"To suggest Megaupload was primarily used for legal traffic is ludicrous."
Suggesting the VCR was primarily used for legal purposes was also considered ludicrous by the MPAA, and yet looked how that worked out.
It's clear to anyone with half a brain that MU and other cloud storage sites have "substantial non-infringing uses", so I don't understand why you think the end result should be different this time around.
And before any of the usual studio shills jump in, the fact that MU didn't pay for the films to be made does not in any way preclude the studios from offering exactly the same service and potentially making the same income they claim MU made. Unless of course their claims are exaggerated or unfounded...
Not only do I find your claim doubtful (but feel free to dispel my doubts), most people who aren't lawyers would not call what you described 'breaking in', because they know the meaning of the word 'break'.
No, Swartz knew some people did not want him to do what he was doing, but he did not think what he was doing was wrong. And many, many people agree with his position.
"He took pains to shroud his identity online, hide from cameras, run from the cops, etc."
Not wanting to be identified is pretty logical under the circumstances, but again doesn't make his actions wrong. But I'd love for you to expand on the whole "run from the cops" thing.
The title in no way claims that piracy has had no effect on the movie business.
"So industries that lose money to piracy should do nothing about it and not try to combat it?"
Ugh, this question has been asked and answered so many times it's becoming a running joke. If companies want to "combat" piracy, they should start by looking at how spectacularly unsuccessful their past efforts have been and try something different. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got.
"I am not demonizing technology. I am only saying that people aren't massively buying NAS and media streamers to play their Christmas home movies. If you want to see the volume and effects of piracy, you have to look at the amount of equipment bought specifically to support it by end users."
Damn you guys are slow learners. That's exactly the argument made about VHS/Betamax, and not only did it fail legally, it turned out to be spectacularly wrong, to the industry's (undeserved) benefit. Forgive us if we don't believe it this time either.
"No, the problem really is the existence of DRM. Its only purpose is to take control of a device that you own away from you and put it in the hands of someone else, against your will and against your interests."
Most DRM merely prevents you from doing something, it does not "take control' of anything, so your hacking comparison is not applicable in most cases.
Trying to ban DRM would be extremely problematic and no doubt result in unintended consequences and all sorts of abuse, as history demonstrates clearly. If instead the laws preventing the bypassing of DRM were repealed, DRM itself would become largely irrelevant, used only by companies blind to the will of their customers and not long for this world.
Nobody has ever claimed that "piracy has had no effect on the movie business". It's the likes of you that " continually mis-frame the issue".
What people take strong issue with is the loud and continuous claim that piracy is the sole cause of massive industry losses, while doing your best to ignore or obfuscate the non-piritanical causes that are largely of the industry's own making or beyond anyone's control (GFC), and grossly over-stating the dire state of the industry.
Here's a tip, change the message because nobody believes you.
""The DVD market is truly suffering, decimated by a combination of both legal sources like ITunes and Netflix, but also heavily because of piracy.
Jeez, if you're going to whinge about the suffering of the DVD market you might as well complain about the suffering of the VCR, laserdisc and reel-to-reel film markets as well. Complaining about the decline of a superseded technology makes you look a bit silly and won't convince anyone your argument has merit.
"The easiest way to spot it is to look at sales figures of equipment like home NAS drives, media streamers, and the like."
Yes, keep on demonizing modern technology. Coz that approach has worked so well in the past...
""IF snyder/whoever owns their own team, product, service, whatever, and they want to name it something that offends a bunch of people, then they should be free to do so...
THEY ARE, they're just not being allowed to have a government-sactioned right to prevent anyone else from using it too. This is actually the opposite of a restriction on free speech, it's preventing a restriction on free speech.
On the post: YouTube Video Taken Down Because Of Background Street Performer Impersonating Michael Jackson
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline
On the post: MPAA's Lawsuit Against Megaupload Is Yet Another Broadside Attack On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Megaupload
Suggesting the VCR was primarily used for legal purposes was also considered ludicrous by the MPAA, and yet looked how that worked out.
It's clear to anyone with half a brain that MU and other cloud storage sites have "substantial non-infringing uses", so I don't understand why you think the end result should be different this time around.
On the post: Snowden Says NSA Is Lying When It Claims He Didn't Raise Concerns Through The Proper Channels
Re: Fuck Google
On the post: Hollywood Piles On: MPAA Sues Megupload, Even Though They Already Got The Feds To Kill It
Re:
On the post: Hollywood Piles On: MPAA Sues Megupload, Even Though They Already Got The Feds To Kill It
Re:
On the post: Hollywood Piles On: MPAA Sues Megupload, Even Though They Already Got The Feds To Kill It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet another reason...
On the post: Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
On the post: Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: One day, in the future
No, Swartz knew some people did not want him to do what he was doing, but he did not think what he was doing was wrong. And many, many people agree with his position.
"He took pains to shroud his identity online, hide from cameras, run from the cops, etc."
Not wanting to be identified is pretty logical under the circumstances, but again doesn't make his actions wrong. But I'd love for you to expand on the whole "run from the cops" thing.
On the post: Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs
Re: Re: Re:
The title in no way claims that piracy has had no effect on the movie business.
"So industries that lose money to piracy should do nothing about it and not try to combat it?"
Ugh, this question has been asked and answered so many times it's becoming a running joke. If companies want to "combat" piracy, they should start by looking at how spectacularly unsuccessful their past efforts have been and try something different. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got.
On the post: Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Damn you guys are slow learners. That's exactly the argument made about VHS/Betamax, and not only did it fail legally, it turned out to be spectacularly wrong, to the industry's (undeserved) benefit. Forgive us if we don't believe it this time either.
On the post: UK Finally 'Legalizes' CD & DVD Ripping... But You're Still Not Allowed To Circumvent DRM
Re: Re: Re:
Most DRM merely prevents you from doing something, it does not "take control' of anything, so your hacking comparison is not applicable in most cases.
Trying to ban DRM would be extremely problematic and no doubt result in unintended consequences and all sorts of abuse, as history demonstrates clearly. If instead the laws preventing the bypassing of DRM were repealed, DRM itself would become largely irrelevant, used only by companies blind to the will of their customers and not long for this world.
On the post: Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs
Re:
What people take strong issue with is the loud and continuous claim that piracy is the sole cause of massive industry losses, while doing your best to ignore or obfuscate the non-piritanical causes that are largely of the industry's own making or beyond anyone's control (GFC), and grossly over-stating the dire state of the industry.
Here's a tip, change the message because nobody believes you.
On the post: Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jeez, if you're going to whinge about the suffering of the DVD market you might as well complain about the suffering of the VCR, laserdisc and reel-to-reel film markets as well. Complaining about the decline of a superseded technology makes you look a bit silly and won't convince anyone your argument has merit.
"The easiest way to spot it is to look at sales figures of equipment like home NAS drives, media streamers, and the like."
Yes, keep on demonizing modern technology. Coz that approach has worked so well in the past...
On the post: Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs
Re: sick sheep!
But I'm sure you can believe that people who are paid by the industry to defend them are defending the industry here.
On the post: USPTO: Again, Redskin Can't Be Trademarked Because It's A Racist Term
Re: Re: Disappointed
THEY ARE, they're just not being allowed to have a government-sactioned right to prevent anyone else from using it too. This is actually the opposite of a restriction on free speech, it's preventing a restriction on free speech.
Next >>