Content creators, be it big time companies or small indie productions, don't get paid when you pirate their stuff.
Then why do places such as Stumbleupon, Reddit, and Huffington Post exist? They allow people to find content for FREE.
Unless if they're assholes like tpb and frequently joke and troll the companies that send them DMCA letters that they don't give a shit and will continue doing as they please.
Because they're Swedish innovators that have found a way to make the internet work for them. Something the big labels have yet to figure out. All seem to have gone on to make careers outside of the Pirate Bay and innovate with newer technology. And judging from all intents and purposes, the fact remains that there is little evidence that piracy is harming anyone. And please, before you sit here and say how "Yes, piracy is killing small children in Ethiopia" please remember:
Either people would do so anyway, the site doesn't host that content in the first place (ie look into magnet links) or there is no evidence that the end users would pay the asking price if it's too high for an end good. So sitting here and saying that Swedens have to respect US law in their native country is beyond ludicrous. Next thing you know, you'll tell me the US isn't giving Mexican drug dealers guns illegally.
The only individual who has criticized Mr. Hart here in the manner noted in your quote above is Mr. Masnick, and in doing so Mr. Masnick cast aside civil discourse with numerous professional slights that were wholly unwarranted and inappropriate by any yardstick.
By stating how multiple lawyers disagree with his position?
By stating how Mr. Hart's comments seem to have a finality to them, be it intended or otherwise?
By showing how his position has changed from one of analyzing copyright for the benefit of all into one that seems to support whatever the MPAA or RIAA want him to say?
Perhaps voting for your own comments shows what kind of person they're dealing with?
I saw Mr. Masnick criticize Mr. Hart for those points. The response to that post was lacking. Civil discourse seems to have been the better part of Mr. Masnick's day, not Mr. Hart's.
Did a Google search on this. You know, Mike should revisit this debate. Have the rules really changed since 2000 or do we have new actors in a grand war?
From the looks of it, not one thing is changed and the fact remains that the recording industry looks as clueless as ever. But that's just my argument.
Judging from past experiences, all the "copyright holder" would have to say is that it's not authorized. So by that word of mouth they unleash the hounds of hell to strike a stake in the ground against piracy.
Meanwhile, three new holes show up in their story and the rest of the world wonders WTF they're doing by punishing kids for singing.
Rushing off (as EFF has done) to yell "Beiber in jail!" is pretty much chicken little, and shows them off as a group more interested in scare mongering than dealing with the issues are they come.
Oh please...
The EFF isn't scare mongering by showing how this bill gives way too much power to a small group of people or are you forgetting that there are no consequence for a copyright holder getting it wrong on their end? The brunt of the problem is felt by the accuser before they have a chance to defend themselves.
Lose time from defending themselves in court.
Lose money by pay advertisers having to pull back their services.
Lost time and money with a court case to fix their reputation.
Unless you have something that says a defendent can do the EXACT SAME thing to someone else, they pretty much have it spot on.
Give Terry the respect for also having a point of view that is backed up by logic that is at least as sound as your own.
From where I'm standing and judging by the replies here, Terry seems the more immature person. Why should I believe someone who has no respect for other's opinion and believes himself to be the final say in constitutional matters?
Wow, you seriously went off the deep end on this reply. What, can't realize what a blue hyperlink is? They aren't criminal yet.
How is that relevant?
In terms of having the government falsely accusing people of seizures and takedowns, that's already been occurring. It's suggested reading to see how Cysco really went after Adekeye since you're at a disadvantage now. But I like how you make one small detail of Rikuo's post and make it the example, not understanding that the corporations (hint: Universal, MPAA, UFC, etc) would use government resources to restrict competition by criminalizing linking.
If the Republicans win, I believe you'll see a number of national security type bills that will reallytighten [sic] the screws.
Judging by the fact that no one has faith in Congress right now, I'm sure that piracy has been the only thing they agree on. (Hint: The blue text? That's a link)
Paying attention to politics, I know that we're gearing up for war with Iran. But this won't really cut down on piracy. But keep dreaming. I'm sure you'll have plenty of people that agree with you. You'll just have to stop looking at that mirror for five seconds.
Industrial espionage is a very hot topic and there is a lot of talk about far greater control over the internet in the interest of economic security.
Going to be quite difficult when those in power have to worry about getting reelected but we'll see...
Naturally, that will make freeloading even more difficult.
*sigh*
All the evidence that shows this won't even put a dent in piracy and you still have faith based evidence that this will work. The bonus for passing this law must be pretty high. So sad that you never bring evidence to the fore.
Oh well, better luck next time Bucko. Maybe your disingenuous arguments will work next time.
In the meantime, buy some popcorn and watch the 11/16 hearing for the STOP Act on C-SPAN
Intriguing. Nothing on that right now on the C-SPAN site. 10 days left.
that's not how the US criminal justice system works. A private attorney can't charge anyone with a crime. That's the prerogative of the government.
Except... That's exactly how our government seems to work. At the behest of corporations.
If your name is Peter Adekeye or Aaron Swartz, then you're a criminal before facts are known. But I guess you forgot about the private right to action that opens up a can of worms, allowing someone like the UFC to bully the internet.
But I guess that's all ignored when even the Feds can't follow the rules.
Funny how you comment how Bieber won't face felony charges and yet ignore how SOPA will condemn the next generation of Biebers.
Ha ha ha! Thanks big brother. I must have missed the rules you laid down. I don't see them in the FAQ either. Is this a bootable offense? Cause I always thought 'crassness' was something the crowd would take care of.
It's pretty much working to bring the internet in line with the real world.
Yeah, the world of 1984...
Must be great not to understand how people use and remix culture. Must be awesome in just closing your eyes to how people make new music and remixes or practice songs on guitars for a global audience.
Obviously, the fact that people can make new stories out of old ones is something you can't come to terms with. But all that is lost on someone not paid to understand that for their own self interest.
Even despite all of the reading of the law that says otherwise, you continue to use the corporate talking point of "provides clarity in dealing with sites to avoid liability" or "addresses websites that use offshore locations to avoid US law".
The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act was passed in 1997, expanding the definition of “financial gain” in criminal copyright infringement and increasing criminal penalties. Among the opponents of the bill was the Association for Computing, which raised concerns that it would restrict dissemination of science, criminalize the transfer of information protected by fair use, and chill free speech in research institutions. Others warned it would greatly expand the scope of criminal infringement; “aggressive prosecutors would abuse their discretion to win convictions” or “bring weak felony cases to get quick misdemeanor plea bargains.”1
None of these concerns materialized.
False. Ninjavideo, Jammie Thomas' convictions are a direct result of the higher statutory damages clause.
The Artists’ Rights and Theft Prevention (ART) Act of 2005 added provisions to criminal copyright law that expressly targeted “camming” and distribution of pre-release commercial works. Critics called it draconian, foresaw an uptick in prison sentences, and decried a lack of fair use in the Act. The provisions have instead been used judiciously; prisons have not been filled with cammers and leakers.
Samantha Tumpach last week filed a lawsuit against the movie theater, claiming the manager pushed for her arrest despite the fact that the local police and MPAA recommended she be released.
And the fact remains, the problem of people being locked up for no reason is a problem. If you can be jailed for any minor offense, then something is wrong with the system. And somehow, the idea of more movie theaters using infrared for all theaters across the country is beyond ridiculous.
2008 brought the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act, a broad bill that amended civil and criminal provisions of the Copyright Act and created the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator position, currently held by Victoria Espinel.
Funny, he says nothing about how Espinel answers to Hollywood. Also, he says NOTHING about how Espinel has been critical in the domain seizure. Also, she talks to lobbyists far more than anyone representing the public. Funny how her position has turned into one of supporting the old crowd instead of actually helping progress the arts.
In the long term, the public benefits the most when both creators and innovators succeed.
It sure does. Too bad legislation never does anything but restrict.
He didn't go by himself, he went as past of a group chaperoned by CEA.
A lot of like minded individuals went to Congress to redress the problem of SOPA. Also, the government has talked to Silicon Valley before. Silicon Valley, for the most part, chose to stay out of DC politics.
It's very unclear what you're trying to say. Basically, the entire problem seems to be that because the CEA opens doors for most of Silicon Valley, this is misleading on Mike's part. Yes, CEA is very concerned about these issues. So are most of the new competitors in Silicon Valley. Why is it a bad thing for companies to get together to redress their government?
On the post: Viacom, 'Decimated By Piracy,' But Its CEO Got The Biggest Raise Of Any Exec Anywhere
OWS
OWS would have a field day...
On the post: Mainstream Press Realizing That E-PARASITE/SOPA Is Ridiculously Broad
Re: Re: Re:
Then why do places such as Stumbleupon, Reddit, and Huffington Post exist? They allow people to find content for FREE.
Unless if they're assholes like tpb and frequently joke and troll the companies that send them DMCA letters that they don't give a shit and will continue doing as they please.
Because they're Swedish innovators that have found a way to make the internet work for them. Something the big labels have yet to figure out. All seem to have gone on to make careers outside of the Pirate Bay and innovate with newer technology. And judging from all intents and purposes, the fact remains that there is little evidence that piracy is harming anyone. And please, before you sit here and say how "Yes, piracy is killing small children in Ethiopia" please remember:
Either people would do so anyway, the site doesn't host that content in the first place (ie look into magnet links) or there is no evidence that the end users would pay the asking price if it's too high for an end good. So sitting here and saying that Swedens have to respect US law in their native country is beyond ludicrous. Next thing you know, you'll tell me the US isn't giving Mexican drug dealers guns illegally.
On the post: Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bieber embeds
On the post: Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By stating how multiple lawyers disagree with his position?
By stating how Mr. Hart's comments seem to have a finality to them, be it intended or otherwise?
By showing how his position has changed from one of analyzing copyright for the benefit of all into one that seems to support whatever the MPAA or RIAA want him to say?
Perhaps voting for your own comments shows what kind of person they're dealing with?
I saw Mr. Masnick criticize Mr. Hart for those points. The response to that post was lacking. Civil discourse seems to have been the better part of Mr. Masnick's day, not Mr. Hart's.
My view stands, good sir.
On the post: Fight The Power: Chuck D Sues Universal Music For Hundreds Of Millions In Unpaid Royalties
Re: Re: Re: FIrst, it's "a massive class action lawsuit", not just one rapper.
Did a Google search on this. You know, Mike should revisit this debate. Have the rules really changed since 2000 or do we have new actors in a grand war?
From the looks of it, not one thing is changed and the fact remains that the recording industry looks as clueless as ever. But that's just my argument.
On the post: Mainstream Press Realizing That E-PARASITE/SOPA Is Ridiculously Broad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
No.
On the post: Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet
Re: Re: Bieber embeds
Meanwhile, three new holes show up in their story and the rest of the world wonders WTF they're doing by punishing kids for singing.
On the post: Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh please...
The EFF isn't scare mongering by showing how this bill gives way too much power to a small group of people or are you forgetting that there are no consequence for a copyright holder getting it wrong on their end? The brunt of the problem is felt by the accuser before they have a chance to defend themselves.
Lose time from defending themselves in court.
Lose money by pay advertisers having to pull back their services.
Lost time and money with a court case to fix their reputation.
Unless you have something that says a defendent can do the EXACT SAME thing to someone else, they pretty much have it spot on.
Give Terry the respect for also having a point of view that is backed up by logic that is at least as sound as your own.
From where I'm standing and judging by the replies here, Terry seems the more immature person. Why should I believe someone who has no respect for other's opinion and believes himself to be the final say in constitutional matters?
On the post: Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is that relevant?
In terms of having the government falsely accusing people of seizures and takedowns, that's already been occurring. It's suggested reading to see how Cysco really went after Adekeye since you're at a disadvantage now. But I like how you make one small detail of Rikuo's post and make it the example, not understanding that the corporations (hint: Universal, MPAA, UFC, etc) would use government resources to restrict competition by criminalizing linking.
If the Republicans win, I believe you'll see a number of national security type bills that will reallytighten [sic] the screws.
Judging by the fact that no one has faith in Congress right now, I'm sure that piracy has been the only thing they agree on. (Hint: The blue text? That's a link)
Paying attention to politics, I know that we're gearing up for war with Iran. But this won't really cut down on piracy. But keep dreaming. I'm sure you'll have plenty of people that agree with you. You'll just have to stop looking at that mirror for five seconds.
Industrial espionage is a very hot topic and there is a lot of talk about far greater control over the internet in the interest of economic security.
Going to be quite difficult when those in power have to worry about getting reelected but we'll see...
Naturally, that will make freeloading even more difficult.
*sigh*
All the evidence that shows this won't even put a dent in piracy and you still have faith based evidence that this will work. The bonus for passing this law must be pretty high. So sad that you never bring evidence to the fore.
Oh well, better luck next time Bucko. Maybe your disingenuous arguments will work next time.
In the meantime, buy some popcorn and watch the 11/16 hearing for the STOP Act on C-SPAN
Intriguing. Nothing on that right now on the C-SPAN site. 10 days left.
On the post: Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because people putting up videos of what came before is really a criminal act
Why does everyone think that singing a song is a criminal act when one person sang it first?
On the post: Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except... That's exactly how our government seems to work. At the behest of corporations.
If your name is Peter Adekeye or Aaron Swartz, then you're a criminal before facts are known. But I guess you forgot about the private right to action that opens up a can of worms, allowing someone like the UFC to bully the internet.
But I guess that's all ignored when even the Feds can't follow the rules.
On the post: Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
Funny how you comment how Bieber won't face felony charges and yet ignore how SOPA will condemn the next generation of Biebers.
Ha ha ha! Thanks big brother. I must have missed the rules you laid down. I don't see them in the FAQ either. Is this a bootable offense? Cause I always thought 'crassness' was something the crowd would take care of.
How disappointing...
On the post: Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Computers & Internet
Now correct my math here, but $600M <> $150M
On the post: Future Of Music Coalition Says It Cannot Support E-PARASITE/SOPA In Good Conscience
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, the world of 1984...
Must be great not to understand how people use and remix culture. Must be awesome in just closing your eyes to how people make new music and remixes or practice songs on guitars for a global audience.
Obviously, the fact that people can make new stories out of old ones is something you can't come to terms with. But all that is lost on someone not paid to understand that for their own self interest.
On the post: Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even despite all of the reading of the law that says otherwise, you continue to use the corporate talking point of "provides clarity in dealing with sites to avoid liability" or "addresses websites that use offshore locations to avoid US law".
Awesome job.
On the post: Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'
Re: Re:
None of these concerns materialized.
False. Ninjavideo, Jammie Thomas' convictions are a direct result of the higher statutory damages clause.
The Artists’ Rights and Theft Prevention (ART) Act of 2005 added provisions to criminal copyright law that expressly targeted “camming” and distribution of pre-release commercial works. Critics called it draconian, foresaw an uptick in prison sentences, and decried a lack of fair use in the Act. The provisions have instead been used judiciously; prisons have not been filled with cammers and leakers.
Link
Samantha Tumpach last week filed a lawsuit against the movie theater, claiming the manager pushed for her arrest despite the fact that the local police and MPAA recommended she be released.
And the fact remains, the problem of people being locked up for no reason is a problem. If you can be jailed for any minor offense, then something is wrong with the system. And somehow, the idea of more movie theaters using infrared for all theaters across the country is beyond ridiculous.
2008 brought the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act, a broad bill that amended civil and criminal provisions of the Copyright Act and created the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator position, currently held by Victoria Espinel.
Funny, he says nothing about how Espinel answers to Hollywood. Also, he says NOTHING about how Espinel has been critical in the domain seizure. Also, she talks to lobbyists far more than anyone representing the public. Funny how her position has turned into one of supporting the old crowd instead of actually helping progress the arts.
In the long term, the public benefits the most when both creators and innovators succeed.
It sure does. Too bad legislation never does anything but restrict.
On the post: Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A lot of like minded individuals went to Congress to redress the problem of SOPA. Also, the government has talked to Silicon Valley before. Silicon Valley, for the most part, chose to stay out of DC politics.
It's very unclear what you're trying to say. Basically, the entire problem seems to be that because the CEA opens doors for most of Silicon Valley, this is misleading on Mike's part. Yes, CEA is very concerned about these issues. So are most of the new competitors in Silicon Valley. Why is it a bad thing for companies to get together to redress their government?
Next >>