Re: Re: Re: it is like a street runner telling you which door to knock to get crack. they are involved in the transaction. I believe that's completely legal, and it is a completely different situation.
By linking to a copyrighted work, you are infringing on the copyright of the linkee...
Re: I sound simple and it is simple anyone trying to use copyright should be regarded as the devil.
Going to jail for refusing to consume copyrighted material? Are you really that delusional, that you think we HAVE to consume your crap? WOW. I hope the men in white jackets soon come to inject you with your daily medication.
It's worse. Because the website in question didn't even have links. All it did was mention filenames. And that practice was deemed illegal by this judge.
So by saying the filename you are infringing on copyright, according to this judge.
Re: filesharers do spend MORE money on entertainment than non-filesharers.
See? This is why discussing things with you is absolutely USELESS. As you are unable to even acknowledge that you might be wrong.
Consider this the end of this discussion between you and I.
One thing I'll give you. Copyright law is in a different lawbook than theft. And copyright infringement is considered a civil offense, and theft is a criminal offense.
Re: Re: I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
And for the gazillionth-and-one time. Copyright infringement is not stealing. Never has been, never will be. As THEFT is in a completely different lawbook than copyright ever will reside.
Re: Re: I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
Uploading is an offense, that directly affects copyright holders... I claim to have copyright of a file that I don't have copyright over.
As a downloader, I can't rightfully distinguish whether a source is legal or not. And don't come saying "but stuff on TPB is illegal by definition" as that's just false, as there are artists out there that use filesharing tools to distribute their own wares. How can *I* tell whether the uploader has permission to upload the works?
By law, in NL, the act of downloading of films and music, regardless of the source, is not illegal.
By law, in NL, the act of uploading content that does not belong to you, is illegal, unless you have permission to distribute the works.
I could give you links to our lawbooks, but as they are in Dutch, I doubt you have any use for it.
We've been debating and talking about this since the beginning of this blog, and yet, here you are, claiming the same kind of nonsense that was spouted in the comments section all those years ago. We are getting nowhere.
But you'll just spin our words, and claim we are against copyright. WHICH WE AREN'T, but you'll just ignore that.
Or claim that I haven't given you any case law, and thus proven you right or some nonsense like that.
You can't copyright DNA, you can't copyright facts (even though there are institutions that try it). And yes I'm 100% sure.
btw, if you clone me, my dna is still my dna, much as my clone's dna is his dna. As I still have access to my dna.
Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
if you downloaded it w/o paying LEGALLY , you have stole $$, IF you would have bought it otherwise-- if was not illegally available online.
Actually, you do know that independent studies have pointed out that these so-called pirates statistically pay more for entertainment than non-pirates, right? In essence, these so-called pirates are your biggest revenue source.
And you want to kill them?
Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
"I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing."
ME : The Law says different. It is infringement. I control copies of my music. You buy copies of Music.
Indeed INFRINGEMENT! not STEALING!
Look up the definitions. And notice the difference.
YOU :posting an entire NYT article in the comments section here, and no that's not fair use.
Me : Take it up with Mike. I thing he would agree with me , it is fair use.
If you claim it is NOT fair use, does not that fracture your arguments on copyright?
Taking an entire article and posting it somewhere else is like downloading a song. It's infringement. And I never said otherwise.
If you would not have bought it anyway,why download it illegally ? clearly you want it . But not if it cost $$ ?
Or, I just want to know if the disc is worth the 25 bucks it costs in the shops. If it does, I'll go out and buy it. Why not offer me a chance to sample the wares before I plop down 25 smackers? Because as soon as I have opened the case, I can't get my money back anymore. Stores will only refund unopened cases. Good luck sampling it then.
If it's not good, I'll delete it, right there and then.
You : equating copyright with racism (by adding Rosa Parks into the mix right here.
Me: both are Moral issues . both are legal issues.
Both involve circumvention of lawful civil rights.
I did not raise the "customer" analogy ,, some else did, and asked for an answer.
So copyright infringement is the same as racism? Odd world you live in.
Re: If I refuse to seat you in my restaurant........................
See, this is what I mean with not listening... You don't even TRY.
Why bring Rosa Parks or Ghandi... I was saying you, that if I refuse you service, I should not be moaning about it, if you decide to take your business elsewhere.
If you decide not to offer me a good quality product for a reasonable price, then don't come crying to mommy State if the mean pirates are picking on you.
And another thing, and get this through your thick f-ing skull. Piracy is not stealing.
I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.
Oh why do I even bother, you won't listen, you'll just spin and spin and twist my words like a good little troll.
We've seen you infringing on other people's copyright on this board (by posting an entire NYT article in the comments section here, and no that's not fair use), equating copyright infringement with stealing (ergo, by your "silly pirate logic" you yourself are a thief, when are you going to give yourself over to the police?), equating copyright with racism (by adding Rosa Parks into the mix right here), equating everyone here who disagrees with you a silly pirate with silly pirate logic (despite the fact that we gave you substantiated facts to trump your silly logic), claiming that we want copyright to be abolished (hint: no we do not, we want copyright CHANGE). And trying to make it into an emotional argument by claiming it's a moral right.
Well done. I really see the error of my ways... now if you'll excuse me, I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live). Good day.
Re: Oh, I agree that piracy is illegal by law, not so sure about immoral.
Universally accepted??? Except that almost every country in the world have different opinions on copyright (there are countries that don't even have a copyright law)
For instance, we, the Dutch, are allowed to download from illegal sources. Uploading is the offense, a civil matter, not a criminal matter, mind you. Like in the US copyright infringement is not a criminal matter by law, but a civil matter.
And as you clearly don't listen or don't want to listen or just intend to trolling here, so this will be my last post to you.
Copyright is NOT a moral right, no matter how you'd like it to be.
Re: but as you yourself just said, artists rarely get rich by royalties. Now who's fault is that?
I am not advocating a complete removal of copyright.
But I really think that current copyright laws, and especially the term of the copyright has become insane. It's no longer about promoting the creation of creative works.
Firstly, it's not good for the artist, as the law talks about copyright holder instead of content creator, meaning, you can resell your copyright to a third party.
Secondly, the term life+70 years is just ridiculous. 15-20 years from the moment the work is created, the content creator (or his/her heirs) will have monopoly over the work, and gets to say what gets done with it (with provisions to protect fair use).
This is basically the same copyright you have today, it just doesn't last as long. Making sure that you as a content creator will get incentivized to create new works. (I have to work every day 8 hours a day to earn my pay check, so artists shouldn't be surprised to work for their money as well. And no-one is entitled to fame and fortune just because they decided to become artists.)
Look piracy as it stands now, yes it's illegal, but you can't prove that it hurts your bottom line.
Maybe they didn't buy your album, but they went to your concert or bought loooooooooooooooots of t-shirts. Or raved about you to their friends who went out and bought your albums.
Re: No it bloody well isn't. Copyright is a law, not a moral godgiven right.
Oh, I agree that piracy is illegal by law, not so sure about immoral. That doesn't mean that I don't download stuff (mind you, downloading even from illegal source is, for the moment, legal in The Netherlands, where I live, which also doesn't follow the USA Constitution.)
Illegal is not the same as immoral though. A law does not state whether something is moral or not. Morals are set by society and not by a judge or a lawmaker.
Is it immoral to want to have access to our culture?
What I'm opposed to is the one sided view that people are taking with regards to copyright. Instead of having it enrich public domain, industry people want to lock it up forever minus a day (And these people seem to be the only ones that are heard by politicians, privacy and other concerns from the public be damned).
The reason we can still enjoy Beethoven and Bach is because their works are in the public domain. If there was some sort of copyright on them, rest assured we'll be hearing about lawsuits of the heirs suing orchestras for use of their great-grandfather's works.
I, like many commenters here on this blog, would love to see artists compensated for their works (and I often put MY money where MY mouth is), but as you yourself just said, artists rarely get rich by royalties.
Now who's fault is that? The pirate who is a potential fan/paying customer? The labels? The artists themselves? I'd venture the labels and the artists themselves. You can drive for a better contract. You can nowadays even cut the middle man out. Get yourself a website, use Youtube to promote any video clips that you may have, or just have your music set to promotional photos, use Amazon's affiliate links to your wares, even if people don't buy your album for whatever reason, if they use your link to access Amazon, any purchase they make during that session gets credited to you, and you get extra kickback. If you're an author look into podiobooks.com or services like that to sell your book as an audiobook first and then as a paper copy (I have about 5-6 books, bought in the past 2 years in my bookcase from authors that are relatively unknown (Philippa Ballantine, Tee Morris, Scott Sigler) that I have bought after listening to their stories first, that they gave away for free on that site. And I paid the full coverprice for them too.)
Instead of pursuing so-called pirates (whose negative effect on your bottom line is yet to be proven, and remains to be seen), by suing people or something like that, will NEVER EVER work. Instead of gaining goodwill, you are losing a battle.
Work with the tools that are available. If you're an singer or a movie maker use the Pirate Bay to distribute an album or a film and have links to Amazon, CDbaby, Itunes and sites like that, so that people can buy you stuff.
Make it easy for people to give you money. Don't lock stuff up behind DRM, trust your customers. By treating them like criminals, you are in essence making more enemies than friends.
There have been numerous examples right here on this blog about artists who have embraced filesharing and are now profiting from it.
Sure, there will always be people who will want stuff for free. They would never have bought your album anyway, and you can safely ignore them. Instead focus on adding value for your paying customers. Reward good behaviour and focus on that, rather than try to punish negative behaviour.
Just, for the love of everything that's dear to us, don't equate piracy with lost sales. That's never proven on a 1:1 scale. Like I recently said, I downloaded a film that I know will never appear on Dutch tv anyway (took 3 or 4 years for Dutch tv to even notice The Hogfather), and will take at least a year to end up in our shops as DVD boxset (and only then as a single dvd with only the movie and not with the extras). Bought the dvdset (2 dvd special edition) through Sky1's affiliate link right after I watched it. And I bought its prequel as well (again 2 dvd special edition).
1 download:2 purchases
I put my money where my mouth is.
Make it easy for people to buy your stuff, and they will gladly give you their hard-earned money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: he goodwill towards the companies that run the MPAA and the RIAA has dropped below zero.
if you want to discuss a film or a tv-series online, like I really like to do, then I'm screwed. Can't use twitter then, can't use tv.com. Heck, I can't even use IMDB in those situations.
Yes, it's not a need, it's a desire, but there is no other way for me. And I still watch it on tv if it ever arrives, and don't zap away during commercials. And if it's good I'll buy the dvd boxset.
Re: Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
They DON'T have to spend $$ to fight pirates. That's the whole point. By fighting them, they are giving air time to the pirates and showing people where they can get the latest stuff for free. By fighting the pirates, the MPAA and the RIAA are actually achieving the opposite of what they are attempting to do.
The "oh, but copyright is a moral right" argument.
No it bloody well isn't. Copyright is a law, not a moral godgiven right.
I wish I could pursue the copyrights over my works, and get paid for work I do now until 70 years after I've died. God, I'd be rich while sleeping.
A content creator shouldn't worry too much about copyrights, but rather spend his or her time creating content. Copyrights are good, if they help the market in a healthy way. Right now it's a hindrance to progress in creativity (can't remix the Beatles with Jay-Z unless you have written permission in threefold by God himself). (Grey album, DJ Dangermouse)
Oh no, you can't use that typeface, because we own copyright over it. (Harrods v. Hollands)
"No, you can't make a sequel over a book I wrote tens of years ago, even though I've often stated I have no intention of creating a sequel." (see J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye).
The entitlement culture within the copyright holders is just astounding. And not just copyright holders, but patent holders as well. And any other artificially induced, government granted "rights".
Current behaviour of these pirates, is caused by these copyright holders getting into the game extremely late. (13 years after Napster we finally have a service that mimics almost the same feeling that Napster gave users in the beginning (Spotify), but still it's very limiting.
By imposing those limits, you actually invite pirates to get into that middle ground, and offer a superiour product for less money.
Sure, you as an artist may not like it if you don't get paid for works that other people have downloaded... but how about viewing it as a stepping stone for people to get into your works. Get on the boards where they share files and instead of tattling on them, converse with them, and give people incentives to actually go out and buy your wares. Give people are Reason to Buy, and Connect with your Fans. Use filesharing as word of mouth. "You've sampled my first album, if you like it, why not buy the second album, here's a link for 10% off at Amazon [insert affiliatelink here]."
Don't treat potential buyers as common criminals. As firstly copyright is a civil matter, and secondly, buy suing someone into bankruptcy, you won't ever get them to buy your stuff again.
Re: Re: Re: Making your customers angry will only result in losses.
If I refuse to seat you in my restaurant, and as a result you go to my neighbour next door who is more than willing to accept you, do I have a leg to stand on if I sued you for not using my business?
No, not legally and not morally.
You said "we don't serve pirates here." And I will say that's exactly the problem. There is a HUGE market out there for good quality content that's certified to be the real deal, but no-one (except for the outlaws) are catering to it. With P2P networks, you always stand a chance of getting virusses and malware etc.
Instead of focussing on making everyone an outlaw, the media studios could offer a similar service like the "pirates" do, for a bit of money, but offer a certification, that the stuff you are getting through their service is guaranteed the best quality, without DRM that you can play anywhere.
Re: Re: Re: he goodwill towards the companies that run the MPAA and the RIAA has dropped below zero.
If I don't want my tv viewing experience spoiled by the internet, I NEED to watch it as soon as it comes out, otherwise A) I can't discuss tv shows with my friends online, or on forums online. and B) people will have ruined it for me by saying the plot points or even the endings.
How do you feel when your friends spoil a movie for you, because they have seen it and you haven't?
If want to talk about tv shows online, on sites like tv.com I have no other choice than to download and watch them. Because they are delayed heavily before appearing on Dutch TV, it sometimes takes years and even then they air it out of order, if they appear at all.
Re: Re: Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
The way you dismiss facts with "very silly, Pirate Logic" (sic) makes me less inclined to listen to your arguments.
Now you are more than welcome to include this reply in your "very silly, Pirate Logic" (sic) category, but that won't help you one bit.
So far, every time we debunk your "facts" you drum up other "facts" that aren't based in reality, or go the emotional route, or quote parts of one document or another out of context or go completely and wildly off topic.
Whereas Techdirt, and a lot of Techdirt visitors has offered you proof by ways of links to relevant articles, objective studies and other such goodness.
I'm sure that copyright has helped you as an artist in the past, and I'm not advocating a complete removal of copyright, but the terms need changing. Instead of life+70 years of the copyright holder (which isn't necessarily the creator anymore, and when exactly does a company die?), what about 15 years of copyrights for the creator. 15 Years should be plenty for artists to gain profits from their works. That's 15 years of control over their works.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Just Publishing Links To A Movie Is Illegal And Must Be Blocked
Re: Re: Re: it is like a street runner telling you which door to knock to get crack. they are involved in the transaction. I believe that's completely legal, and it is a completely different situation.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Just Publishing Links To A Movie Is Illegal And Must Be Blocked
Re: I sound simple and it is simple anyone trying to use copyright should be regarded as the devil.
On the post: Dutch Court Says Just Publishing Links To A Movie Is Illegal And Must Be Blocked
Actually it's worse than what you are saying Mike
So by saying the filename you are infringing on copyright, according to this judge.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: filesharers do spend MORE money on entertainment than non-filesharers.
Consider this the end of this discussion between you and I.
One thing I'll give you. Copyright law is in a different lawbook than theft. And copyright infringement is considered a civil offense, and theft is a criminal offense.
Chew on that!
BYE
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
As a downloader, I can't rightfully distinguish whether a source is legal or not. And don't come saying "but stuff on TPB is illegal by definition" as that's just false, as there are artists out there that use filesharing tools to distribute their own wares. How can *I* tell whether the uploader has permission to upload the works?
By law, in NL, the act of downloading of films and music, regardless of the source, is not illegal.
By law, in NL, the act of uploading content that does not belong to you, is illegal, unless you have permission to distribute the works.
I could give you links to our lawbooks, but as they are in Dutch, I doubt you have any use for it.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
Here is a BBC report on a study done in 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8337887.stm
Here is a link to that report: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/DemosMusicsurvey.ppt
Here is another 2009 study that finds the same: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=138587
Here is a report from Michael Geist on a study done in 2006: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1265/159/
And one on another study done in 2007: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/
These are but a few examples.
We've been debating and talking about this since the beginning of this blog, and yet, here you are, claiming the same kind of nonsense that was spouted in the comments section all those years ago. We are getting nowhere.
But you'll just spin our words, and claim we are against copyright. WHICH WE AREN'T, but you'll just ignore that.
Or claim that I haven't given you any case law, and thus proven you right or some nonsense like that.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: Copying: It's in our DNA!
btw, if you clone me, my dna is still my dna, much as my clone's dna is his dna. As I still have access to my dna.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
Actually, you do know that independent studies have pointed out that these so-called pirates statistically pay more for entertainment than non-pirates, right? In essence, these so-called pirates are your biggest revenue source.
And you want to kill them?
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
Indeed INFRINGEMENT! not STEALING!
Look up the definitions. And notice the difference.
Taking an entire article and posting it somewhere else is like downloading a song. It's infringement. And I never said otherwise.
Or, I just want to know if the disc is worth the 25 bucks it costs in the shops. If it does, I'll go out and buy it. Why not offer me a chance to sample the wares before I plop down 25 smackers? Because as soon as I have opened the case, I can't get my money back anymore. Stores will only refund unopened cases. Good luck sampling it then.
If it's not good, I'll delete it, right there and then.
So copyright infringement is the same as racism? Odd world you live in.
btw, what customer analogy?
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: If I refuse to seat you in my restaurant........................
Why bring Rosa Parks or Ghandi... I was saying you, that if I refuse you service, I should not be moaning about it, if you decide to take your business elsewhere.
If you decide not to offer me a good quality product for a reasonable price, then don't come crying to mommy State if the mean pirates are picking on you.
And another thing, and get this through your thick f-ing skull. Piracy is not stealing.
I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.
Oh why do I even bother, you won't listen, you'll just spin and spin and twist my words like a good little troll.
We've seen you infringing on other people's copyright on this board (by posting an entire NYT article in the comments section here, and no that's not fair use), equating copyright infringement with stealing (ergo, by your "silly pirate logic" you yourself are a thief, when are you going to give yourself over to the police?), equating copyright with racism (by adding Rosa Parks into the mix right here), equating everyone here who disagrees with you a silly pirate with silly pirate logic (despite the fact that we gave you substantiated facts to trump your silly logic), claiming that we want copyright to be abolished (hint: no we do not, we want copyright CHANGE). And trying to make it into an emotional argument by claiming it's a moral right.
Well done. I really see the error of my ways... now if you'll excuse me, I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live). Good day.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Oh, I agree that piracy is illegal by law, not so sure about immoral.
For instance, we, the Dutch, are allowed to download from illegal sources. Uploading is the offense, a civil matter, not a criminal matter, mind you. Like in the US copyright infringement is not a criminal matter by law, but a civil matter.
And as you clearly don't listen or don't want to listen or just intend to trolling here, so this will be my last post to you.
Copyright is NOT a moral right, no matter how you'd like it to be.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: but as you yourself just said, artists rarely get rich by royalties. Now who's fault is that?
But I really think that current copyright laws, and especially the term of the copyright has become insane. It's no longer about promoting the creation of creative works.
Firstly, it's not good for the artist, as the law talks about copyright holder instead of content creator, meaning, you can resell your copyright to a third party.
Secondly, the term life+70 years is just ridiculous. 15-20 years from the moment the work is created, the content creator (or his/her heirs) will have monopoly over the work, and gets to say what gets done with it (with provisions to protect fair use).
This is basically the same copyright you have today, it just doesn't last as long. Making sure that you as a content creator will get incentivized to create new works. (I have to work every day 8 hours a day to earn my pay check, so artists shouldn't be surprised to work for their money as well. And no-one is entitled to fame and fortune just because they decided to become artists.)
Look piracy as it stands now, yes it's illegal, but you can't prove that it hurts your bottom line.
Maybe they didn't buy your album, but they went to your concert or bought loooooooooooooooots of t-shirts. Or raved about you to their friends who went out and bought your albums.
That too is basic common sense.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: No it bloody well isn't. Copyright is a law, not a moral godgiven right.
Illegal is not the same as immoral though. A law does not state whether something is moral or not. Morals are set by society and not by a judge or a lawmaker.
Is it immoral to want to have access to our culture?
What I'm opposed to is the one sided view that people are taking with regards to copyright. Instead of having it enrich public domain, industry people want to lock it up forever minus a day (And these people seem to be the only ones that are heard by politicians, privacy and other concerns from the public be damned).
The reason we can still enjoy Beethoven and Bach is because their works are in the public domain. If there was some sort of copyright on them, rest assured we'll be hearing about lawsuits of the heirs suing orchestras for use of their great-grandfather's works.
I, like many commenters here on this blog, would love to see artists compensated for their works (and I often put MY money where MY mouth is), but as you yourself just said, artists rarely get rich by royalties.
Now who's fault is that? The pirate who is a potential fan/paying customer? The labels? The artists themselves? I'd venture the labels and the artists themselves. You can drive for a better contract. You can nowadays even cut the middle man out. Get yourself a website, use Youtube to promote any video clips that you may have, or just have your music set to promotional photos, use Amazon's affiliate links to your wares, even if people don't buy your album for whatever reason, if they use your link to access Amazon, any purchase they make during that session gets credited to you, and you get extra kickback. If you're an author look into podiobooks.com or services like that to sell your book as an audiobook first and then as a paper copy (I have about 5-6 books, bought in the past 2 years in my bookcase from authors that are relatively unknown (Philippa Ballantine, Tee Morris, Scott Sigler) that I have bought after listening to their stories first, that they gave away for free on that site. And I paid the full coverprice for them too.)
Instead of pursuing so-called pirates (whose negative effect on your bottom line is yet to be proven, and remains to be seen), by suing people or something like that, will NEVER EVER work. Instead of gaining goodwill, you are losing a battle.
Work with the tools that are available. If you're an singer or a movie maker use the Pirate Bay to distribute an album or a film and have links to Amazon, CDbaby, Itunes and sites like that, so that people can buy you stuff.
Make it easy for people to give you money. Don't lock stuff up behind DRM, trust your customers. By treating them like criminals, you are in essence making more enemies than friends.
There have been numerous examples right here on this blog about artists who have embraced filesharing and are now profiting from it.
Sure, there will always be people who will want stuff for free. They would never have bought your album anyway, and you can safely ignore them. Instead focus on adding value for your paying customers. Reward good behaviour and focus on that, rather than try to punish negative behaviour.
Just, for the love of everything that's dear to us, don't equate piracy with lost sales. That's never proven on a 1:1 scale. Like I recently said, I downloaded a film that I know will never appear on Dutch tv anyway (took 3 or 4 years for Dutch tv to even notice The Hogfather), and will take at least a year to end up in our shops as DVD boxset (and only then as a single dvd with only the movie and not with the extras). Bought the dvdset (2 dvd special edition) through Sky1's affiliate link right after I watched it. And I bought its prequel as well (again 2 dvd special edition).
1 download:2 purchases
I put my money where my mouth is.
Make it easy for people to buy your stuff, and they will gladly give you their hard-earned money.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: he goodwill towards the companies that run the MPAA and the RIAA has dropped below zero.
Yes, it's not a need, it's a desire, but there is no other way for me. And I still watch it on tv if it ever arrives, and don't zap away during commercials. And if it's good I'll buy the dvd boxset.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: So far, every time we debunk your "facts" you drum up other "facts" that aren't based in reality,
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100527/0347199599#c855
The failed "turn it into an emotion" argument: http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100527/0347199599#c202.
The "oh, but copyright is a moral right" argument.
No it bloody well isn't. Copyright is a law, not a moral godgiven right.
I wish I could pursue the copyrights over my works, and get paid for work I do now until 70 years after I've died. God, I'd be rich while sleeping.
A content creator shouldn't worry too much about copyrights, but rather spend his or her time creating content. Copyrights are good, if they help the market in a healthy way. Right now it's a hindrance to progress in creativity (can't remix the Beatles with Jay-Z unless you have written permission in threefold by God himself). (Grey album, DJ Dangermouse)
Oh no, you can't use that typeface, because we own copyright over it. (Harrods v. Hollands)
"No, you can't make a sequel over a book I wrote tens of years ago, even though I've often stated I have no intention of creating a sequel." (see J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye).
The entitlement culture within the copyright holders is just astounding. And not just copyright holders, but patent holders as well. And any other artificially induced, government granted "rights".
Current behaviour of these pirates, is caused by these copyright holders getting into the game extremely late. (13 years after Napster we finally have a service that mimics almost the same feeling that Napster gave users in the beginning (Spotify), but still it's very limiting.
By imposing those limits, you actually invite pirates to get into that middle ground, and offer a superiour product for less money.
Sure, you as an artist may not like it if you don't get paid for works that other people have downloaded... but how about viewing it as a stepping stone for people to get into your works. Get on the boards where they share files and instead of tattling on them, converse with them, and give people incentives to actually go out and buy your wares. Give people are Reason to Buy, and Connect with your Fans. Use filesharing as word of mouth. "You've sampled my first album, if you like it, why not buy the second album, here's a link for 10% off at Amazon [insert affiliatelink here]."
Don't treat potential buyers as common criminals. As firstly copyright is a civil matter, and secondly, buy suing someone into bankruptcy, you won't ever get them to buy your stuff again.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: Making your customers angry will only result in losses.
No, not legally and not morally.
You said "we don't serve pirates here." And I will say that's exactly the problem. There is a HUGE market out there for good quality content that's certified to be the real deal, but no-one (except for the outlaws) are catering to it. With P2P networks, you always stand a chance of getting virusses and malware etc.
Instead of focussing on making everyone an outlaw, the media studios could offer a similar service like the "pirates" do, for a bit of money, but offer a certification, that the stuff you are getting through their service is guaranteed the best quality, without DRM that you can play anywhere.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: he goodwill towards the companies that run the MPAA and the RIAA has dropped below zero.
How do you feel when your friends spoil a movie for you, because they have seen it and you haven't?
If want to talk about tv shows online, on sites like tv.com I have no other choice than to download and watch them. Because they are delayed heavily before appearing on Dutch TV, it sometimes takes years and even then they air it out of order, if they appear at all.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
Now you are more than welcome to include this reply in your "very silly, Pirate Logic" (sic) category, but that won't help you one bit.
So far, every time we debunk your "facts" you drum up other "facts" that aren't based in reality, or go the emotional route, or quote parts of one document or another out of context or go completely and wildly off topic.
Whereas Techdirt, and a lot of Techdirt visitors has offered you proof by ways of links to relevant articles, objective studies and other such goodness.
I'm sure that copyright has helped you as an artist in the past, and I'm not advocating a complete removal of copyright, but the terms need changing. Instead of life+70 years of the copyright holder (which isn't necessarily the creator anymore, and when exactly does a company die?), what about 15 years of copyrights for the creator. 15 Years should be plenty for artists to gain profits from their works. That's 15 years of control over their works.
Next >>