How many of those are actually being shared compared to Doctorow? Obscurity is their problem!
And you missed the point of the article. Copyrights were not used to cripple access. That's the point! People did not use copyright as a negative reinforcement tool, as the music industry does. They left their monopolistic privilege abilities out of the equation.
No where in the article does it say such successes are an excuse to download for free. In fact there are so many discussions of the contrary here. Yes, some will never pay and would never buy if free wasn't an option. But many more will buy when reasonably priced (price fixing fines in 2003 ring a bell?) and most importantly, available!!!!
And again, obscurity is the real killer. So 5 people shared your book, 200 bought it. That means NO ONE KNOWS YOU EXIST! That ain't the end of the world!
If 5 people bought your book and 200 shared it, it means you a) you didn't offer anything worth buying (package or content) and b) you're obscure and need to worry about publicity far more than the 200 who shared your work.
Name a case where there are 5 purchases and 50 000 downloads ? Caveat: must be legally available and not just 5 copies available for purchase either!
Trolls would be labeled as TechDirtAntiMinions as they would be against TechDirtMinions. However they would refer to TechDirtMinions as TechDirtAntiArtistMinions.
The generality is quite simple, piracy has devastated the music business and the 2.1 million people it employs in the USA alone (95% are lawyers). It's gotten so bad that Aimee Mann has taken to cleaning houses, it is true, I saw it on TV.
The movie industry, despite losing $17 billion per month since the 1970's when the VCR strangled women at home, has lost 3.7 million jobs each year! Catering companies and florists, for example, can't find any other company to have as customers. They only service the movie industry. No one else. They are also laying people off (in addition to the 3.7 million per year) and closing up shop.
It's all Google's fault because they won't limit searches to just the legitimate content, and after its windowed release of 96 days because the longer people wait, the more they want it. They don't have other sources of entertainment. Seriously, videogames were a temporary fad, only supported by comic book collectors like that guy on the Simpsons.
There are no real success stories or those in the list would have brought back all those jobs and billions in revenue.
We all know Pirate Mike and his TechDirt minions are the real people behind Google's power and takeover of the Internet for the sole purpose of stealing intellectual property.
It's all part of the Streisand Effect, as outlined in Wikipedia.
There is no quality of art outside of the corporations and all you pirates want to do is destroy what's left so there's nothing but cigarbox music about the long lost days when artists were swimming in money thanks to our now broken system. It's all your fault you evil pirates! We've bent over backwards to see straight and you still steal us blind.
"You can't kill a person with a gun.... . . . . . . . if there is no gun"
So true, but if you plan to kill someone, who says you need a gun? You won't be able to kill as many but you'll still kill or injure people. Maybe the guy makes a pipe-bomb instead?
There are so many factors, but no one has done conclusive experiments to rule out any factor.
This guy may have decided the gun was his weapon of choice because it was there, or maybe he could have decided a explosive device was better. Who knows.
I'm not in favour of loosy-goosy gun control, but I'm not in favour of a band-aid(tm) either.
Another option, as one person notes, is what were the parents doing? Are you so busy with providing for your children (uh, there's more than monetary provision required in parenting) that you don't even notice what they are consuming? A little context goes a LONG way!
And finally, the examples set forth by adults. Watch the news, what do you see, adults invading other countries for corporate gain, killing people over religious or geographic locations, rioting over stupid things like hockey games, taking any opportunity to oppress someone else, etc...
And you wonder why the youth do what they do, they also learn by example from adults, not necessarily parents or those in their every day life either.
So is it video games that are to blame, or is it much more than that, like society as a whole?
Combine that with strong levels of apathy, well it is not a surprise that people are snapping and choosing to make the biggest noise possible when they go! Why go quietly in a tree when you can take a bunch of innocent people with you and make the national or even global news?
And let's not forget, the individuals themselves share in the blame! Sometimes when you hurt you have to say something, others are too fucking busy worrying about their own lives to notice yours.
What about the glorified coverage such people get? What about the glorification of violence on the news, so hyped up to make it all sound epic? Or those police chase shows where the narrator tries his best to make it seem like a $100 million dollar nail-biting thrill ride?
There are also lots of psychologists and psychiatrists jumping on the opportunity to use such a tragedy to get their names out there in the public.
One question, what were the people around such people who snap doing? Could it be you didn't notice the changes in demeanor because you actually don't care? Just like Amanda from BC, people claiming they cared, but what did they do to help her, to prevent her suicide?
If you really cared, you would notice the signs! If you don't know the signs, start learning about them, start watching those around you. You never know how just a smile can make a huge difference in someone else's bad day!
It's obvious that piracy indicates a demand and the industry has full knowledge of economics and understanding lower the price, to a certain point, will increase sales.
They are not stupid [despite what their behaviour indicates].
This is all about control; the industry wants to eliminate competition. Once they have their full monopolistic control they can jack the prices up again and squeeze the artists even more. The biz-nez section of the entertainment industry really is amazing, they can force two different groups to bend over, as they've been doing for decades before the Internet came along.
It doesn't matter who is in office, the erosion of civil liberties will continue.
The only way to stop it is to fight back, gradually and peacefully. I think it would be best to remove those people from power, give them a cushy useless job with a nice pension, get them out of power! Then we can start the gradual change back to sanity. First will be the limiting of the revolving door between industry and government, along with the influence.
Gradual is the key, quick changes are quickly reversed, but a carefully planned, gradual introduction is more difficult to detect and fight (which is how the erosion of civil liberties took place).
The problem I have with this is "making available" and inferring damages from "making available."
You should only be able to claim damages if proven something actually happened.
Posting someone's phone number on your front door is making it available. But just because the cops drive by and see you posted the number does not mean anyone else noticed. So what damages can you actually claim?
There should be a cap on baseless-claims, such as the inferred by making available claim.
Too bad civil courts are all about singing and dancing and not about proof. But I have a funny suspicion, even if non-commercial infringement was deemed "criminal" and warranted jail-time, the burden of proof would be all on the defendant, proving their innocence, while the plaintiff's just dance and sing.
The problem I have with this is "making available" and inferring damages from "making available."
You should only be able to claim damages if proven something actually happened.
Posting someone's phone number on your front door is making it available. But just because the cops drive by and see you posted the number does not mean anyone else noticed. So what damages can you actually claim?
There should be a cap on baseless-claims, such as the inferred by making available claim.
Too bad civil courts are all about singing and dancing and not about proof. But I have a funny suspicion, even if non-commercial infringement was deemed "criminal" and warranted jail-time, the burden of proof would be all on the defendant, proving their innocence, while the plaintiff's just dance and sing.
Citation for 10000+ people downloaded it from her machine? Is that a guess? Or is there a watermark that the investigators found on 10000+ other machines indicating the source was Jammie's machine?
To the RIAA it is not as simple as setting an example. They have real numbers, real data, just like David Lowery. This data illustrates that if Jammie didn't download those songs and share those songs, she and the people who copied from her (though they can't prove it) would have spent that $222 000 or $1.92 Million or $1.5 Million on legal purchases of music!
That's the whole problem, they clearly had the money to spend on music instead of getting it for free. We all do! The industry has the data!
There's no competition from movies or video games or limited expenditures on entertainment due to hard economic times. There's no problem with a distribution model. There's no threat of competition from artists not willing to do exactly what the labels want.
It's all real math that says these infringers and infringement enablers would have spent that money on music! In fact, those awarded damages are actually cumulative to the money that would have been spent, which is $3.642 Million.
Re: The US needs to import common sense from Canada
You are forgetting that Canada import's finished products from the US that were first created at base levels in Canada.
Meaning, first we have realistic laws that don't really need upgrading. The US uses those laws, puts them through a lobbyist assembly line, manufacturing them into a copyright clusterfuck, then "sells" them back to Canada.
Basically, the entertainment industry stole the idea from the manufacturing and natural resources sector.
Canada: Hey, we grow apples!
US: Sweet, why don't you ship them over here, we'll wax them with some semi-toxic chemicals, you can truck them back and increase the price above the apples we grow here in the US!
Canada: Great idea, we can screw over our farmers, price them out of the market, damage the environment, and screw price-gouge Canadian consumers, all while helping your farmers!
US: Great trading with you!
On the post: Quick List Of Successes In Which Copyright Didn't Matter
Re: Tired old examples
And you missed the point of the article. Copyrights were not used to cripple access. That's the point! People did not use copyright as a negative reinforcement tool, as the music industry does. They left their monopolistic privilege abilities out of the equation.
No where in the article does it say such successes are an excuse to download for free. In fact there are so many discussions of the contrary here. Yes, some will never pay and would never buy if free wasn't an option. But many more will buy when reasonably priced (price fixing fines in 2003 ring a bell?) and most importantly, available!!!!
And again, obscurity is the real killer. So 5 people shared your book, 200 bought it. That means NO ONE KNOWS YOU EXIST! That ain't the end of the world!
If 5 people bought your book and 200 shared it, it means you a) you didn't offer anything worth buying (package or content) and b) you're obscure and need to worry about publicity far more than the 200 who shared your work.
Name a case where there are 5 purchases and 50 000 downloads ? Caveat: must be legally available and not just 5 copies available for purchase either!
On the post: If TekSavvy Won't Oppose Copyright Trolls Who Want Customer Info, Who Will?
Re: Infringing???
If you paid for it, you should not be lectured or forced to watch ads. Simple as that!
On the post: NRA's Plan: If We Blame Video Games & Movies For Sandy Hook Massacre, Perhaps People Will Stop Blaming Guns
Re:
On the post: Quick List Of Successes In Which Copyright Didn't Matter
Re: Re: Re: Timmy, Rita Hayworth* was "discovered" at a soda fountain.
On the post: Quick List Of Successes In Which Copyright Didn't Matter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a few exceptions
On the post: Quick List Of Successes In Which Copyright Didn't Matter
Re: Re: Just a few exceptions
On the post: Quick List Of Successes In Which Copyright Didn't Matter
Just a few exceptions
The movie industry, despite losing $17 billion per month since the 1970's when the VCR strangled women at home, has lost 3.7 million jobs each year! Catering companies and florists, for example, can't find any other company to have as customers. They only service the movie industry. No one else. They are also laying people off (in addition to the 3.7 million per year) and closing up shop.
It's all Google's fault because they won't limit searches to just the legitimate content, and after its windowed release of 96 days because the longer people wait, the more they want it. They don't have other sources of entertainment. Seriously, videogames were a temporary fad, only supported by comic book collectors like that guy on the Simpsons.
There are no real success stories or those in the list would have brought back all those jobs and billions in revenue.
We all know Pirate Mike and his TechDirt minions are the real people behind Google's power and takeover of the Internet for the sole purpose of stealing intellectual property.
It's all part of the Streisand Effect, as outlined in Wikipedia.
There is no quality of art outside of the corporations and all you pirates want to do is destroy what's left so there's nothing but cigarbox music about the long lost days when artists were swimming in money thanks to our now broken system. It's all your fault you evil pirates! We've bent over backwards to see straight and you still steal us blind.
/s
On the post: Another Politician Boards The Bandwagon: Sen. Rockefeller Blames Violent Games And Television For Newtown Tragedy
Re: not more reasons disregarding the obvious
So true, but if you plan to kill someone, who says you need a gun? You won't be able to kill as many but you'll still kill or injure people. Maybe the guy makes a pipe-bomb instead?
There are so many factors, but no one has done conclusive experiments to rule out any factor.
This guy may have decided the gun was his weapon of choice because it was there, or maybe he could have decided a explosive device was better. Who knows.
I'm not in favour of loosy-goosy gun control, but I'm not in favour of a band-aid(tm) either.
On the post: Child With Brittle Bone Disease Detained By TSA For An Hour
but now they are safer
Except if you go to school or visit a mall or ride/operate a motor vehicle or... at least you're safe in the air.
I think back to all those terrorist attacks on a weekly occurrence before the TSA stepped in, we're so safe now!
On the post: Another Politician Boards The Bandwagon: Sen. Rockefeller Blames Violent Games And Television For Newtown Tragedy
Re: Not MM?
And finally, the examples set forth by adults. Watch the news, what do you see, adults invading other countries for corporate gain, killing people over religious or geographic locations, rioting over stupid things like hockey games, taking any opportunity to oppress someone else, etc...
And you wonder why the youth do what they do, they also learn by example from adults, not necessarily parents or those in their every day life either.
So is it video games that are to blame, or is it much more than that, like society as a whole?
Combine that with strong levels of apathy, well it is not a surprise that people are snapping and choosing to make the biggest noise possible when they go! Why go quietly in a tree when you can take a bunch of innocent people with you and make the national or even global news?
And let's not forget, the individuals themselves share in the blame! Sometimes when you hurt you have to say something, others are too fucking busy worrying about their own lives to notice yours.
On the post: Another Politician Boards The Bandwagon: Sen. Rockefeller Blames Violent Games And Television For Newtown Tragedy
Not MM?
What about the glorified coverage such people get? What about the glorification of violence on the news, so hyped up to make it all sound epic? Or those police chase shows where the narrator tries his best to make it seem like a $100 million dollar nail-biting thrill ride?
There are also lots of psychologists and psychiatrists jumping on the opportunity to use such a tragedy to get their names out there in the public.
One question, what were the people around such people who snap doing? Could it be you didn't notice the changes in demeanor because you actually don't care? Just like Amanda from BC, people claiming they cared, but what did they do to help her, to prevent her suicide?
If you really cared, you would notice the signs! If you don't know the signs, start learning about them, start watching those around you. You never know how just a smile can make a huge difference in someone else's bad day!
Other people matter too, just as much as you!
On the post: Aussie ISP: We Won't Be Hollywood's Copyright Cops If Hollywood Won't Fix Its Own Business Model
Too bad for Canada
It's obvious that piracy indicates a demand and the industry has full knowledge of economics and understanding lower the price, to a certain point, will increase sales.
They are not stupid [despite what their behaviour indicates].
This is all about control; the industry wants to eliminate competition. Once they have their full monopolistic control they can jack the prices up again and squeeze the artists even more. The biz-nez section of the entertainment industry really is amazing, they can force two different groups to bend over, as they've been doing for decades before the Internet came along.
On the post: Obama Administration Quietly Allowed National Counterterrorism Center To Keep Database Of Info On Innocent Americans
Doesn't matter
The only way to stop it is to fight back, gradually and peacefully. I think it would be best to remove those people from power, give them a cushy useless job with a nice pension, get them out of power! Then we can start the gradual change back to sanity. First will be the limiting of the revolving door between industry and government, along with the influence.
Gradual is the key, quick changes are quickly reversed, but a carefully planned, gradual introduction is more difficult to detect and fight (which is how the erosion of civil liberties took place).
On the post: Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should only be able to claim damages if proven something actually happened.
Posting someone's phone number on your front door is making it available. But just because the cops drive by and see you posted the number does not mean anyone else noticed. So what damages can you actually claim?
There should be a cap on baseless-claims, such as the inferred by making available claim.
Too bad civil courts are all about singing and dancing and not about proof. But I have a funny suspicion, even if non-commercial infringement was deemed "criminal" and warranted jail-time, the burden of proof would be all on the defendant, proving their innocence, while the plaintiff's just dance and sing.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should only be able to claim damages if proven something actually happened.
Posting someone's phone number on your front door is making it available. But just because the cops drive by and see you posted the number does not mean anyone else noticed. So what damages can you actually claim?
There should be a cap on baseless-claims, such as the inferred by making available claim.
Too bad civil courts are all about singing and dancing and not about proof. But I have a funny suspicion, even if non-commercial infringement was deemed "criminal" and warranted jail-time, the burden of proof would be all on the defendant, proving their innocence, while the plaintiff's just dance and sing.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re:
Or are you just talking out of your ass?
On the post: Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
bah
That's the whole problem, they clearly had the money to spend on music instead of getting it for free. We all do! The industry has the data!
There's no competition from movies or video games or limited expenditures on entertainment due to hard economic times. There's no problem with a distribution model. There's no threat of competition from artists not willing to do exactly what the labels want.
It's all real math that says these infringers and infringement enablers would have spent that money on music! In fact, those awarded damages are actually cumulative to the money that would have been spent, which is $3.642 Million.
/satire
OOTB, beat that!
On the post: Last Week To Order The Techdirt Holiday Bundle In Time For Christmas!
mine just arrived today
On the post: Canadian Copyright Law Caps Statutory Damages At $5,000 Just As File Sharing Lawsuits Make Their Unwelcome Return
Re: A million infringers
On the post: Canadian Copyright Law Caps Statutory Damages At $5,000 Just As File Sharing Lawsuits Make Their Unwelcome Return
Re: The US needs to import common sense from Canada
Meaning, first we have realistic laws that don't really need upgrading. The US uses those laws, puts them through a lobbyist assembly line, manufacturing them into a copyright clusterfuck, then "sells" them back to Canada.
Basically, the entertainment industry stole the idea from the manufacturing and natural resources sector.
Canada: Hey, we grow apples!
US: Sweet, why don't you ship them over here, we'll wax them with some semi-toxic chemicals, you can truck them back and increase the price above the apples we grow here in the US!
Canada: Great idea, we can screw over our farmers, price them out of the market, damage the environment, and screw price-gouge Canadian consumers, all while helping your farmers!
US: Great trading with you!
Next >>