Nah, he won't bother to prove anything, people like him, who keep seeing infringers as immoral egotistical thieves, are only capable of attacking the strawman they think is the correct depiction of online infringers, I wouldn't waste my time asking them to provide evidence of what they claim.
"You can't really use the moral argument of "what is right" here on Techdirt, because it's been long established that moral arguments aren't valid.You can't really use the moral argument of "what is right" here on Techdirt, because it's been long established that moral arguments aren't valid."
Just to clarify, I and many others object the moral argument regarding copyright issues because copyright has never been about morality but practical utility, is just a red herring meant to create moral panic and bringing the whole issue to a purely emotional level where someone can claim the moral high ground and make detractors look as the inmoral ones.
"The law here isn't evil. Rather, it's an attempt by the people (as a whole) to keep a small minority from ruining their lives by being able to protest and harm their enjoyment of life. Authorities did what they have to do to enforce the law and not give unfair advantage to one group or the other."
Lawful =/= ethically acceptable, and since we are not talking about copyright but currupt athorities who use the "free trade agreement" label to rig the game in favor of a minority made up of corporate players interested only in filling their pockets while ignoring the adverse consequences for the rest of the people, so it follows that using physical force to disband a peaceful protest with demonstrably harming techniques is questionable at minimum, since they are just excercizing their right to protest against a corrupt system, unless I live in a dictatorship, I can't see your point.
Because in an ideal world, politicians should make decisions based on evidence and reason, we expect rational governance, not just politicians making decisions based on the bribes they get.
Get them while they're young... I agree, I don't think this is different than religious indoctrination.
They need to do this to secure their obsolete ideas and ensure they will prevail when their generation die off, they know more and more people are starting to call BS on their lies and propaganda, thats why they are targeting children.
"Forrester forecasts music industry revenues will continue to decline until it reaches about $5.5 billion a year by 2014, as new revenue sources begin to lift sales again."
Now, from IFPI's global statistics:
Global recorded music sales totalled US $16.5 billion in 2012.
"For years, the music industry’s decline looked terminal, with the record companies seemingly unable to come up with digital business models that could compete with the lure of online piracy."
It has been demonstrated over and over again, that piracy don't affect music, its the obsolete business models of the recording labels.
"Last year, however, digital sales and other new sources of revenue grew significantly enough to offset the continuing decline in CD sales."
Innovating business models is the best alternative to counter piracy.
Not happening IMO. Banning encryption or making it hard/impossible to use proxies/VPN is possible ONLY if a new standard is implemented globally where no person can be allowed to be administrator on their own computer. They would need to make it illegal to have administrative rights over your own computer or any device capable of connecting to the internet.
Even trying is highly likely to remove every business relying on VPN's, cloud services and proxies from the market, https would have to go as well so no more services using encrypted login; banks, Amazon, online franchises, personal cloud storage, etc.
Because if you want to ensure a high percentage of your economy moves to another country, banning encryption would be it.
I think his point was that they are being "transparent" to some degree, they fear another ACTA if text is released to the public.
This is an admission that the agreement is bad and will certainly cause another massive backlash like SOPA/PIPA and ACTA caused a couple years ago, they fear history will repeat unless they can keep it as secret as possible.
Your intellectual myopia never ceases to amuse me, Darryl.
"But as usual, no examples, no "this is what fair use has given us", none of that.. " "SUCH AS ????"
Industries that rely on fair use exceptions to copyright law grew faster than the rest of the US economy from 2002 to 2007, according to a study commissioned by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which counts the likes of eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo among its membership.
The CCIA study found that fair use-reliant ndustries grew by 5% and accounted for 23% of real US economic growth during the five year period under examination, while companies benefiting from limitations on copyright-holders’ exclusive rights, such as 'fair use' generated revenue of USD4.7 trillion in 2007 – a 36% increase over 2002.
The research indicates that the industries benefiting from fair use and other limitations and exceptions make a large and growing contribution to the U.S. economy. The fair use economy in 2006 accounted for $4.5 trillion in revenues and $2.2 billion in value added, roughly one-sixth of total U.S. GDP. It employed more than 17 million people and supported a payroll of $1.2 trillion. It generated $194 billion in exports and rapid productivity growth.
The protection afforded by fair use has been a major contributing factor to these economic gains, and will continue to support growth as the U.S. economy becomes even more dependent on information industries.
The most significant growth over this period was in Internet publishing and broadcasting, web search portals, electronic shopping, electronic auctions and other financial investment activity.
There is indded an economic growth and a practical benefit in the distribution of culture and information with fair use.
I steal your car, you no longer have it, I have deprived you of your car, that's theft.
I copy a movie, the original is still there, I haven't deprived anybody of a non-material good, that's infringement, not theft.
Only what is legally and MATERIALLY owned can be stolen, because the legal owner is actually deprived of that material object. How hard is that to understand?
Except that copyright is not and has never been a moral issue. Copyright is utilitarian by design and necesity, its not about morality, it never has been, its about practical utility. It exists because it has practical utility, its function as MadAsASnake stated below, is to maximise the production and distribution of artistic works.
And as I said before, morality is a red herring when talking about copyright, its used to bring down the conversation to a purely emotional level, its irrelevant at best. and again it begs the question about what's moral or not and according to who.
Morality regarding copyright infringement, is a red herring at best, it's irrelevant, its only used by maximalists to derail the conversation to a purely emotional level, and also it begs the question of what's moral or not and according to who.
On the post: Wil Wheaton Discusses TV, Cord-Cutting, Piracy... And Trying Desperately To Make Sure Fans Can Watch His Show
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wil Wheaton Discusses TV, Cord-Cutting, Piracy... And Trying Desperately To Make Sure Fans Can Watch His Show
Re: Re:
Far from it, downloaders also are buyers, your assertion is demonstrably false.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/online-copyright/deep-div e.pdf
On the post: Water Cannons Turned On Peaceful TTIP Protestors In Brussels As Public Barred From Negotiations
Re: Re: Re:
Just to clarify, I and many others object the moral argument regarding copyright issues because copyright has never been about morality but practical utility, is just a red herring meant to create moral panic and bringing the whole issue to a purely emotional level where someone can claim the moral high ground and make detractors look as the inmoral ones.
"The law here isn't evil. Rather, it's an attempt by the people (as a whole) to keep a small minority from ruining their lives by being able to protest and harm their enjoyment of life. Authorities did what they have to do to enforce the law and not give unfair advantage to one group or the other."
Lawful =/= ethically acceptable, and since we are not talking about copyright but currupt athorities who use the "free trade agreement" label to rig the game in favor of a minority made up of corporate players interested only in filling their pockets while ignoring the adverse consequences for the rest of the people, so it follows that using physical force to disband a peaceful protest with demonstrably harming techniques is questionable at minimum, since they are just excercizing their right to protest against a corrupt system, unless I live in a dictatorship, I can't see your point.
On the post: Australia's Attorney General Ignores All Evidence And Experts: Decides To Obey Hollywood's Commands On Copyright
Re:
On the post: Girl Scouts Get A Badge In Intellectual Property Maximalism
Re:
On the post: Girl Scouts Get A Badge In Intellectual Property Maximalism
Re:
They need to do this to secure their obsolete ideas and ensure they will prevail when their generation die off, they know more and more people are starting to call BS on their lies and propaganda, thats why they are targeting children.
On the post: White House Withholds Details Of Its Role In 'Voluntary' Agreement Between Payment Processors And Copyright Industries
Re: Re: Nice try
"Forrester forecasts music industry revenues will continue to decline until it reaches about $5.5 billion a year by 2014, as new revenue sources begin to lift sales again."
Now, from IFPI's global statistics:
Global recorded music sales totalled US $16.5 billion in 2012.
http://www.ifpi.org/global-statistics.php
"For years, the music industry’s decline looked terminal, with the record companies seemingly unable to come up with digital business models that could compete with the lure of online piracy."
It has been demonstrated over and over again, that piracy don't affect music, its the obsolete business models of the recording labels.
"Last year, however, digital sales and other new sources of revenue grew significantly enough to offset the continuing decline in CD sales."
Innovating business models is the best alternative to counter piracy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/technology/music-industry-records-first-revenue-increase-si nce-1999.html?_r=0
On the post: White House Withholds Details Of Its Role In 'Voluntary' Agreement Between Payment Processors And Copyright Industries
Re: Re:
And to complement what That One Guy already said, it has been shown that the pirates you despise so much, actually spend more money on entertainment.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/online-copyright/ deep-dive.pdf
And actually, the box office records have been raising since the 80's to date.
Why is not the other way around if piracy is really a big problem?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=domestic&view=releasedate&p=.htm
Do you ever grow tired of lying, Darryl?
On the post: With Porn Filters Going Oh So Well, UK Roars Ahead In Expanding Them To Include 'Extremist' Content
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: With Porn Filters Going Oh So Well, UK Roars Ahead In Expanding Them To Include 'Extremist' Content
Re:
On the post: With Porn Filters Going Oh So Well, UK Roars Ahead In Expanding Them To Include 'Extremist' Content
Re:
Even trying is highly likely to remove every business relying on VPN's, cloud services and proxies from the market, https would have to go as well so no more services using encrypted login; banks, Amazon, online franchises, personal cloud storage, etc.
Because if you want to ensure a high percentage of your economy moves to another country, banning encryption would be it.
On the post: Amid Growing Calls To Release TPP Text, NZ Says Transparency Would 'Destroy' Agreement, While USTR Won't Even Talk If Journalists Are Present
Re: Re: TPP transparency
This is an admission that the agreement is bad and will certainly cause another massive backlash like SOPA/PIPA and ACTA caused a couple years ago, they fear history will repeat unless they can keep it as secret as possible.
On the post: Fair Use Is About Much More Than Remixing: It's About Allowing All Kinds Of Innovation
Re: Re:
On the post: Fair Use Is About Much More Than Remixing: It's About Allowing All Kinds Of Innovation
Re:
"But as usual, no examples, no "this is what fair use has given us", none of that.. " "SUCH AS ????"
Industries that rely on fair use exceptions to copyright law grew faster than the rest of the US economy from 2002 to 2007, according to a study commissioned by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which counts the likes of eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo among its membership.
The CCIA study found that fair use-reliant ndustries grew by 5% and accounted for 23% of real US economic growth during the five year period under examination, while companies benefiting from limitations on copyright-holders’ exclusive rights, such as 'fair use' generated revenue of USD4.7 trillion in 2007 – a 36% increase over 2002.
The research indicates that the industries benefiting from fair use and other limitations and exceptions make a large and growing contribution to the U.S. economy. The fair use
economy in 2006 accounted for $4.5 trillion in revenues and $2.2 billion in value added, roughly one-sixth of total U.S. GDP. It employed more than 17 million people and
supported a payroll of $1.2 trillion. It generated $194 billion in exports and rapid productivity growth.
The protection afforded by fair use has been a major contributing factor to these economic gains, and will continue to support growth as the U.S. economy becomes even
more dependent on information industries.
The most significant growth over this period was in Internet publishing and broadcasting, web search portals, electronic shopping, electronic auctions and other financial investment activity.
There is indded an economic growth and a practical benefit in the distribution of culture and information with fair use.
http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/ccia-fair-use-study-exec-2006.pdf
Darryl, you are a moron.
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm deeply sorry, I misread your comment.
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again...
I steal your car, you no longer have it, I have deprived you of your car, that's theft.
I copy a movie, the original is still there, I haven't deprived anybody of a non-material good, that's infringement, not theft.
Only what is legally and MATERIALLY owned can be stolen, because the legal owner is actually deprived of that material object. How hard is that to understand?
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And as I said before, morality is a red herring when talking about copyright, its used to bring down the conversation to a purely emotional level, its irrelevant at best. and again it begs the question about what's moral or not and according to who.
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does morality is relevant when talking about laws regarding same sex marriage?
On the post: ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>