Apparently, UMG has gone rogue and filed a DMCA takedown over the video despite Megaupload being the copyright owner. Not just once, but twice. Further proof that crap legislation like PIPA/SOPA will be abused against legal content at every opportunity.
Blindly following an inept leader (the MPAA) does not mean you're actually going in the right direction. Personally, I follow most of the opinions here because they happen to be going the same direction I was already headed.
Most entertainment folks I hear speak on the issue are merely repeating the same debunked talking points over and over again. That tells me they're too busy cheating the public to bother researching the issue.
It's good to see that you at least recognize that the current copyright law has a serious problem in the extreme length. To be honest, I'm starting to wonder if the extensions have become a Constitutional issue depending on your frame of reference.
For example, let's say a new book by my son's favorite author is released tomorrow. According to current copyright law, that book is protected for the lifetime of the author plus 95 years. Now while I come from a family blessed with good health, I doubt my son will make it much past 110 years of age. Given that he's a teenager now, that means the book will be under copyright protection until after he's dead. Essentially, that book is under permanent copyright protection for his lifetime. How could that possibly promote the progress of science and the useful arts?
I have a real problem with her analogy of clothing from Gap. It's not that the Gap has undesirable clothing, quite the opposite. A closer analogy would be that Gap has an outfit that is desirable and she is willing to spend a reasonable amount of money to purchase this item.
Let's say a fair market price compared to other retailers would be $100. Unfortunately, Gap has decided that the outfit should be sold as part of a collection and you have to buy the whole collection at a cost of $1200 to get the one outfit. Also, once you buy the collection, it can only be worn in the United States. If you leave the country, you cannot wear the outfit. Finally, you must remain the sole owner of the outfit until the day of it's destruction. You can't give it to a friend, you can't sell it on eBay, you can't sell it in a thrift or consignment shop and you can't donate it to charity.
Given all those conditions, if you saw the outfit on a rack labelled "free" at a tag sale, are you telling us you wouldn't pick it up? Somehow I doubt it.
So you WANT people to die because they can't get their medicine from a legal, accredited Canadian pharmacy and can't get it here in the USA because it's too expensive...
Oh no, I think she understands EXACTLY what the bill is about. See I'm beginning to think that she doesn't want you to go to the government to get approval to develop a new application but instead, you must go to the corporate overlords.
See... it's all about creating jobs. Think of all the new positions this will create for the RIAA and MPAA what with the VP's, assistants, general lackeys, etc needed to run whole divisions just to reject new business ideas. It's a goldmine I tell ya!!!
2) I wonder if they have ever stopped to think about what the increased security has done. Rather than keeping a minimal profile which would encourage the bad actors to be lax in their discretion, they've ramped it up to 11 which naturally teaches people wishing to do harm to be more careful and thus much harder to detect.
Oh what am I saying... there's not a chance that #2 has even come close to forming a spark of a thought much less a full blown idea.
Yup, that's why I have a verified account with no links to any credit cards or checking accounts anymore and about $0.45 in it. It still sees activity once in a while when I route a prepaid credit card through it, but for the most part, it just sits there wasting their resources... :-)
The problem with the brand holders (as well as the MAFIAA and their ilk) is that they're not understanding the wider impact of having their product be ubiquitous.
If it's considered normal for everyone to have a Prada bag, whether or not it's a knockoff, then NOT having one is actually harmful. Then it becomes a matter of wether or not you can afford a real one or have to settle for a "fake". Being able to get a genuine article improves your social status.
The flip side of aggressive enforcement is that only people that can have a genuine item have them. Unfortunately, that's a much smaller subset of the population which ends up giving the owners more of an negative elitist reputation than a positive role model one.
Consider cell phones. Today, a significant portion of the US population carry one. A large number of them allow people to check email, update social media status, etc, and are considered "average". But think back a few years before the iPhone and Android phones to when just BlackBerry was the choice. People with BlackBerry's were often looked down upon as someone who needed to "get a life" and "you don't need to be THAT connected". Now that the devices are everywhere, the pressure to upgrade on people that DON'T have smart phones is immense. Even the cell providers are making it difficult to stay data free. The last time I checked AT&T for new cell phones, every last one available for their monthly plans required a data connection.
So go ahead, push enforcement but be ready to fade into obscurity when you do.
Maybe they're just going for an ending where there are no "winners". Righthaven has lost, but if they drag this out long enough, sufficient assets will be used up such that there's nothing left to collect on, essentially making it so that nobody comes out ahead.
The problem with your logic is that the police will talk to the owner and try to determine if there is probable cause to proceed with a criminal complaint, including talking to the owner and verifying their alibi.
The record companies don't bother determining guilt or innocence which is why they've sued dead people, grandmothers without computers and technologically inept people with their shotgun approach to litigation.
The reason we like this story is that it highlights recommenmdations that we make which you conveniently left out of your flawed analogy:
1) An IP address does not equal an individual so further research is needed once you have that IP address much like the police do further investigation once they have a plate number AND DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLE (which you don't get from an IP address).
2) The method of capturing the IP address should be subject to verification much like the defense counsel would vet how the plate number was obtained. Did it come from a witness reciting it from memory? Did someone take a picture? Was there a video camera and the plate came from a sceen grab? All questions that can enhance or detract from the quality of the identification. With the record companies, the process of capturing an IP adderss has never been vetted or reviewed. While it could be incredibly accurate, it could also be incredibly flawed. Developers make mistakes and bugs exist in code. It happens and we all know it. The record companies refusing to allow review show an unwillingness to stand behind their methods. Now, whether that's due to intent to defraud or they just don't want to run the risk that their methods are shown to be flaed is another question that will never get proven.
You've missed the point on big studios and WHY they continue to look at theater business as the success/fail indicator. It's so easy to see that I'm surprised you missed it...
They can't evaluate a movie on profit or loss because movies from the big studios never make a profit.
Of course, we all know how this will turn out. The investigation will result in something "bad" (arrest, loss of position, etc) for the Mayor. Immediately after, AT&T will put out a press release stating that "these were the actions of a renegade individual and at no time were made at the behest of an AT&T officer"
On the post: A Bunch Of RIAA Label Artists Endorse MegaUpload... As RIAA Insists It's A 'Rogue' Site
Re:
On the post: Why We Don't Need To 'Think Of The Artists': They're Doing Fine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most entertainment folks I hear speak on the issue are merely repeating the same debunked talking points over and over again. That tells me they're too busy cheating the public to bother researching the issue.
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re: Re: The International Trade Commission!!!
For example, let's say a new book by my son's favorite author is released tomorrow. According to current copyright law, that book is protected for the lifetime of the author plus 95 years. Now while I come from a family blessed with good health, I doubt my son will make it much past 110 years of age. Given that he's a teenager now, that means the book will be under copyright protection until after he's dead. Essentially, that book is under permanent copyright protection for his lifetime. How could that possibly promote the progress of science and the useful arts?
On the post: Security Researcher Shows That -- Despite Carrier IQ's Claims To The Contrary -- CarrierIQ Records Keystrokes
Carrier IQ press release translation...
On the post: Morality, Non-Zero Sum Games, Externalities & Why Someone Profiting Off Of Your Work Isn't A Bad Thing
Clothing analogy is flawed too
Let's say a fair market price compared to other retailers would be $100. Unfortunately, Gap has decided that the outfit should be sold as part of a collection and you have to buy the whole collection at a cost of $1200 to get the one outfit. Also, once you buy the collection, it can only be worn in the United States. If you leave the country, you cannot wear the outfit. Finally, you must remain the sole owner of the outfit until the day of it's destruction. You can't give it to a friend, you can't sell it on eBay, you can't sell it in a thrift or consignment shop and you can't donate it to charity.
Given all those conditions, if you saw the outfit on a rack labelled "free" at a tag sale, are you telling us you wouldn't pick it up? Somehow I doubt it.
On the post: SOPA Will Have Grave Effects On The Health Of Hundreds Of Thousands Of Americans
Re:
Got it.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill
Re:
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: illiteracy is a problem
See... it's all about creating jobs. Think of all the new positions this will create for the RIAA and MPAA what with the VP's, assistants, general lackeys, etc needed to run whole divisions just to reject new business ideas. It's a goldmine I tell ya!!!
/now where'd I put my sarc mark...
On the post: E-PARASITE's Sponsor, Lamar Smith, Was Against Massive Regulatory Compliance The Day Before He's For It
No it doesn't...
It only makes me wonder who wrote it for him...
On the post: TSA Decides Terrorists Must Be Driving; Partners With Tenn. Law Enforcement To Randomly Search Vehicles
Two comments...
2) I wonder if they have ever stopped to think about what the increased security has done. Rather than keeping a minimal profile which would encourage the bad actors to be lax in their discretion, they've ramped it up to 11 which naturally teaches people wishing to do harm to be more careful and thus much harder to detect.
Oh what am I saying... there's not a chance that #2 has even come close to forming a spark of a thought much less a full blown idea.
On the post: PayPal Freezes Diaspora's Account
Re:
On the post: Worst Kept Secret Now Confirmed: Government Was Very Involved Helping RIAA/MPAA Negotiate Six Strikes
Re: Surprise ?
I think you meant decades...
On the post: Confused Indian Anti-Piracy Group Asks Us To Remove Article It Doesn't Like From Some Other Blog
So wait a second...
/I'm so confused....
:-)
On the post: For All The Complaining About Chinese Counterfeits... China Is A Massive Growth Market For Luxury Goods
Re:
The problem with the brand holders (as well as the MAFIAA and their ilk) is that they're not understanding the wider impact of having their product be ubiquitous.
If it's considered normal for everyone to have a Prada bag, whether or not it's a knockoff, then NOT having one is actually harmful. Then it becomes a matter of wether or not you can afford a real one or have to settle for a "fake". Being able to get a genuine article improves your social status.
The flip side of aggressive enforcement is that only people that can have a genuine item have them. Unfortunately, that's a much smaller subset of the population which ends up giving the owners more of an negative elitist reputation than a positive role model one.
Consider cell phones. Today, a significant portion of the US population carry one. A large number of them allow people to check email, update social media status, etc, and are considered "average". But think back a few years before the iPhone and Android phones to when just BlackBerry was the choice. People with BlackBerry's were often looked down upon as someone who needed to "get a life" and "you don't need to be THAT connected". Now that the devices are everywhere, the pressure to upgrade on people that DON'T have smart phones is immense. Even the cell providers are making it difficult to stay data free. The last time I checked AT&T for new cell phones, every last one available for their monthly plans required a data connection.
So go ahead, push enforcement but be ready to fade into obscurity when you do.
On the post: Righthaven Desperately Trying To Avoid Paying Legal Fees
No winners
On the post: Bethesda Turns Down Quake Fight Over Scrolls Name; Takes Guaranteed Loss By Going To Court
Re: Re: Lay up...
On the post: Bethesda Turns Down Quake Fight Over Scrolls Name; Takes Guaranteed Loss By Going To Court
Lay up...
How about a nice game of chess?
On the post: Swedish Film Institute Learning That An IP Address Is Not A Person
Re: Re: Re:
The record companies don't bother determining guilt or innocence which is why they've sued dead people, grandmothers without computers and technologically inept people with their shotgun approach to litigation.
The reason we like this story is that it highlights recommenmdations that we make which you conveniently left out of your flawed analogy:
1) An IP address does not equal an individual so further research is needed once you have that IP address much like the police do further investigation once they have a plate number AND DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLE (which you don't get from an IP address).
2) The method of capturing the IP address should be subject to verification much like the defense counsel would vet how the plate number was obtained. Did it come from a witness reciting it from memory? Did someone take a picture? Was there a video camera and the plate came from a sceen grab? All questions that can enhance or detract from the quality of the identification. With the record companies, the process of capturing an IP adderss has never been vetted or reviewed. While it could be incredibly accurate, it could also be incredibly flawed. Developers make mistakes and bugs exist in code. It happens and we all know it. The record companies refusing to allow review show an unwillingness to stand behind their methods. Now, whether that's due to intent to defraud or they just don't want to run the risk that their methods are shown to be flaed is another question that will never get proven.
On the post: DirecTV Admits Almost No One Wants To Pay $30 To Watch A Movie At Home
Why studios use theater results...
They can't evaluate a movie on profit or loss because movies from the big studios never make a profit.
I mean really... DUH! :-)
On the post: Tallahassee Mayor Accused Of Being On AT&T's Payroll While Allegedly Diverting Federal Funds To AT&T Lobbying Group
Nothing will happen to AT&T though...
Next >>