Actually, that's what happens in Russia to minimize raid damage. You'll have groups band together in LLCs. When one part of it is raided by cops, there's nothing the cops can do to get the other businesses attached. All of this relates to piracy raids that our AC friend believes litigation will stop. I've yet to see him really advocate a good plan from SOPA.
Jay consider the impact of pirate site losing access to Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Paypal, etc in one fell swoop.
Congratulations, you've given every incentive for every other country to make an alternative service that does not cater to the US based service requirement of US law. That's the very definition of short sighted. Do you really believe that after a year of the takedowns, this law is going to make a dent in piracy?
You must be pretty adept at selling sand to a man in the desert.
How many of the millions of people who use those processors to pay for infringing material will migrate to alternates?
You don't get it... The system will route around the damage caused by this. Why do you think Adobe is discontinuing flash support? Why do you think people stopped using Netscape back in the day? Why do you think people won't find legal alternatives to what SOPA will do? This is anathema to what you're even hoping to accomplish. It's not going to stop piracy, it's going to make those services weaker and it just enforces the idea of newer alternatives into the market. Sure, you get a few people. But are you going to arrest them all, bring them to the US at great expense, and jail them for being dirty pirates? You're going to make it so that those people will look at SOPA, find newer ways to make money, and say "to hell with US law" in the interim.
And finally, how long do you think it will take to pressure foreign governments to seize payment processors that exist for the purpose of promoting unlawful activity?
And how many more will pop up that are less legitimate? You seem to have this idea in your head that every person this legislation is some criminal mastermind automatically. I find that an amazingly limited viewpoint. Litigation won't help your cause. It won't make the RIAA or the MPAA more money, and they'll be bleeding. While they're having the US government fight for them domestically, they'll be trying to make piracy more difficult abroad but all they're doing is entrenching themselves in a weaker position. How long until people find and make the workarounds to the DNS hacks that this instills on the system? How long until new payment processors spring to the fore? How long until people in Europe and Asia refuse these American processors and use the ones made in their country? It's like you're instituting a virus into the system, but the antibodies that are produced will make it stronger and more resistant to the litigious route.
You should read up on international banking law Jay.
Funny, alternatives are appearing and you seem to think that all of them will be centered around a singular distribution model (ie bank-bank). That's not the case. Odds are, people are going to make workarounds, which won't be affected by this bill. You can't really take away the Flatr option, and this will only spur the creation of more anonymized ways to make money.
MAybe Bitcoin will be your savior
You seem to love that idea, and yet you continue to ignore other options. Fascinating...
First, it's usually the users, not the "platform", that is responsible for the infringement. Second, though you're free to choice how to market your work, you're also free to fail--and failing to follow the market usually ends in failure. Third, the labels have been making copyright claims against music that they do NOT own the copyright to as an excuse to take down services that work with independent artist. These kinds of shake downs will only intensify if SOPA is passed because they will suffer no consequences for abusing the law--they wrote the law to ensure it. Of course, you probably can't see why they would fight to shutdown non-infringing competitors
Thank you for bringing this up. This is a huge reminder of what's at stake and why Silicon Valley is so riled up.
I can name a ton of legal sites that people use to find new music.
This is just a small sample. Through just THESE FOUR SITES, you can find music that is not in the ploy of the RIAA. On a basic level, Grooveshark is the new Napster but it's been vindicated. However, look at the other two sites.
What SOPA will do, that no one else notices is make these places liable for infringement. If there's one comment that's out of place, if ONE song is RIAA inspired, then it's liable that all funding could be cut to these sites. On a mere accusation. This is why it's so problematic. We don't know what kind of requirements the AG has to do under SEC. 102 to fulfill. It might be a letter in the mail dated two weeks after a raid occurs and the site is taken down.
Spotify is in even more danger. It can be termed a foreign rogue website at the drop of the hat. People KNOW that the RIAA are greedy and would kill this golden goose and roast it as soon as possible. Under SOPA, it has NO protection.
SEC. 102, 107. 201 ensure it. 102 allows an automatic action through (b)(2). 107 requires a report to Congress with little solicitation from the public, and 201 says that streaming is a felony.
How would Spotify be able to defend itself if SOPA is passed?
Note: You're going to make Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and any other US based payment processors very weak and irrelevant.
I won't be too surprised that a lot of websites will pull their money from these services and find a number of route arounds to it. I can see that a TON of people would be more than willing to give up Paypal if given half a chance. This is going to make that choice 10x easier.
Why is this a problem of copyright? If they choose to release their music into the wild (ie, grant an unlimited license) then so be it. That doesn't preclude the other side from doing business their way. You seem to think that you have only one right answer, and the other side is not allowed to follow their desires within the law.
Because one side is trying to control platforms. That's always been the case. You can have more artists who want to license content to Napster but since ONE RIAA artist is on there, the system has to be taken down.
How many artists license content to the Pirate Bay? How would you be able to tell? And yet, BREIN or the MPAA vilify that search engine for their own purposes instead of using them. That's the issue at stake. We talk all the time about how the trade industry is trying to control the internet. This is the problem that they want to solve: Get all platforms to instill them as the gatekeeper.
. What they are trying to work against is "platforms" that are used to make the above choice for them, forcing them to have to do business the "new" way (or not at all) because someone else decides it for them. Artists can have all the platforms they like (and I am sure there will be some great legal sites out there), but they need to stop forcing everyone to do business their way (aka, piracy is good, okay?)
That's called reality. It's knocking on their doorstep. They can no longer sustain their old business model. The same as Henry Ford's production line is no longer viable in the 1930's to the present. The only constant in this world is change. When a business is outdated, it NEEDS to update, not be slogged down by CEO bonuses (Viacom), or the problems of being a mini-monopoly (regionalization, windowing, etc.)
piracy today is exponentially a bigger problem than it was 15 years ago - and that is all internet, anonymous, and so on.
You seem to be rather confused since even the author has admitted it's not a big issue. Check out number 5 again. Also, it's ironic that you seem to criticize anonymity on the internet when you are using the AC moniker.
If the content sucks, or the marketing sucks or whatever, and you can put out a better product, you will drive them out of business. If you can't do that, then your entire business model was hinged on piracy, and that doesn't work.
Hence why people opt for Jamendo, dmusic.com, and Youtube over buying music. Hence why I like Vevo.com and movies such as Rosa that are great little short stories. Hence, why I like to fund Kickstarter projects and put up new stuff that has NOTHING to do with the MPAA or the RIAA and their stuff. I can sure bet if you'd stop being pedantic, look around the internet on some of these sites, you'd find that people have found alternatives while you're throwing out ad homs. There's nothing saying that I'm embracing piracy by saying that there's a way to compete against it.
The evidence that piracy is helping to create more goods far outweighs the evidence that enforcement is creating more stuff. So take that as you will. I'm sure the next exchange is going to be yet another complaint about how piracy is killing the arts. I've yet to find any information is supporting that so try if you can.
SOPA on the other hand would at least make it impossible for that site to be seen directly in the US. A small victory, perhaps, but a step in the right direction.
Which continues to make no sense. Why should we export US copyright law to another sovereign nation?
No, DMCA works only if the copyright holder actively searches and complains - and even then, they get no other satisfaction than seeing the content removed that might have been up for years.
You mean botnet and bully? The process for a DMCA takedown usually doesn't have human intervention.
The internet archive, like other sites, will have to deal with what is and what is not legal in the US - it's the nature of the game.
I have a hard time figuring out why the Internet Archive has been such a target...
The artists are using, remarkably, the rules of the road of the copyright system to sell their music online. They are granting a more open license much of the time, but it comes to the same thing - they are operating within the system.
Misleading statement about copyright. Copyright is given automatically. However, you can't say everyone is using copyright to make money. Copyright has no meaning unless you enforce it. Something which a lot of artists are anathema to do. In essence, copyright is a retroactive law to punish for infringements. But there are far more artists willing to release music "into the wild" and make fans through that, than there are copyright enforcers trying to take away platforms that help artists gain independence.
Those who choose to give it away also do so "within the system", because even a creative commons license is just a way of expressing rights that exist under copyright.
And even Lessig has stated the fact that if copyright weren't such a hassle to let go of, more people would be able to do so. If we could go back to the 1907 standard, it may do us a lot better than what we currently have.
Coyright is pretty much the natural state of affairs, it offers a framework under which the artists (or their rights holders) can choose to operate in many different ways. Key is that the big labels can operate one way, and the indies can operate another way, and both ways are acceptable within the copyright system.
No it's not... Bolivia hasn't had copyright in 20 years. Our copyright system hinges on the Berne Convention of so long ago, and it's only been ratcheted up since then. We don't NEED copyright to progress knowledge and learning and it's becoming more apparent that copyright is more a hinderance to the system than a benefit.
I think that piracy today more signifies opportunity combined with technology and anonymous traits of the "current" internet coming together to embolden an entire generation that otherwise would never steal, shoplift, or make off with anything without permission.
No, piracy fears have been around since the 70s and will continue far after the fight for SOPA, ACTA, NET, PRO-IP, and all the other fights against the public.
It's not a market failure, that is a red herring.
*rolls eyes* Piracy. Serious Business...
Most piracy doesn't involve what is not available, it involves what is available, but at a price - and a whole generation has learned to not pay the price, and not to feel guilty about it.
Then why does the manga industry continue to grow and make new audiences able to translate Japanese and Korean?
Why does Valve's business model disagree with your statement?
Why is it that everytime anyone shows you that piracy is a market failure such as windowing, regionalization, or bad marketing, you continue to beat the drum of piracy instead of looking at reality? People have choices to pay reasonable amounts for products. But the industry seems to think that if they lower the price, they lower sales. Price isn't perfectly elastic as the industry wants. It's what the consumer wants. I highly doubt most in the movie or music industry have run experiments to find out where consumer demands lie. They just believe they're entitled to people's money for the same products. Have they tried different bundled packages? A pay what you want model (like Napster used to be)? Streaming services? Bittorrent services? Incentivized downloading? Rebates?
No? Then how can you continue to say that piracy is the problem when it's the industry's own fault?
Copyright is actually a pretty nature state of affairs, where we as a people have come to a system that allows our artists, musicians, and such to actually do that sort of work, and allow the people to provide small payments that become meaningful when combined - basically paying the artists to keep being artists.
... What you're describing is a serfdom. Why can't artists do that for themselves with the newer tools the internet provides?
The only other system tried in the last 1000 years or so of human history was the patronage system, where wealthy people directed the great artists of the day to amuse them. That was a great period where the masses didn't get much in the way of benefit at all.
I'm sorry? There were some benefits to the masses such as the Great Cathedral by Michelangelo, the concerts of Mozart, or even Shakespeare's plays. We don't even need a patronage system nowadays because artists have more tools through the internet than copyright. So... What exactly is the problem with piracy that has so many people riled up?
What piracy seems to signify is a market failure. There's demand that is not being met and countless studies have supported this view. So why is piracy to be stamped down when it exemplifies an industry problem to give out legal alternatives?
The daughter being beaten is NOT relevant anymore! I'm sorry for the girl. The family needs counseling. The Judge is an ASS! But for the love of all that's holy, STOP posting it as if that's going to make this any better for the family!
It's an emotionally charged story and no one disagrees that the father doesn't have a karmic punch in the nuts coming. You don't need to post it in every thread to take away people's feelings about the injustice of it.
We all know this! We know that our laws are beholden to the copyright owners. We know that artists get worse than the Montreal Screw Job on a weekly basis based on contractual agreements. We know that shills come on this site to talk down copyright issues because they're paid to do so.
We're working to fix this travesty at any chance. But we can't move forward if every five minutes we're talking about how Adams is the worst kind of person in the world!
But as has been discussed here often, the long tail (those works at the end of their copyright lives) are not exactly being held from a huge, waiting public. There isn't some sort of lineup at the public library or near printing presses to suddenly start turning out a work the minute it goes into the public domain. The fact that there are millions upon millions of works already in the public domain getting ignored sort of shows what happens to those works.
Last I checked, Ernest Hemingway's books can't benefit the public domain. Neither can classical music that should be within the PD. So the question remains, if you have to jump through legal hoops to exercise rights and build new businesses, what's the point?
If a copyright holder maintains the work, and continues to work to publish it, make it available, perhaps even update it and keep it relevant, that has to be at least as good as a work sliding into that abyss and being solidly ignored.
But the case remains that a LOT of work is left in disarray when it could do the world some good to be released. Charlie Chaplin's silent works are just one example.
As for "harsher", actually we are in a time where the laws of copyright are the least harsh that they have been in centuries.
HAHAHA! "We're only going to bankrupt you for two acts of copyright infringement." Good one.
DMCA safe harbors, fair use, and other situations in the US have chipped away at copyright from a legal standpoint, and also from a moral one. Changes to the law upcoming (SOPA / Protect IP) are there only to try to re-assert a balance that has been lost in the internet era. The laws aren't harsher, as much as the abusers are more blantant, more militant, and seemingly deaf to the "greater good" arguments made in law.
SOPA is like finding a needle in a haystack in a barn with a blowtorch. You probably won't find the needle, you might burn down the barn, and you most certainly won't be able to get anywhere near the mess you've caused from the burning.
Then you go to blame this on the "abusers?" The people that are charged over $1 million dollars in a copyright case or companies that aggregate torrents for legal media? These are the companies that are militant about copyright in having a hearing BEFORE anything is taken through SOPA, or not funding an army of YES COPYRIGHT government workers to other countries? What are you paying attention to?
The question is, how does the public take away or remove copyright if there's no benefit to the public at all? How can the public fight back if they don't even know (in general) what they've lost?
Sure, I can send in a letter to my Congressman and have done so. But the problem is, I have no one that represents me in Congress. Yes, Wyden, Issa, Lofgren and even Bachmann seem to get it. But they're facing an uphill battle on what's supposed to be fairly obvious.
We hear all this talk about "rights holders" who don't happen to be artists or creators in any shape or form. Where are the ones that CREATE supposed to be in the new copyright regime? Where are the ones that copyright is supposed to benefit, such as artists, their fans, and the ones that can help finance the next project without censorship?
The rules on the internet shouldn't be different, but because of DMCA safe harbours, they are.
Let's stop right here for a second. The rules on the internet are, there are no rules. You make them up as you go, figure out what works and what doesn't then ??? Profit. Blaming the DMCA safe harbors, Fair Use, or whatever else for not learning how to make a profit is no one's fault but the industry itself.
Tell me, how many MPAA officials have tried to use Bittorrent? How many have tried an ad supported bittorrent site of their own? How about a cyberlocker? Quite frankly, they're all shooting the forest for the trees in thinking it's the law that's the problem when they should all be looking in the mirror.
So that's two things you're ignoring: The cable cutters who are going all internet, as well as new forms of revenue that make the industry money. Fascinating.
But SOPA / PROTECT IP and other moves by the government in the US will certainly change the nature of those safe harbours, and work to bring the internet in line with the "real world".
Yeah, a plutocratic regime based on what the MPAA says is okay is going to work wonders for showing the hypocritical stance of our US government. Promoting freedom around the world but crushing "dissidents" (they like to call em "pirates or terrorists") who want to practice economic freedoms. Really smart of them.
Further, they will allow the government to move to block sites which operate offshore with the intention of delivering the content illegally to US viewers.
Well, it's about time you admit to wanting to use the US government to censor sites. Amazing that you keep using that line of reasoning when it's about as debunked as you thinking this moves the internet into the real world.
On the post: First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams Admits SOPA Would Censor Protected Speech, But Thinks It's Okay Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's the steps to SOPA enforcement:
1) Take away US processors
2) ???
4) Piracy eliminated (PROFIT!)
As you can see, there IS no step 3.
On the post: First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams Admits SOPA Would Censor Protected Speech, But Thinks It's Okay Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams Admits SOPA Would Censor Protected Speech, But Thinks It's Okay Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams Admits SOPA Would Censor Protected Speech, But Thinks It's Okay Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Congratulations, you've given every incentive for every other country to make an alternative service that does not cater to the US based service requirement of US law. That's the very definition of short sighted. Do you really believe that after a year of the takedowns, this law is going to make a dent in piracy?
You must be pretty adept at selling sand to a man in the desert.
How many of the millions of people who use those processors to pay for infringing material will migrate to alternates?
You don't get it... The system will route around the damage caused by this. Why do you think Adobe is discontinuing flash support? Why do you think people stopped using Netscape back in the day? Why do you think people won't find legal alternatives to what SOPA will do? This is anathema to what you're even hoping to accomplish. It's not going to stop piracy, it's going to make those services weaker and it just enforces the idea of newer alternatives into the market. Sure, you get a few people. But are you going to arrest them all, bring them to the US at great expense, and jail them for being dirty pirates? You're going to make it so that those people will look at SOPA, find newer ways to make money, and say "to hell with US law" in the interim.
And finally, how long do you think it will take to pressure foreign governments to seize payment processors that exist for the purpose of promoting unlawful activity?
And how many more will pop up that are less legitimate? You seem to have this idea in your head that every person this legislation is some criminal mastermind automatically. I find that an amazingly limited viewpoint. Litigation won't help your cause. It won't make the RIAA or the MPAA more money, and they'll be bleeding. While they're having the US government fight for them domestically, they'll be trying to make piracy more difficult abroad but all they're doing is entrenching themselves in a weaker position. How long until people find and make the workarounds to the DNS hacks that this instills on the system? How long until new payment processors spring to the fore? How long until people in Europe and Asia refuse these American processors and use the ones made in their country? It's like you're instituting a virus into the system, but the antibodies that are produced will make it stronger and more resistant to the litigious route.
On the post: First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams Admits SOPA Would Censor Protected Speech, But Thinks It's Okay Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny, alternatives are appearing and you seem to think that all of them will be centered around a singular distribution model (ie bank-bank). That's not the case. Odds are, people are going to make workarounds, which won't be affected by this bill. You can't really take away the Flatr option, and this will only spur the creation of more anonymized ways to make money.
MAybe Bitcoin will be your savior
You seem to love that idea, and yet you continue to ignore other options. Fascinating...
On the post: Why All Filmmakers Should Speak Out Against SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for bringing this up. This is a huge reminder of what's at stake and why Silicon Valley is so riled up.
I can name a ton of legal sites that people use to find new music.
Grooveshark
Dmusic
Magnatune
Spotify
This is just a small sample. Through just THESE FOUR SITES, you can find music that is not in the ploy of the RIAA. On a basic level, Grooveshark is the new Napster but it's been vindicated. However, look at the other two sites.
What SOPA will do, that no one else notices is make these places liable for infringement. If there's one comment that's out of place, if ONE song is RIAA inspired, then it's liable that all funding could be cut to these sites. On a mere accusation. This is why it's so problematic. We don't know what kind of requirements the AG has to do under SEC. 102 to fulfill. It might be a letter in the mail dated two weeks after a raid occurs and the site is taken down.
Spotify is in even more danger. It can be termed a foreign rogue website at the drop of the hat. People KNOW that the RIAA are greedy and would kill this golden goose and roast it as soon as possible. Under SOPA, it has NO protection.
SEC. 102, 107. 201 ensure it. 102 allows an automatic action through (b)(2). 107 requires a report to Congress with little solicitation from the public, and 201 says that streaming is a felony.
How would Spotify be able to defend itself if SOPA is passed?
On the post: First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams Admits SOPA Would Censor Protected Speech, But Thinks It's Okay Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I won't be too surprised that a lot of websites will pull their money from these services and find a number of route arounds to it. I can see that a TON of people would be more than willing to give up Paypal if given half a chance. This is going to make that choice 10x easier.
On the post: First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams Admits SOPA Would Censor Protected Speech, But Thinks It's Okay Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
MPAA in Australia
Lobbied for Hadopi
MPAA and Cablegate
Still saying US copyright law isn't being exported?
On the post: Why All Filmmakers Should Speak Out Against SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because one side is trying to control platforms. That's always been the case. You can have more artists who want to license content to Napster but since ONE RIAA artist is on there, the system has to be taken down.
How many artists license content to the Pirate Bay? How would you be able to tell? And yet, BREIN or the MPAA vilify that search engine for their own purposes instead of using them. That's the issue at stake. We talk all the time about how the trade industry is trying to control the internet. This is the problem that they want to solve: Get all platforms to instill them as the gatekeeper.
. What they are trying to work against is "platforms" that are used to make the above choice for them, forcing them to have to do business the "new" way (or not at all) because someone else decides it for them. Artists can have all the platforms they like (and I am sure there will be some great legal sites out there), but they need to stop forcing everyone to do business their way (aka, piracy is good, okay?)
That's called reality. It's knocking on their doorstep. They can no longer sustain their old business model. The same as Henry Ford's production line is no longer viable in the 1930's to the present. The only constant in this world is change. When a business is outdated, it NEEDS to update, not be slogged down by CEO bonuses (Viacom), or the problems of being a mini-monopoly (regionalization, windowing, etc.)
piracy today is exponentially a bigger problem than it was 15 years ago - and that is all internet, anonymous, and so on.
You seem to be rather confused since even the author has admitted it's not a big issue. Check out number 5 again. Also, it's ironic that you seem to criticize anonymity on the internet when you are using the AC moniker.
If the content sucks, or the marketing sucks or whatever, and you can put out a better product, you will drive them out of business. If you can't do that, then your entire business model was hinged on piracy, and that doesn't work.
Hence why people opt for Jamendo, dmusic.com, and Youtube over buying music. Hence why I like Vevo.com and movies such as Rosa that are great little short stories. Hence, why I like to fund Kickstarter projects and put up new stuff that has NOTHING to do with the MPAA or the RIAA and their stuff. I can sure bet if you'd stop being pedantic, look around the internet on some of these sites, you'd find that people have found alternatives while you're throwing out ad homs. There's nothing saying that I'm embracing piracy by saying that there's a way to compete against it.
The evidence that piracy is helping to create more goods far outweighs the evidence that enforcement is creating more stuff. So take that as you will. I'm sure the next exchange is going to be yet another complaint about how piracy is killing the arts. I've yet to find any information is supporting that so try if you can.
On the post: First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams Admits SOPA Would Censor Protected Speech, But Thinks It's Okay Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re:
Which continues to make no sense. Why should we export US copyright law to another sovereign nation?
On the post: First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams Admits SOPA Would Censor Protected Speech, But Thinks It's Okay Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re:
You mean botnet and bully? The process for a DMCA takedown usually doesn't have human intervention.
The internet archive, like other sites, will have to deal with what is and what is not legal in the US - it's the nature of the game.
I have a hard time figuring out why the Internet Archive has been such a target...
On the post: UK Judges Think US Makes It Too Hard To Get Patents, Lower Patentability Bar To Show How It's Done
Re: Promoting Innovation is an American concept
On the post: Why All Filmmakers Should Speak Out Against SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Misleading statement about copyright. Copyright is given automatically. However, you can't say everyone is using copyright to make money. Copyright has no meaning unless you enforce it. Something which a lot of artists are anathema to do. In essence, copyright is a retroactive law to punish for infringements. But there are far more artists willing to release music "into the wild" and make fans through that, than there are copyright enforcers trying to take away platforms that help artists gain independence.
Those who choose to give it away also do so "within the system", because even a creative commons license is just a way of expressing rights that exist under copyright.
And even Lessig has stated the fact that if copyright weren't such a hassle to let go of, more people would be able to do so. If we could go back to the 1907 standard, it may do us a lot better than what we currently have.
Coyright is pretty much the natural state of affairs, it offers a framework under which the artists (or their rights holders) can choose to operate in many different ways. Key is that the big labels can operate one way, and the indies can operate another way, and both ways are acceptable within the copyright system.
No it's not... Bolivia hasn't had copyright in 20 years. Our copyright system hinges on the Berne Convention of so long ago, and it's only been ratcheted up since then. We don't NEED copyright to progress knowledge and learning and it's becoming more apparent that copyright is more a hinderance to the system than a benefit.
I think that piracy today more signifies opportunity combined with technology and anonymous traits of the "current" internet coming together to embolden an entire generation that otherwise would never steal, shoplift, or make off with anything without permission.
No, piracy fears have been around since the 70s and will continue far after the fight for SOPA, ACTA, NET, PRO-IP, and all the other fights against the public.
It's not a market failure, that is a red herring.
*rolls eyes* Piracy. Serious Business...
Most piracy doesn't involve what is not available, it involves what is available, but at a price - and a whole generation has learned to not pay the price, and not to feel guilty about it.
Then why does the manga industry continue to grow and make new audiences able to translate Japanese and Korean?
Why does Valve's business model disagree with your statement?
Why is it that everytime anyone shows you that piracy is a market failure such as windowing, regionalization, or bad marketing, you continue to beat the drum of piracy instead of looking at reality? People have choices to pay reasonable amounts for products. But the industry seems to think that if they lower the price, they lower sales. Price isn't perfectly elastic as the industry wants. It's what the consumer wants. I highly doubt most in the movie or music industry have run experiments to find out where consumer demands lie. They just believe they're entitled to people's money for the same products. Have they tried different bundled packages? A pay what you want model (like Napster used to be)? Streaming services? Bittorrent services? Incentivized downloading? Rebates?
No? Then how can you continue to say that piracy is the problem when it's the industry's own fault?
On the post: Why All Filmmakers Should Speak Out Against SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
... What you're describing is a serfdom. Why can't artists do that for themselves with the newer tools the internet provides?
The only other system tried in the last 1000 years or so of human history was the patronage system, where wealthy people directed the great artists of the day to amuse them. That was a great period where the masses didn't get much in the way of benefit at all.
I'm sorry? There were some benefits to the masses such as the Great Cathedral by Michelangelo, the concerts of Mozart, or even Shakespeare's plays. We don't even need a patronage system nowadays because artists have more tools through the internet than copyright. So... What exactly is the problem with piracy that has so many people riled up?
What piracy seems to signify is a market failure. There's demand that is not being met and countless studies have supported this view. So why is piracy to be stamped down when it exemplifies an industry problem to give out legal alternatives?
On the post: Want To See Peak Copyright? Here's What To Do
Just stop!
The daughter being beaten is NOT relevant anymore! I'm sorry for the girl. The family needs counseling. The Judge is an ASS! But for the love of all that's holy, STOP posting it as if that's going to make this any better for the family!
It's an emotionally charged story and no one disagrees that the father doesn't have a karmic punch in the nuts coming. You don't need to post it in every thread to take away people's feelings about the injustice of it.
We all know this! We know that our laws are beholden to the copyright owners. We know that artists get worse than the Montreal Screw Job on a weekly basis based on contractual agreements. We know that shills come on this site to talk down copyright issues because they're paid to do so.
We're working to fix this travesty at any chance. But we can't move forward if every five minutes we're talking about how Adams is the worst kind of person in the world!
On the post: Want To See Peak Copyright? Here's What To Do
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Want To See Peak Copyright? Here's What To Do
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last I checked, Ernest Hemingway's books can't benefit the public domain. Neither can classical music that should be within the PD. So the question remains, if you have to jump through legal hoops to exercise rights and build new businesses, what's the point?
If a copyright holder maintains the work, and continues to work to publish it, make it available, perhaps even update it and keep it relevant, that has to be at least as good as a work sliding into that abyss and being solidly ignored.
But the case remains that a LOT of work is left in disarray when it could do the world some good to be released. Charlie Chaplin's silent works are just one example.
As for "harsher", actually we are in a time where the laws of copyright are the least harsh that they have been in centuries.
HAHAHA! "We're only going to bankrupt you for two acts of copyright infringement." Good one.
DMCA safe harbors, fair use, and other situations in the US have chipped away at copyright from a legal standpoint, and also from a moral one. Changes to the law upcoming (SOPA / Protect IP) are there only to try to re-assert a balance that has been lost in the internet era. The laws aren't harsher, as much as the abusers are more blantant, more militant, and seemingly deaf to the "greater good" arguments made in law.
SOPA is like finding a needle in a haystack in a barn with a blowtorch. You probably won't find the needle, you might burn down the barn, and you most certainly won't be able to get anywhere near the mess you've caused from the burning.
Then you go to blame this on the "abusers?" The people that are charged over $1 million dollars in a copyright case or companies that aggregate torrents for legal media? These are the companies that are militant about copyright in having a hearing BEFORE anything is taken through SOPA, or not funding an army of YES COPYRIGHT government workers to other countries? What are you paying attention to?
On the post: How The Entertainment Industry Is Killing Copyright
Therein lies a question or seven...
Sure, I can send in a letter to my Congressman and have done so. But the problem is, I have no one that represents me in Congress. Yes, Wyden, Issa, Lofgren and even Bachmann seem to get it. But they're facing an uphill battle on what's supposed to be fairly obvious.
We hear all this talk about "rights holders" who don't happen to be artists or creators in any shape or form. Where are the ones that CREATE supposed to be in the new copyright regime? Where are the ones that copyright is supposed to benefit, such as artists, their fans, and the ones that can help finance the next project without censorship?
On the post: Luma Labs Discontinues Popular Product Line After Competitor Gets A Patent... Despite Prior Art Going Back Over A Century
Re:
On the post: Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
Re: Re: Re:
Let's stop right here for a second. The rules on the internet are, there are no rules. You make them up as you go, figure out what works and what doesn't then ??? Profit. Blaming the DMCA safe harbors, Fair Use, or whatever else for not learning how to make a profit is no one's fault but the industry itself.
Tell me, how many MPAA officials have tried to use Bittorrent? How many have tried an ad supported bittorrent site of their own? How about a cyberlocker? Quite frankly, they're all shooting the forest for the trees in thinking it's the law that's the problem when they should all be looking in the mirror.
So that's two things you're ignoring: The cable cutters who are going all internet, as well as new forms of revenue that make the industry money. Fascinating.
But SOPA / PROTECT IP and other moves by the government in the US will certainly change the nature of those safe harbours, and work to bring the internet in line with the "real world".
Yeah, a plutocratic regime based on what the MPAA says is okay is going to work wonders for showing the hypocritical stance of our US government. Promoting freedom around the world but crushing "dissidents" (they like to call em "pirates or terrorists") who want to practice economic freedoms. Really smart of them.
Further, they will allow the government to move to block sites which operate offshore with the intention of delivering the content illegally to US viewers.
Well, it's about time you admit to wanting to use the US government to censor sites. Amazing that you keep using that line of reasoning when it's about as debunked as you thinking this moves the internet into the real world.
Next >>