If even the Dixie Chicks, back in the late 90s, when they were at their peak, were complaining about how they barely got paid for their records (And Dan Rather pointed out that their latest album had, in 3 months, sold millions), you KNOW the industry's crooked.
But, of course, you won't admit to that, now will ya?
How do you connect Copyright laws and having enough food for people together?
Seriously.
That's so out of left field that it doesn't make sense.
And the guy even stated, in the speech, that the public seldom makes nice distinctions, and that if the thought of having literary (or in our case, movie) works locked up with just a few rich people or in the homes of everyone, which one are they going to take?
"Nobody gave a flying fuck about copyright law until the internet arrived and tech decided to abuse it with parasitic business models."
I can disprove that right here, right now, you uneducated fool.
Thomas Macaulay, in 1841, went to the House of Commons, since you're uneducated, I'll inform you that it's the British version of the House of Representatives, and said this.
Remember, this was back in 1841, and at the time, Britain was debating if copyright should be extended to lifetime+50 years.
" I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
Wow, I've heard of people sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la, can't hear you" before, but damn if your response doesn't take the cake.
Not to mention the RIAA has employees go to restaurants and threaten the owners with lawsuits if they play any sort of copyrighted music (save for the radio, I believe) in their establishment.
"All it takes is 2 notes and we'll know."
And, yes, you can find proof of that online easily enough if you look.
On the post: Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, of course, you won't admit to that, now will ya?
On the post: Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
On the post: Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright matters to those who make their money from copyrighted items; others not so much.
That's the challenge in business.
You gotta keep customers loyal and wanting your product.
Which means, making it easier to get your product makes it easier to make money from people.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citizens care about food...
Which requires money...
Which requires jobs...
Many new jobs are in the tech industry...
Copyright is holding it back.
Therefore, I submit that copyright is keeping food off of the table for people.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Copyright matters to those who make their money from copyrighted items; others not so much.
Ever look at a newspaper and see advertisements there?
Sure, they paid the newspaper to get in there, but, they're still ads telling people what they got for sale.
Ever watch sports on local channels? See local businesses with commercials?
ALL businesses live or die by ad revenue, that is, the revenue that advertising brings in.
It's just, now-a-days, you don't have to pay as much as before.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously.
That's so out of left field that it doesn't make sense.
And the guy even stated, in the speech, that the public seldom makes nice distinctions, and that if the thought of having literary (or in our case, movie) works locked up with just a few rich people or in the homes of everyone, which one are they going to take?
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_%28Macaulay%29
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re:
I can disprove that right here, right now, you uneducated fool.
Thomas Macaulay, in 1841, went to the House of Commons, since you're uneducated, I'll inform you that it's the British version of the House of Representatives, and said this.
Remember, this was back in 1841, and at the time, Britain was debating if copyright should be extended to lifetime+50 years.
" I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
On the post: $100 Million Pledged To Indie Film On Kickstarter... And 8,000 Films Made
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: $100 Million Pledged To Indie Film On Kickstarter... And 8,000 Films Made
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"All it takes is 2 notes and we'll know."
And, yes, you can find proof of that online easily enough if you look.
On the post: $100 Million Pledged To Indie Film On Kickstarter... And 8,000 Films Made
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and just so you know, only ALBUM sales are down.
The rest of the music industry is up.
The only reason that album sales are down is...
Because people are buying singles instead of entire albums.
Keep shooting your mouth off, it's fun to debunk you.
On the post: $100 Million Pledged To Indie Film On Kickstarter... And 8,000 Films Made
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: $100 Million Pledged To Indie Film On Kickstarter... And 8,000 Films Made
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where can I buy an English version of that?
What's that? It doesn't exist?
You were saying about not having a legal way to buy?
On the post: $100 Million Pledged To Indie Film On Kickstarter... And 8,000 Films Made
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell me where I can buy Battle Moon Wars in English then.
Go on, find me a website that sells Battle Moon Wars in English and I'll believe you.
Or Magical Battle Arena.
Or how about finding me a way to legally buy Familiar of Zero Seasons 1-4 without paying 140 bucks each season. Also, they must have English dub.
What's that? The license on Familiar of Zero has expired, so I can't legally buy it anymore?
Well, would you LOOK AT THAT?!
On the post: $100 Million Pledged To Indie Film On Kickstarter... And 8,000 Films Made
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Piracy is such a problem for Copyright Apologists such as yourself...
Then how come music and movies have made more in the past year than the years before the internet came into being?
On the post: Dad Hires Digital Assassins To Murder His Son (Digitally)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Want some, real cheap.
Only down side is, this house I live in gets pretty cold.
On the post: Sony Patent Application Takes On Used Game Sales, Piracy With Embedded RFID Chips In Game Discs
PSP Go
GameStop laughed and sold it in store anyway.
We all know how THAT turned out.
Next >>