally, while I enjoy a good "whoosh-bang, kick-ass" mindless hollywood "blockbuster" as well as the next guy, I could do without them and at least 90% of my personal fave movies of all time come in the low-budget, high-story category.
Plus you still carefully ignore the bit where, whether copyright in itself is "good" or not, there's no sensible argument as to why anyone, creator or corporation that took the rights from the creator, should still be being paid again and again for something 100+ years after any work was done.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Mar 2012 @ 10:08am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's calling a tail a leg and trying to walk on it. Calling social interactions "content" is pretty darn misleading.
No, he's calling music, cinema, art, sculpture, etc social interaction, which is exactly what it is. It only becomes "content" because of the completely artifical construct of copyright.
Your attitude to the public is most revealing.
I'd have gone with "elitist and entitled" but close enough.
On the post: An Open Letter To Content Creators: One 'Pirate' Explains Why He Infringes & How To Get His Money
Re:
A great plan. That might even actually stop "piracy" (well probably not in Europe since the European Court of Human Rights largely considers removing internet access from a prisoner to be inhumane but there you go).
Except for one small thing.... The US usually has about 1% of it's population in jail or around 3 MILLION people and the system is groaning at the seams. According to a quick search about 80% of the US population uses the internet and industry figures claim about 16% of US users are "pirates" of some kind.
So in summary your wonderful plan is to lock up around FOUR MILLION people on top of the 3 million the system already can't cope with.
Were you going to write a cheque for the difference? Or is your plan to let out all the violent offenders to make way for the clearly far more heinous "crime" of infringement and shoot the rest?
If not, try re-reading the article and connecting it to reality.
On the post: An Open Letter To Content Creators: One 'Pirate' Explains Why He Infringes & How To Get His Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh I get it, all you have to do is ask people to "do better"
Among other reasons I think it's because to them it's a binary equation. There's "piracy" and "non-piracy" and nothing in between. The idea that turning a large block of infringers into customers is as simple as selling the product in a way people want simply doesn't occur because in their mind that's giving ALL "pirates" what they want. That's what you get for brainwashing yourself with the mantra "All pirates are entitled freetard thieves that should be shot without trial" 20 times each morning.
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 35%
It must be nice to have a semantic point you can argue rather than addressing the point of the article which was the vague but scary-sounding claims and innuendo blatently apparent in the actual transcript quotes.
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
Re: Re: Re: 35%
and
Since the only combination of those 2 definitions that makes any sense is "Learning the art/science of music" and it's clear that's not what he meant, let's just accept that he was using implication and innuendo rather than clear meaning shall we?
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
Re:
Let's try that and just for the hell of it let's use the entire sentence instead of just focussing on 2 words:
For a start "music aquired" actually doesn't mean anything and therefore could mean anything from "music learnt" (heard?) through "rights to music obtained" to "all recorded media of any kind changing hands". Of course the implication he's making is "recorded media that should be purchased and isn't".
Which brings us onto the start of the sentence where he says "I think we're....". "I think" strongly suggests "I don't actually know and I just made this number up because it sounds scary" especially when no-one, least of all the labels, seems to have any solid figures of how much "piracy" actually takes place that isn't based on conjecture and shaky data like how many torrents exist in the world and or a guessed percentage of internet traffic. For all I know he could be lucky and right, but a number pulled out of thin air is still a number pulled from thin air. Given the arrogance usually displayed in other statements from this organisation I'd lay a wager that if he'd even had some sort of internal report on which to base the number the sentence would have started "Figures show that..." or similar. You know what they say; 98.682% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Of course the reference at the end of the sentence to "taken for free" in a way that suggests he meant "stolen" does make me wonder if his definition of "music" is "Stuff that the oranisations I represent record and nothing else counts" since much recorded music can be quite legally "taken for free" and would therefore distort the validity (such as it is) of the 35% claim anyway. That kinda leaves the claim a/ likely imaginary and b/ either sumpremely arrogant or deliberately misleading.
Yes, you were right, it was a good idea to focus on what he wrote....
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
Re: Re: Re:
I suppose he could have been using "aquire" in the sense of "learn or develop the skill of making music", but then it still wouldn't have made sense now would it?
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
Re: Re: Re: He says it all right here
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
Re:
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
Re: He says it all right here
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
Re: Re:
That and picking some tangential, usually tiny and out of context part of the article to rave about while carefully missing/avoiding the point as well as ignoring any calls for factual evidence of whatever it being raved about.
Actually the style is so similar to the quoted inserts of the piece I'd be somewhat tempted to wonder if they are the same person.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Banning Guns ...
Hmm could go either way I guess...
On the post: TV Networks Gang Up To Sue Aereo; Do Copyright Rules Change Based On The Length Of A Cable?
By that rationale, streaming it to a home screen from your PVR over a wireless network is infringing or indeed showing it ON a screen since a screen throws off a signal strong enough to be received in "public" quite some distance away.
On the post: TV Networks Gang Up To Sue Aereo; Do Copyright Rules Change Based On The Length Of A Cable?
Re:
So when I capture a broadcast signal storing it on a hosted server via a VPN tunnel it's illegal because there's a 3rd party being paid for service, but when I do the same thing to another property and server I own it's not? Yeah that makes sooo much sense. Or perhaps you're going to claim both are illegal because the ISP that carries the VPN tunnel is a 3rd party service providor involved?
Or if one were to rent a DVR, which is essentialy what Aereo are doing, again you would claim it's illegal?
On the post: There Can Be No 'Balance' In The Entirely Unbalanced System Of Copyright
Re: Nash Bargaining problem
"We have to have long copyrights otherwise artists would be assassinated"
Priceless. I wish I could hit funny more times. Oddly enough it's also about the most coherent argument for long copyright terms I've ever heard too.....
On the post: There Can Be No 'Balance' In The Entirely Unbalanced System Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Uh no-- balance is possible and desirable
On the post: There Can Be No 'Balance' In The Entirely Unbalanced System Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re:
Your snobbery is showing again. Why is it that "cost lots to make = must be good"? As if price is value?
Personally, while I enjoy a good "whoosh-bang, kick-ass" mindless hollywood "blockbuster" as well as the next guy, I could do without them and at least 90% of my personal fave movies of all time come in the low-budget, high-story category.
Plus you still carefully ignore the bit where, whether copyright in itself is "good" or not, there's no sensible argument as to why anyone, creator or corporation that took the rights from the creator, should still be being paid again and again for something 100+ years after any work was done.
On the post: There Can Be No 'Balance' In The Entirely Unbalanced System Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he's calling music, cinema, art, sculpture, etc social interaction, which is exactly what it is. It only becomes "content" because of the completely artifical construct of copyright.
I'd have gone with "elitist and entitled" but close enough.
On the post: There Can Be No 'Balance' In The Entirely Unbalanced System Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrible
Would that be a Discman? Or is that still (TM) Sony? :-)
On the post: Chipping Away At The First Amendment: New 'Trespassing' Bill Could Be Used To Criminalize Legitimate Protests
Re:
One step more obvious in a police state.
FTFY
Next >>