Yeah, we're self entitled because we request protection from people illegally accessing our creations without permission.
If you want protection, stop streaming it on TV, the internet, or anywhere else. If you can't compete, stop trying. If you can compete, make a better product than what pirates can offer. Why is that so hard to understand?
Your statements make no sense. Piracy is competition. And if you haven't been paying attention, it's a service issue. One that Game developers have figured out pretty well to make money.
You're not fooling one single person.
I don't have to condone piracy to tell you that the benefits of sharing movies, music, and games far exceed the enforcement of a copyright that's more or less trying to break a site on an accusation.
You might want to stop with the misleading statements. Try again, kiddo.
And why is the public not seeing any benefit from this copyright fight? You know, the ones most affected by being considered guilty of a felony before a judicial response?
Why do you ignore that it is independent artists and workers that have been hurt the most by piracy?
The people that are making the most money right now are the ones using the internet in new ways besides as a large TV.
No one's ignored anything about indie artists and workers, but it seems you've ignored the other industries that have been built around more lax rules of copyright instead of strict enforcement. You have the proliferation of gamers who can make a living through Youtube and reviewing or playing games. You have a ton of artists on Youtube that would have no TV appeal, but make their music (and livings) based on alternative models. So who is ignoring the bigger picture here?
. People giving up, small businesses closing, art, creativity and innovation being suffocated by the inability to make a decent wage.
Last I checked, Viacom was doing quite well BEFORE they point a finger at Justin TV to accuse it of being pirated content. Further, where are the industry's attempts at curbing piracy without government interference? Where are their answers to different streaming services, Bittorrent, and making new business models that don't rely only on TV?
When the industry can create that, then we'll talk. Until then, the ploy for sympathy needs to be checked at the door.
I don't think anyone is expecting Google to talk for the entire tech community at the meeting. The fact is, the ones that represented the public were denied access to give that public notion.
The problem with attacking Wikileaks is that it undermines other sites. The Wikileaks example shows how the US uses dubious means to starve out access to legitimate information. What rules did WL break in showing cables about the MPAA being in bed with the government? What rules did the government break by forcing American processors to discontinue service?
While they can support legislation, the fact remains they don't want to see the safe harbors destroyed the same as all of the other companies you mention. So how is anyone being duped when we know they don't represent all of the very valid concerns of the tech industry?
Taking a stroll down the internet, the shills are all over the place... It's amazing how many have new accounts made just today to flood the comments of newspapers to say this is a great bill that is not misleading at all.
I understand WHY Google threw Wikileaks under the bus, but IMO, that harms their position. Now, they're being viewed as a gatekeeper that can help discourage piracy, when all they do is tell others "here's the answer to your problem".
They should have asked why Wikileaks' publishing was worth the "experience" of trying to take down their website or take away the support of American businesses. Also, I do wish someone could have brought up how Bradley Manning is STILL locked up without charges filed and made the comparison accurate. There is not real sense of justice in these proceedings. All there is, a ton of punitive damages against actions that can be thought of as likely piracy. Further, very few people brought up the judicial side of this argument and why everyone needed to treat piracy as a criminal act.
Finally, when I could get around to watching this, I saw it when a Congressional staffer brought up an insane hypothetical:
If you have a site trafficking in child pornography but has a copy of the King James Bible on it, does that entail speech concerns when most of the site is infringing?
I had to seriously think... Could one of our Congresscritters be so out of touch as to not figure out that taking down the website does not lock up the people, nor help the child?
All in all, it seemed more and more that the main sponsors of the bill were the ones most out of touch. They had misleading questions and truly stacked the deck to try to pin this all on Google. And just to add to this, I'm seeing the results on other blogs where supporters are creating new accounts to try to support SOPA. One account that got me was Joel Bergvall who says the bill was misleading.
You have to wonder, do any naysayers read the bill or do they just come up with this as they take the money for supporting it? I can't see much good coming out of both SOPA and the DMCA. The best we could do is get rid of both, leave the safe harbors and fair use and retract on PRO-IP, the NET Act, and reset copyright so it doesn't impugn so much on innocent sites and people.
Re: Re: Re: Answer to "Why should the tech community..."
Because the "tech community" /relies/ on users that they don't produce. If you don't /attract consumers/ for the production of content, then you /don't/ get to use it to make money.
FTFY
Umm, no. That's not what I'm saying. Once again: copyright is not in the constitution. The ability to create it is. So yes, I support the constitutionally sanctioned ability of congress to create copyright law - I also believe that they have done it badly, and I do NOT support these proposed extensions of it. Why are you having so much trouble understanding this?
Let's expand on this a bit. The Constitution allows Congress to create laws that allow for advancement of the arts and sciences. In other words, they can permit laws that allow for copyright, so long as it benefits knowledge and learning.
By all of the complex laws and proceedings of SOPA and Protect IP, they do not benefit knowledge and learning at all. Rather, they all take away any benefits of DNSSEC, the internet as a whole, the financial payment services provided by Mastercard and Visa, and mislead the public about what they already feel is not in their best interests.
Felonizing innocent people is not progressing the arts and sciences.
Neither is suing them into oblivion for using a clip of a movie.
So what the Copyright clause is about is how to allow others to use material and any monetary benefits of enforcement are weighed against advancement of knowledge. 1st Amendment concerns trump the monetary concerns. That's what people have constantly pointed out.
Why would it be "even"? Those companies are not using the internet to profit from anyone else's work, they aren't pirating anything.
They ARE profiting from someone else's work. Becky Meir is an editor for Basketball wives which you can watch on VH1 for free. She's profiting from someone else's story. Where's the takedown of VH1 for profiting off other people?
The problem starts and ends with people being clueless about how to compete against piracy.
There is no indication, none at all, that these sites would be at risk, especially not if they take reasonable steps to keep their sites legal.
Actually, there is. The UFC has been trying to litigate against Justin.tv for streams for a while now. They've been very aggressive in IP enforcement and would use this legislation as soon as it's feasible.
$6.3 BILLION dollars is not chump change. Yet the music industry is competing against the movie and the gaming industry for the larger amounts. With all the money being made, what the hell do you have to bitch about?
On the post: And Now... Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Posts (i.e., Not Just SOPA)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where is the reference
On the post: Thoughts On The House Judiciary Committee's Hearings On SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want protection, stop streaming it on TV, the internet, or anywhere else. If you can't compete, stop trying. If you can compete, make a better product than what pirates can offer. Why is that so hard to understand?
On the post: More And More People Speak Up Against SOPA
Re: I did..this is the response I got.....
On the post: More And More People Speak Up Against SOPA
Re:
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/pipa_house/
Look at where the letter is, write your own, and also put in your country.
On the post: Thoughts On The House Judiciary Committee's Hearings On SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your statements make no sense. Piracy is competition. And if you haven't been paying attention, it's a service issue. One that Game developers have figured out pretty well to make money.
You're not fooling one single person.
I don't have to condone piracy to tell you that the benefits of sharing movies, music, and games far exceed the enforcement of a copyright that's more or less trying to break a site on an accusation.
You might want to stop with the misleading statements. Try again, kiddo.
On the post: Thoughts On The House Judiciary Committee's Hearings On SOPA
Re: Wrong again, Mike: "J. Edgar" site:thepiratebay.org
On the post: Thoughts On The House Judiciary Committee's Hearings On SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Thoughts On The House Judiciary Committee's Hearings On SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
The people that are making the most money right now are the ones using the internet in new ways besides as a large TV.
No one's ignored anything about indie artists and workers, but it seems you've ignored the other industries that have been built around more lax rules of copyright instead of strict enforcement. You have the proliferation of gamers who can make a living through Youtube and reviewing or playing games. You have a ton of artists on Youtube that would have no TV appeal, but make their music (and livings) based on alternative models. So who is ignoring the bigger picture here?
. People giving up, small businesses closing, art, creativity and innovation being suffocated by the inability to make a decent wage.
Last I checked, Viacom was doing quite well BEFORE they point a finger at Justin TV to accuse it of being pirated content. Further, where are the industry's attempts at curbing piracy without government interference? Where are their answers to different streaming services, Bittorrent, and making new business models that don't rely only on TV?
When the industry can create that, then we'll talk. Until then, the ploy for sympathy needs to be checked at the door.
On the post: Thoughts On The House Judiciary Committee's Hearings On SOPA
Re:
The problem with attacking Wikileaks is that it undermines other sites. The Wikileaks example shows how the US uses dubious means to starve out access to legitimate information. What rules did WL break in showing cables about the MPAA being in bed with the government? What rules did the government break by forcing American processors to discontinue service?
While they can support legislation, the fact remains they don't want to see the safe harbors destroyed the same as all of the other companies you mention. So how is anyone being duped when we know they don't represent all of the very valid concerns of the tech industry?
On the post: Does Congress Really Want To Give China & Other Oppressive Regimes A Blueprint For Internet Censorship?
Re:
On the post: Thoughts On The House Judiciary Committee's Hearings On SOPA
Some other remarks
They should have asked why Wikileaks' publishing was worth the "experience" of trying to take down their website or take away the support of American businesses. Also, I do wish someone could have brought up how Bradley Manning is STILL locked up without charges filed and made the comparison accurate. There is not real sense of justice in these proceedings. All there is, a ton of punitive damages against actions that can be thought of as likely piracy. Further, very few people brought up the judicial side of this argument and why everyone needed to treat piracy as a criminal act.
Finally, when I could get around to watching this, I saw it when a Congressional staffer brought up an insane hypothetical:
If you have a site trafficking in child pornography but has a copy of the King James Bible on it, does that entail speech concerns when most of the site is infringing?
I had to seriously think... Could one of our Congresscritters be so out of touch as to not figure out that taking down the website does not lock up the people, nor help the child?
All in all, it seemed more and more that the main sponsors of the bill were the ones most out of touch. They had misleading questions and truly stacked the deck to try to pin this all on Google. And just to add to this, I'm seeing the results on other blogs where supporters are creating new accounts to try to support SOPA. One account that got me was Joel Bergvall who says the bill was misleading.
You have to wonder, do any naysayers read the bill or do they just come up with this as they take the money for supporting it? I can't see much good coming out of both SOPA and the DMCA. The best we could do is get rid of both, leave the safe harbors and fair use and retract on PRO-IP, the NET Act, and reset copyright so it doesn't impugn so much on innocent sites and people.
On the post: New Study From Booz & Co. Shows That SOPA/PROTECT IP Will Chill Investment In Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Answer to "Why should the tech community..."
Because the "tech community" /relies/ on users that they don't produce. If you don't /attract consumers/ for the production of content, then you /don't/ get to use it to make money.
FTFY
On the post: Yes, SOPA Breaks The Internet: By Breaking The Belief In Trust And Sharing That Is The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Values
Let's expand on this a bit. The Constitution allows Congress to create laws that allow for advancement of the arts and sciences. In other words, they can permit laws that allow for copyright, so long as it benefits knowledge and learning.
By all of the complex laws and proceedings of SOPA and Protect IP, they do not benefit knowledge and learning at all. Rather, they all take away any benefits of DNSSEC, the internet as a whole, the financial payment services provided by Mastercard and Visa, and mislead the public about what they already feel is not in their best interests.
Felonizing innocent people is not progressing the arts and sciences.
Neither is suing them into oblivion for using a clip of a movie.
So what the Copyright clause is about is how to allow others to use material and any monetary benefits of enforcement are weighed against advancement of knowledge. 1st Amendment concerns trump the monetary concerns. That's what people have constantly pointed out.
On the post: A Question For SOPA Supporters: How Will You Gauge SOPA's Success?
Re: Just a guess...
These are the people that think music DJs are thieves....
These are the people that believe anything that is not under their control is to be destroyed...
The internet usurps their control. So guess what will be the target of their misguided principles?
On the post: Yes, SOPA Breaks The Internet: By Breaking The Belief In Trust And Sharing That Is The Internet
Re: YOU CAN'T TRUST PIRATES. They've broken the social contract!
On the post: A Look At The Testimony Given At Today's SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings... With A Surprise From MasterCard
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They ARE profiting from someone else's work. Becky Meir is an editor for Basketball wives which you can watch on VH1 for free. She's profiting from someone else's story. Where's the takedown of VH1 for profiting off other people?
The problem starts and ends with people being clueless about how to compete against piracy.
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Denies That Its SOPA Hearing Is Stacked In Any Way
Re: Re: Re: Re: Live Stream of the Hearing
On the post: SOPA/PROTECT IP Would Be Hideously Bad For Video Gamers
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, there is. The UFC has been trying to litigate against Justin.tv for streams for a while now. They've been very aggressive in IP enforcement and would use this legislation as soon as it's feasible.
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Denies That Its SOPA Hearing Is Stacked In Any Way
Re: Re: Live Stream of the Hearing
On the post: Over 100 Lawyers, Law Professors & Practitioners Come Out Against SOPA
Re: Re: Role of Government
Music sales up 7%
$6.3 BILLION dollars is not chump change. Yet the music industry is competing against the movie and the gaming industry for the larger amounts. With all the money being made, what the hell do you have to bitch about?
Next >>