The linked article is from Groklaw, and not all information came from a Seattle newspaper, as you would have discovered if you read beyond line three...
"If there was a better business model for entertainment it would have been tried long ago."
I'm sure other things were tried before copyright came along in 1700. Plus, the internet as we know it didn't exist a mere 15 years ago -- this is the disruptive thing that is raining on your parade of spectres, and trying to legislate around it is like trying to legislate around the elephant in the room.
"You're now seeing what the entertainment industry's model is going to be in this millennium: further expansion in the digital realm and long overdue enforcement of their rights in the digital realm. No amount of complaining here or anywhere else is going to change that."
Whatever. You won't have my rights without a fight, nor those of my children, or my children's children. When the blood money you get from this whole deal runs out, your children's children will be in the same boat as the rest of us, so well done.
Bittersweet symphony is one of the songs they play. 4-chord progression can probably be traced to Pachebel's Canon in D, and from there to songs that no longer survive.
"And I don't need a talentless content junkie like yourself to explain art to me, thanks."
I'm not a pirate, not a content junkie, sorry. Talentless? You know me so well.
"If you're too dense to understand the difference between being influenced by something and taking something essentially whole cloth, then that's your problem, not mine."
Mike understands it, and I understand it. He even says he supports 'piracy' like in the videos (sampling, therefore not fair use, mind you; "creative infringement" in your terminology), but doesn't support unauthorized wholesale content copying.
However, as far as I'm concerned the distinction is generally rather pointless, since my problem is with the ever-more cruel copyright enforcement attempts that increasingly limit people's rights.
Did Mike's point totally fly over your head? Hmm, yes.
What you brand as 'piracy' has been around since time immemorial. It has always been the norm. The natural order. Ideas in all shapes and forms have always been copied and shared. Always. It's a natural phenomenon.
You don't need apologists for natural phenomena. You DO need apologists for laws that try to outlaw natural phenomena.
Therefore YOU are the apologist here.
YOU and your fellow trollmates are the morally bankrupt idiots who twist the law in ways that would make the founding fathers cringe. What's worse, you don't seem to realise you are acting like religious extremists, willing to bomb free speech and privacy in the name of your copyright god.
And then you come here and complain about "censorship" of your deliberately provocatory comments, just because your trolling got hidden.
Re: Re: You don't want to be considered a piracy supporter? Condemn some sites.
Hold on, aren't you the ones hiding behind words like "property" and "rights" to describe monopolies that limit people's rights? Aren't you the ones exploiting "bugs" in the law to justify internet censorship and Orwell-level surveillance, while pretending that's exactly what the constitution intended? Aren't you the ones who pretend copyright is about "artists" and patents about "inventors", to hijack the legal process and pass protectionist laws on behalf of a bunch of anti-competitive corporations? Aren't you really not the defenders of justice that you claim to be, but a bunch of lawyers with massive conflicts of interest on these issues?
You are the ones spinning lies and hiding behind "good". You are the ones killing free speech and privacy. You are the ones corrupting the system. You are public enemy number fucking one, whether you tossers like it or not.
Mike, you are no more a pirate supporter than Larry Lessig is.
You hold the same core beliefs, but your difference is, you usually argue your case from the POV of an economist/pragmatist, while his arguments are often more philosophical/idealistic.
I'm worried that 'inactive' copyrights that the labels think are unprofitable to enforce will be given to artist estates. Artist estates are some of the biggest copyright trolls around, and they may start squeezing their monopolies for everything they're worth, basically by suing everyone the labels weren't bothering to sue.
Well, it's certainly a lot better than the last bittorrent release I watched, but I generally don't watch much TV so my frame of reference is somewhat limited.
Gee, I'd have thought a money up-front business model was more like ransom...
At least this way you get a taste of what you're paying for before you part with your money, and after all parts are released the content is free for anyone to enjoy without restriction.
The guy is spot on. As was mentioned before on TD, his predictions about TPB setting up an alternative DNS are already coming true, except they are doing it as a distributed (i.e. more resilient) system with no centralised servers.
Even name recognition is scarce, as it is intrinsically tied to the business.
Goodwill goes on the balance sheet, but it's more a characteristic of a business than an asset, and there's no way goodwill can be 'enforced' on the public.
On the post: Microsoft Wants To Make It Illegal To Buy From An Overseas Company That Uses Unauthorized Software
Re:
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure other things were tried before copyright came along in 1700. Plus, the internet as we know it didn't exist a mere 15 years ago -- this is the disruptive thing that is raining on your parade of spectres, and trying to legislate around it is like trying to legislate around the elephant in the room.
"You're now seeing what the entertainment industry's model is going to be in this millennium: further expansion in the digital realm and long overdue enforcement of their rights in the digital realm. No amount of complaining here or anywhere else is going to change that."
Whatever. You won't have my rights without a fight, nor those of my children, or my children's children. When the blood money you get from this whole deal runs out, your children's children will be in the same boat as the rest of us, so well done.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bittersweet symphony is one of the songs they play. 4-chord progression can probably be traced to Pachebel's Canon in D, and from there to songs that no longer survive.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never said you did, Einstein.
"And I don't need a talentless content junkie like yourself to explain art to me, thanks."
I'm not a pirate, not a content junkie, sorry. Talentless? You know me so well.
"If you're too dense to understand the difference between being influenced by something and taking something essentially whole cloth, then that's your problem, not mine."
Mike understands it, and I understand it. He even says he supports 'piracy' like in the videos (sampling, therefore not fair use, mind you; "creative infringement" in your terminology), but doesn't support unauthorized wholesale content copying.
However, as far as I'm concerned the distinction is generally rather pointless, since my problem is with the ever-more cruel copyright enforcement attempts that increasingly limit people's rights.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re:
What you brand as 'piracy' has been around since time immemorial. It has always been the norm. The natural order. Ideas in all shapes and forms have always been copied and shared. Always. It's a natural phenomenon.
You don't need apologists for natural phenomena. You DO need apologists for laws that try to outlaw natural phenomena.
Therefore YOU are the apologist here.
YOU and your fellow trollmates are the morally bankrupt idiots who twist the law in ways that would make the founding fathers cringe. What's worse, you don't seem to realise you are acting like religious extremists, willing to bomb free speech and privacy in the name of your copyright god.
And then you come here and complain about "censorship" of your deliberately provocatory comments, just because your trolling got hidden.
You assholes make me sick.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: I support this.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: You don't want to be considered a piracy supporter? Condemn some sites.
You are the ones spinning lies and hiding behind "good". You are the ones killing free speech and privacy. You are the ones corrupting the system. You are public enemy number fucking one, whether you tossers like it or not.
FFS.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re:
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
You hold the same core beliefs, but your difference is, you usually argue your case from the POV of an economist/pragmatist, while his arguments are often more philosophical/idealistic.
On the post: Forget Infringement, Major Labels Should Be Worrying About Having To Pay Much Higher Royalties On Downloads
Re: The Labels are Toast!
I'm worried that 'inactive' copyrights that the labels think are unprofitable to enforce will be given to artist estates. Artist estates are some of the biggest copyright trolls around, and they may start squeezing their monopolies for everything they're worth, basically by suing everyone the labels weren't bothering to sue.
On the post: New Movie, Zenith, Distributed In Segments Via BitTorrent; Funding Needed To Release Next Segment
Re: Re:
On the post: New Movie, Zenith, Distributed In Segments Via BitTorrent; Funding Needed To Release Next Segment
On the post: New Movie, Zenith, Distributed In Segments Via BitTorrent; Funding Needed To Release Next Segment
Re:
At least this way you get a taste of what you're paying for before you part with your money, and after all parts are released the content is free for anyone to enjoy without restriction.
On the post: Paul Vixie Explains Why COICA Is A Really Dumb Idea
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Arguably, the only reason they have to keep up their existing "business" is to make easy money from their father's greatness.
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Goodwill goes on the balance sheet, but it's more a characteristic of a business than an asset, and there's no way goodwill can be 'enforced' on the public.
Next >>