Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.
If they were given a trial, maybe they could. But seeing as how all you're doing is saying "everything is a pirate site until proven otherwise", it's really hard to take you seriously.
The marketing isn't what helps the people. In fact, that keeps the prices higher. Patents on medicines is costing innovation as evidenced by David Levine:
Some of the giants spend as much as four times on marketing as they do on research and development. How do these companies market their products? Most of the money goes to "scientifically convincing" the medical profession to prescribe patented products. How? Well, for example, by inviting doctors and their families to week-long conferences in exclusive resorts, where two hours are for a marketing presentation (the "medical symposium") and the rest for (all-included) leisure. A spectacular - but hardly unique - example of the level of corruption is the conviction of Pfizer for encouraging doctors to bill the government for drugs they were provided for free. These practices not only raise the cost of drugs, but corrode trust in the medical profession.
Let's also question why the established makers of a drug can pay off competitors to keep the price artificially high.
When even the GAO has said that newer drugs are being stifled, you have to question those motives. Somehow, the marketing angle doesn't seem quite that expensive if unnecessary lobbying expenditures could be taken away.
Small question, do you realize the malware and security risks concerning DNS blocking? If so, we can continue this conversation. If not, there's no point in wasting time with someone who doesn't understand the technology.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.
So the victim isn't part of this equation?
What victim? The copyright holder? I don't feel an ounce of sympathy for their plight.
And so should the rest of society.
Yes, but not behind a jail cell because of faulty accusations.
I like it when everyone pays their fair share of a movie's creation costs.
What kind of crap is this? Why am I paying for a movie I don't want to see? I pay for movies that I want to see. The creation costs are not a concern of mine.
It's not fair to me that some sleezy P2P clowns get to watch it for free.
Too bad, they get to see it for free on Youtube, Hulu, or a few other places at zero marginal cost.
But if the movie makers were smart they would be getting paid by optional means. Which is exactly what is occurring without this SOPA act.
The fact is that everyone has a stake in a free marketplace that rewards creators for their effort.
If the government is interfering with that marketplace, it is no longer free!
It's just like an arrest.
Cardiac arrest maybe, but you continue to ignore the fact that this is all an accusation in your rant against piracy.
Patents DO harm medical technology. There are countless tales of companies that have used patent law to restrict pharmaceutical sales in the US, Canada, Brazil and even India.
You actually have people dying because of the high costs to the market for this patent research, which isn't all that expensive. The ones that do most of the research are mainly smaller businesses which account for %40 of their budget, whereas most of the larger brands have 40% accounted towards marketing a product, not research. No where does a large company, such as Pfizer for example, have an incentive to allow a smaller company enter the market and drive the cost of a drug to the marginal cost. If a drug is getting cheaper, more people are able to afford it and make it available in a near infinite supply. That's not creating more technology, that's stifling others from making better or more efficient medicines.
Note the important thing: In a single year alone, recorded music sales are down 11.4%.
So, how do you address that? Remember, it's not the economy, because this is a trend that goes back 10 years
Two things. First, this defeats your analysis that recorded music is down 50%. Second, you would look at all entertainment and see which have risen. I would say that other media has gone up such as gaming that battle for music lover's time.
And the content industry are relatively happy with streaming services like Netflix
Overvaluing their content does not equate to happiness with Netflix.
If some consumer somewhere at some time downloaded a copyrighted file, the means that all digital lockers, streaming services, and blogs are pirates and bad for the content industry.
Right, just like someone somewhere recorded to a DVD recorder. That means ALL DVD Recorders (and VCRs) using the same copy techniques are bad.
So what's wrong with applying the same principle in cyberspace where places like Pirate Bay openly proclaim their main purpose is to help people get content without paying the content creator?
Because they seem to want to take the highway, the curb, the store owner, the trucks, their grandmothers, and anyone associated with the drug dealer, and not the drug dealer himself. He's just left to go across the street while the police fight about everything on one side of the street.
I am sure that anyone who has been gorging themselves at the buffet of stolen, purloined, or illegally reused content will be upset to find out that the free lunch which has extend itself into a free tea time as well might actually come to an end, or at least have fewer dishes on the menu. Like anything of this nature, some of the public will be upset. However, it is a fairly big error to suggest that all of the public is against it, because that is just not the case.
How many people use the bittorrent protocol?
How many official movies have come out using bittorrent?
How about authorized streams?
Before you sit here accusing everyone of some "stolen" buffet (especially since infringement := theft) you might want to look at the house and its cards.
The people fighting the bill appear to be very disorganized, and unable to put forth any really good arguments beyond "if you make us stop using other people's content without permission, we might have to get rid of a few jobs".
There's been some really good arguments, but similar to a Luddite, you ignore all objective analysis in pursuit of faith based economics. So I ask again, how can anyone show that the copyright central industries can grow by making their own services when every time someone has a good idea you do your best to put your hands in your ear and say "La la, can't hear you?"
It's hard to imagine that having much sway when you consider how much has been lost on the content creation side in the last 10 years.
How about none? How about the fact that people moved on to form their own, smaller businesses? Or do you have no proof as always?
Cary Sherman - There is a place for passionate, vigorous debate over rogue-Web-sites legislation pending in the House (the Stop Online Piracy Act) and Senate (Protect IP Act). We welcome it. Facts are always useful, and especially in this instance.
So why not call up a number of people that have said this legislation would be damaging to how people use the internet today? Why has the MPAA nor the RIAA ever responded to the 3 year research of "Media Piracy" which looked extensively at the piracy issue, pricing points, and found ways to help the industry make more money?
Why is it that platforms of commerce are being destroyed rather than these trade industries work to create their own? If facts were so important, why do they never seek any? That's the most frustrating part about this. You respond rationally to the supposed fears of the industry and you find that there are better ways of doing business that could make customers willing to stop pirating. It's the guys stuck in the 80s that are ruining the innovations of the new millennium.
One day you will understand that the "success" of Valve doesn't in any way mean that everyone should be forced to do business that way. It doesn't diminish piracy as an issue, it just turns a blind eye to it.
Care to expand on your faith based economics, chief?
Further, I suspect that if more people worked like Valve, over time people would find the way to extract the value without paying for it, and as a result counterfeit that business model as well, rendering it moot.
I would hope so, because Valve likes competition. Consumers gain the profit from it. We would have more dedicated servers, more games for free, more sales every day, and less DRM. The other competition is Origin. Which adds NO value to its service and scans your hardware all of the time.
Piracy is always an issue, they just don't worry about it because it isn't hurting their business YET
You don't get it. Look at the word "Successful" that is highlighted in blue and click the link. The ENTIRE part about Russia is in that link. Russia? Which is dominated by piracy? Which you seem hell bent on saying won't buy a product ever?
Newell: That’s in dollars, yes. Whenever I talk about how much money we make it’s always dollar-denominated. All of our products are sold in local currency. But the point was, the people who are telling you that Russians pirate everything are the people who wait six months to localize their product into Russia. … So that, as far as we’re concerned, is asked and answered. It doesn’t take much in terms of providing a better service to make pirates a non-issue.
It's a service issue. When the movie industry provides a better service, it makes the money. Gabe's company is living proof of that example in the gaming industry. And here you are saying "the pirates are going to extract value". Gabe's entire process in multiple interviews is asking "how do I add value to my service?"
That's what his company is doing much better than anyone else. Competing with piracy. Here's the blueprint. It's really not that hard.
Meet Anon. He's Torrentfreak's psychopathic rambler who always goes on about piracy but can't quite form a valid argument together.
Sure, the words look pretty. But as you can see, he undermines himself. You don't chagrin him, for that merely riles him up and forces out his troll-like tendencies. Instead, you use the power of logic against him. For example:
You idiot, the only thing that chart shows is some increased revenue from live shows.
Now if you look at the chart here, you'll notice that there are five different topics for discussion. Live revenue, recorded revenue, and PRS revenue. So already, he's wrong. Then you look at the next topic of contention:
The aggregate in the real world is still down, and that chart completely ignores that pesky thing known as "inflation".
One does not follow the other so it's easily dismissed. We have no way of understanding why the aggregate is down save the fact that there are competitors to the music industry that Anon does not know about. The inflation thing is a red herring so pay it no heed.
So let's go on to the next part:
When are you going to come to grips with the fact that copyright is here to stay?
Now if you follow the blog, you'll notice that copyright is getting more and more egregious, and preventing a lot of legal behavior. Will copyright "stay" in its current form forever? I highly doubt it. The more a business uses copyright enforcement against consumers, the more likely that business will hemorrhage money.
So don't let Anon taunt you. He likes to try to get a rise out of people, but when he's wrong (which is always) he's so far out there that you can just point and laugh instead of taunting him.
It would be nice if some of you zealots could cite an actual news source once in a while, rather just link back to some previous insane post by Masnick.
Right, let the police track someone that's on a military base because he has a cell phone. That will go over real well with your theory of allowing all sorts of GPS tracking without a warrant.
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.
On the post: Which Causes More Harm: Copyright Or Patents?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Or Patents?
The marketing isn't what helps the people. In fact, that keeps the prices higher. Patents on medicines is costing innovation as evidenced by David Levine:
Let's also question why the established makers of a drug can pay off competitors to keep the price artificially high.
When even the GAO has said that newer drugs are being stifled, you have to question those motives. Somehow, the marketing angle doesn't seem quite that expensive if unnecessary lobbying expenditures could be taken away.
On the post: A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology
Re:
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.
That's the funniest thing I've heard all night...
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.
What victim? The copyright holder? I don't feel an ounce of sympathy for their plight.
And so should the rest of society.
Yes, but not behind a jail cell because of faulty accusations.
I like it when everyone pays their fair share of a movie's creation costs.
What kind of crap is this? Why am I paying for a movie I don't want to see? I pay for movies that I want to see. The creation costs are not a concern of mine.
It's not fair to me that some sleezy P2P clowns get to watch it for free.
Too bad, they get to see it for free on Youtube, Hulu, or a few other places at zero marginal cost.
But if the movie makers were smart they would be getting paid by optional means. Which is exactly what is occurring without this SOPA act.
The fact is that everyone has a stake in a free marketplace that rewards creators for their effort.
If the government is interfering with that marketplace, it is no longer free!
It's just like an arrest.
Cardiac arrest maybe, but you continue to ignore the fact that this is all an accusation in your rant against piracy.
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rogue site
On the post: Which Causes More Harm: Copyright Or Patents?
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Or Patents?
You actually have people dying because of the high costs to the market for this patent research, which isn't all that expensive. The ones that do most of the research are mainly smaller businesses which account for %40 of their budget, whereas most of the larger brands have 40% accounted towards marketing a product, not research. No where does a large company, such as Pfizer for example, have an incentive to allow a smaller company enter the market and drive the cost of a drug to the marginal cost. If a drug is getting cheaper, more people are able to afford it and make it available in a near infinite supply. That's not creating more technology, that's stifling others from making better or more efficient medicines.
On the post: A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, how do you address that? Remember, it's not the economy, because this is a trend that goes back 10 years
Two things. First, this defeats your analysis that recorded music is down 50%. Second, you would look at all entertainment and see which have risen. I would say that other media has gone up such as gaming that battle for music lover's time.
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.
By leaving you financially destitute based on an accusation of wrongdoing without any means of defending yourself.
So much better...
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Overvaluing their content does not equate to happiness with Netflix.
If some consumer somewhere at some time downloaded a copyrighted file, the means that all digital lockers, streaming services, and blogs are pirates and bad for the content industry.
Right, just like someone somewhere recorded to a DVD recorder. That means ALL DVD Recorders (and VCRs) using the same copy techniques are bad.
So what's wrong with applying the same principle in cyberspace where places like Pirate Bay openly proclaim their main purpose is to help people get content without paying the content creator?
Because they seem to want to take the highway, the curb, the store owner, the trucks, their grandmothers, and anyone associated with the drug dealer, and not the drug dealer himself. He's just left to go across the street while the police fight about everything on one side of the street.
On the post: Why PROTECT IP/SOPA Is The Exact Wrong Approach To Dealing With Infringement Online
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am sure that anyone who has been gorging themselves at the buffet of stolen, purloined, or illegally reused content will be upset to find out that the free lunch which has extend itself into a free tea time as well might actually come to an end, or at least have fewer dishes on the menu. Like anything of this nature, some of the public will be upset. However, it is a fairly big error to suggest that all of the public is against it, because that is just not the case.
How many people use the bittorrent protocol?
How many official movies have come out using bittorrent?
How about authorized streams?
Before you sit here accusing everyone of some "stolen" buffet (especially since infringement := theft) you might want to look at the house and its cards.
The people fighting the bill appear to be very disorganized, and unable to put forth any really good arguments beyond "if you make us stop using other people's content without permission, we might have to get rid of a few jobs".
There's been some really good arguments, but similar to a Luddite, you ignore all objective analysis in pursuit of faith based economics. So I ask again, how can anyone show that the copyright central industries can grow by making their own services when every time someone has a good idea you do your best to put your hands in your ear and say "La la, can't hear you?"
It's hard to imagine that having much sway when you consider how much has been lost on the content creation side in the last 10 years.
How about none? How about the fact that people moved on to form their own, smaller businesses? Or do you have no proof as always?
On the post: A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology
Irony
So why not call up a number of people that have said this legislation would be damaging to how people use the internet today? Why has the MPAA nor the RIAA ever responded to the 3 year research of "Media Piracy" which looked extensively at the piracy issue, pricing points, and found ways to help the industry make more money?
Why is it that platforms of commerce are being destroyed rather than these trade industries work to create their own? If facts were so important, why do they never seek any? That's the most frustrating part about this. You respond rationally to the supposed fears of the industry and you find that there are better ways of doing business that could make customers willing to stop pirating. It's the guys stuck in the 80s that are ruining the innovations of the new millennium.
On the post: Why PROTECT IP/SOPA Is The Exact Wrong Approach To Dealing With Infringement Online
Not getting it...
"Blind eye" to piracy and adapting - $2 - $4 billion in profits
Fighting piracy with DRM Schemes - $73.9 million in losses
Care to expand on your faith based economics, chief?
Further, I suspect that if more people worked like Valve, over time people would find the way to extract the value without paying for it, and as a result counterfeit that business model as well, rendering it moot.
I would hope so, because Valve likes competition. Consumers gain the profit from it. We would have more dedicated servers, more games for free, more sales every day, and less DRM. The other competition is Origin. Which adds NO value to its service and scans your hardware all of the time.
Piracy is always an issue, they just don't worry about it because it isn't hurting their business YET
You don't get it. Look at the word "Successful" that is highlighted in blue and click the link. The ENTIRE part about Russia is in that link. Russia? Which is dominated by piracy? Which you seem hell bent on saying won't buy a product ever?
Newell: That’s in dollars, yes. Whenever I talk about how much money we make it’s always dollar-denominated. All of our products are sold in local currency. But the point was, the people who are telling you that Russians pirate everything are the people who wait six months to localize their product into Russia. … So that, as far as we’re concerned, is asked and answered. It doesn’t take much in terms of providing a better service to make pirates a non-issue.
It's a service issue. When the movie industry provides a better service, it makes the money. Gabe's company is living proof of that example in the gaming industry. And here you are saying "the pirates are going to extract value". Gabe's entire process in multiple interviews is asking "how do I add value to my service?"
That's what his company is doing much better than anyone else. Competing with piracy. Here's the blueprint. It's really not that hard.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Gets Another Usenet Provider To Shut Down: Is Usenet Illegal?
Re: Re:
Sure, the words look pretty. But as you can see, he undermines himself. You don't chagrin him, for that merely riles him up and forces out his troll-like tendencies. Instead, you use the power of logic against him. For example:
You idiot, the only thing that chart shows is some increased revenue from live shows.
Now if you look at the chart here, you'll notice that there are five different topics for discussion. Live revenue, recorded revenue, and PRS revenue. So already, he's wrong. Then you look at the next topic of contention:
The aggregate in the real world is still down, and that chart completely ignores that pesky thing known as "inflation".
One does not follow the other so it's easily dismissed. We have no way of understanding why the aggregate is down save the fact that there are competitors to the music industry that Anon does not know about. The inflation thing is a red herring so pay it no heed.
So let's go on to the next part:
When are you going to come to grips with the fact that copyright is here to stay?
Now if you follow the blog, you'll notice that copyright is getting more and more egregious, and preventing a lot of legal behavior. Will copyright "stay" in its current form forever? I highly doubt it. The more a business uses copyright enforcement against consumers, the more likely that business will hemorrhage money.
So don't let Anon taunt you. He likes to try to get a rise out of people, but when he's wrong (which is always) he's so far out there that you can just point and laugh instead of taunting him.
*The more you know*
On the post: Entertainment Industry Gets Another Usenet Provider To Shut Down: Is Usenet Illegal?
Re: Re:
On the post: Entertainment Industry Gets Another Usenet Provider To Shut Down: Is Usenet Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here you go
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Having People Tracked By GPS All The Time
Re:
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Re: Re: Rogue site
Now you have something against Donkey Kong?
On the post: RIAA Admits It Wants DMCA Overhaul; Blames Judges For 'Wrong' Interpretation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Uhm... Google+ does require ID if they believe that you're not using your real name
On the post: RIAA Admits It Wants DMCA Overhaul; Blames Judges For 'Wrong' Interpretation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uhm... WTF?
Is there a point to this or are you just being contrarian?
Next >>