"It's hilarious how here on Techdirt, the laws of economics seem to apply to everything but copyrighted content."
No, what's hilarious is that you can't see that piracy is the direct result of the laws of economics applying to copyrighted content. It would take an extraordinary lack of understanding of economics to claim otherwise.
"If the war on piracy means inflicting a less enjoyable experience pirating (scarcity of illegal content due to enforcement, dealing with sketchy sites, popups, malware, etc.), there will be more sales, as many of the people that pirate are doing it because of sheer greed; they actually have the money and opportunity to purchase, but rip it off instead. But as these people absolutely want the content, they will pay."
What amazing hubris. Your mistake is thinking that this stuff is more important to people than it really is. You're right that people may have the money, but they may also choose to prioritize what they do with that money. They may choose to spend it on things like mortgage/rent, food, healthcare, their or their children's education. Y'know, important stuff. What's left over might get spent on entertainment, if there is enough left over of course. Or it might get spent on something from an industry that offers better value for money. The entertainment industry (not artists generally) massively overvalue themselves and their content.
"The ugly reality for the zealots here is that enforcement does result in more sales. And that's why no one except the willfully blind are surprised when content owners pursue enforcement. It works."
Willfully blind or spectacularly ignorant? There is no evidence whatsoever that enforcement works to increase sales. I < \/>might sometimes reduce piracy (usually temporarily though) but it will never increase sales. You cannot force people to buy stuff. If I decide I don't value something enough to pay the asking price for it, threatening me with punishment if I pirate it will not make me decide to buy it. I'll happily do without thanks, it's not like I don't have plenty of other options.
So you're actually okay that nothing is entering the public domain any more? You're an ignorant fool if you don't understand the long-term cost to culture. Unsurprisingly for a (wannabe) lawyer, all you care about is the short-term gains from excessive copyright law. Careful Joe, your self-interest is showing.
A decorator, a TV producer, a money manager and a TV chief? I would've though diplomatic experience and knowledge of international relations would've been prerequisites but I guess not.
"Defense is a very legitimate purpose, and should be considered a normal activity if you consider the history of our species."
How many instances of genuine defence with an assault rifle are you aware of? I'd bet the number of these weapons out there in civilian hands is orders of magnitude larger that the numbers of times they've been used for this "normal activity".
Also, "the history of our species" is not what should be used to justify what weapons people need now. Times change.
Re: Best incentive for annoying moviegoers texting.
"It's just plain rude to leave your phone on during the show and you should plan ahead in case of emergencies that would normally require it.
As a parent of two small kids, the only way I can go to the movies is by having someone look after them. I want that person to be able to contact me if they need to, so my phone will stay on and I will answer texts, silently of course. It doesn't happen often, I'm discreet, and don't consider my actions "just plain rude". Your suggestion to "plan ahead" is amusingly impractical, I'm guessing you don't have young kids.
"No where is your right to get whatever you want, whenever you want it mentioned."
Correct, nobody's ever referred to that as some sort of right. It's only been pointed out, at length and with plenty of back-up data, that not doing that these days is a terrible business model.
Do you realise how weak and desperate your argument looks when you need to bring up child porn to try to make a point? Society has a completely different attitude to copyright infringement that it does to child porn, so your attempt to imply any similarity is a waste of effort that does your cause more harm than good.
"...there is no way a smartphone and a 7D have the same quality when shooting footage, even if both are at 1080p."
And nobody claimed they do. What he said was that the phone camera was "good enough" for what he was doing at the time. The important point is that phone cameras have reached the point where they're not only a viable option to a 'real' camera but in many situations the better option.
Re: 1st, let's be clear that Glyn Moody is for piracy.
"1st, let's be clear that Glyn Moody is for piracy."
I challenge you to find one quote from Glyn advocating piracy. Put up or shut up. We'll take your silence as you slinking away, unable to back up your brainless claims as always.
Re: Mike makes so much wrong I can't refute it all in one post.
"I agree it may be "grandstanding", but that's FINE with me so long as actually in public interest as this appears. We need more AGs harassing corporations in the public interest..."
The key word, and why you're so, so wrong, is "appears". Yes, it "appears" to be in the public interest, but it's not. Anyone with half a brain can see that, which explains your comment.
Privacy policies are written to be in the best interest of the company, and specifically againsts the public's best interest. The AG's misguided efforts are primarily for her long-term benefit, and will result in no benefit to the public at all.
You're a fool to think this is the government protecting the little people from the corps you hate so much.
Although I think most of those claims are blown out of proportion to make a good story, sleazy business practices and controversial ventures would hardly make him a white-collar outlaw, it'd make him just like a significant proportion of entrepreneurs around the world.
Care to share with us what your vested interest in the film business? Nobody gets so angry they can't help resorting to teenage insults unless they have some skin in the game.
Your angry lashing out simply adds weight to the impression that you know Mike's right, but must deny, deny, deny no matter what, because you have a vested interest in the status quo. Your emotions betray you; you should learn to control them.
"And you're pathetic for defending this douchebaggery simply because you're addicted to content and don't want to pay for your fix."
I bet you can't even see the huge irony in complaining about Mike not citing sources, and then making a claim you have zero chance of providing any proof for.
"While I personally think that Dotcom is a slimeball..."
Why do you feel that way? The strong personal feelings some people seem to have about Dotcom baffle me. Slimeball is the kind of insult I reserve for people whose actions regularly hurt other people. What exactly has he done that's upset you so much?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
No, what's hilarious is that you can't see that piracy is the direct result of the laws of economics applying to copyrighted content. It would take an extraordinary lack of understanding of economics to claim otherwise.
"If the war on piracy means inflicting a less enjoyable experience pirating (scarcity of illegal content due to enforcement, dealing with sketchy sites, popups, malware, etc.), there will be more sales, as many of the people that pirate are doing it because of sheer greed; they actually have the money and opportunity to purchase, but rip it off instead. But as these people absolutely want the content, they will pay."
What amazing hubris. Your mistake is thinking that this stuff is more important to people than it really is. You're right that people may have the money, but they may also choose to prioritize what they do with that money. They may choose to spend it on things like mortgage/rent, food, healthcare, their or their children's education. Y'know, important stuff. What's left over might get spent on entertainment, if there is enough left over of course. Or it might get spent on something from an industry that offers better value for money. The entertainment industry (not artists generally) massively overvalue themselves and their content.
"The ugly reality for the zealots here is that enforcement does result in more sales. And that's why no one except the willfully blind are surprised when content owners pursue enforcement. It works."
Willfully blind or spectacularly ignorant? There is no evidence whatsoever that enforcement works to increase sales. I < \/>might sometimes reduce piracy (usually temporarily though) but it will never increase sales. You cannot force people to buy stuff. If I decide I don't value something enough to pay the asking price for it, threatening me with punishment if I pirate it will not make me decide to buy it. I'll happily do without thanks, it's not like I don't have plenty of other options.
On the post: The US's Public Domain Class Of 2013
Re:
On the post: Administration's Shortlist For Ambassador Appointments Includes Four Hollywood Donors
On the post: NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st & 4th Amendments
Re: Re: Re:
How many instances of genuine defence with an assault rifle are you aware of? I'd bet the number of these weapons out there in civilian hands is orders of magnitude larger that the numbers of times they've been used for this "normal activity".
Also, "the history of our species" is not what should be used to justify what weapons people need now. Times change.
On the post: Rather Than Punishing Moviegoing Texters, Why Not Provide Incentives For Them To Put Down Their Phones?
Re: Best incentive for annoying moviegoers texting.
As a parent of two small kids, the only way I can go to the movies is by having someone look after them. I want that person to be able to contact me if they need to, so my phone will stay on and I will answer texts, silently of course. It doesn't happen often, I'm discreet, and don't consider my actions "just plain rude". Your suggestion to "plan ahead" is amusingly impractical, I'm guessing you don't have young kids.
On the post: MPAA: Millions Of DMCA Takedowns Proves That Google Needs To Stop Piracy
Re: Re:
Correct, nobody's ever referred to that as some sort of right. It's only been pointed out, at length and with plenty of back-up data, that not doing that these days is a terrible business model.
On the post: MPAA: Millions Of DMCA Takedowns Proves That Google Needs To Stop Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ross Pruden's Favorites Of The Week: Hand Me The Keys (Or I'll Take Them)
Re:
And nobody claimed they do. What he said was that the phone camera was "good enough" for what he was doing at the time. The important point is that phone cameras have reached the point where they're not only a viable option to a 'real' camera but in many situations the better option.
On the post: Gawker Threatened For Publishing Quotes From Book Proposal, Adds 'Commentary' In Response
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: French Hadopi Scheme Gutted; Other Bad Ideas To Be Introduced Instead
Re: 1st, let's be clear that Glyn Moody is for piracy.
I challenge you to find one quote from Glyn advocating piracy. Put up or shut up. We'll take your silence as you slinking away, unable to back up your brainless claims as always.
On the post: California Looking To Protect You From The Scourge Of Airlines Not Mentioning Privacy Policies You Don't Read
Re: Mike makes so much wrong I can't refute it all in one post.
The key word, and why you're so, so wrong, is "appears". Yes, it "appears" to be in the public interest, but it's not. Anyone with half a brain can see that, which explains your comment.
Privacy policies are written to be in the best interest of the company, and specifically againsts the public's best interest. The AG's misguided efforts are primarily for her long-term benefit, and will result in no benefit to the public at all.
You're a fool to think this is the government protecting the little people from the corps you hate so much.
On the post: Press Parrots Cybersecurity FUD From Former NSA Boss Without Mentioning Massive Conflict Of Interest
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Kim Dotcom Cleared To Pursue Case Against New Zealand For Illegal Spying
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: State Subsidies To Hollywood: Almost Every Program Has Been A Dismal Failure, Costing Taxpayers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, there's your problem. You've confused 'reputable citation' with 'crazy, made-up idea'. No wonder you're confused.
On the post: Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I bet you can't even see the huge irony in complaining about Mike not citing sources, and then making a claim you have zero chance of providing any proof for.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Cleared To Pursue Case Against New Zealand For Illegal Spying
Re:
Why do you feel that way? The strong personal feelings some people seem to have about Dotcom baffle me. Slimeball is the kind of insult I reserve for people whose actions regularly hurt other people. What exactly has he done that's upset you so much?
Next >>