Right. Like a Google that specializes in copyrighted content. Nice dodge, though. So how do you stop a foreign infringing site that ignores notice and takedown Jay?
Even simpler.
Learn to base your business around what consumers demand instead of looking at everything as a lost sale. Make products and services that people want or try to sell an authorized version.
Because taking away that platform or its funding is exactly what SOPA is doing by attacking the financial support of a site.
It's not hitting piracy at all. It's throwing an accusation at the wall, pulling its financial support and causing increased liability to site owners based on no evidence.
More lies FUDboy? You know full well that a site that receives an infringement claim can file a counterclaim and that automatically bounces the matter to a federal judge
Meanwhile, the defendant also has to deal with Visa, Mastercard, and other businesses pulling away while the details are sorted out. All because of an accusation of infringement that might be baseless.
Re: Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".
That has to be the most ignorant. IDIOTIC. ASININE statement you can have. Youtube is "too big to fail?" Are you kidding me?
Our drug policy has failed but it's lead to an erosion of 4th Amendment rights. The Prohibition of Alcohol didn't work in the 20s and 30s. Again enforcement of what the law said did not work when no one respected that law. And now you're trying to conflate the topic of the day, the US economic crisis, with copyright law. Which is only similar in the fact that lobbyists are buying the politicians who thought this would breeze by. Sadly, you're mistaken. Youtube is not "Too big to fail". The fact is, the MPAA and RIAA business model needs to change to ensure the growth of the US, not the rest of the world conforms to their entitlement issues.
Re: Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".
That has to be the most ignorant. IDIOTIC. ASININE statement you can have. Youtube is "too big to fail?" Are you kidding me?
Our drug policy has failed but it's lead to an erosion of 4th Amendment rights. The Prohibition of Alcohol didn't work in the 20s and 30s. Again enforcement of what the law said did not work when no one respected that law. And now you're trying to conflate the topic of the day, the US economic crisis, with copyright law. Which is only similar in the fact that lobbyists are buying the politicians who thought this would breeze by. Sadly, you're mistaken. Youtube is not "Too big to fail". The fact is, the MPAA and RIAA business model needs to change to ensure the growth of the US, not the rest of the world conforms to their entitlement issues.
Re: Clearly it is not working well, too many sites make their living by using copyrighted content until they are notified, and often allowing the same content to re-appear within minutes.
People have made money on them. There's plenty of free movies on Youtube. Google aggregates data from all over the world at this point. eBay allows consumers to pay for goods at wholesale prices if they can bid for it. And CL has been around for a while as a place for people to find good deals from others. All seem to be illegal from the looks of SOPA.
Quite frankly, I can't tell if the old content industry has a problem with aggregate data or platforms for expression of content. But because people other than those durned pirates are making money from ads, they're liable for what pirates do.
There has to be some acceptance that the current businesses, using the current business rules, aren't fair for both sides. The sites get to use the content, and the content owners are forced to constantly chase around the huge internet to find the violators, notify them, and get nothing in return except the content taken down after they got caught. Does that really seem fair?
That's the burden they have to bear in bringing about legislation that could bring about enormous consequences if convicted. However, doing all this for an accusation, when even the owners on numerous occasions, have been unable to figure out the difference between a pirated copy, an authorized copy, a remix, a cover, or anything else relating to their "property" is beyond the terms of the agreement that the holders have with the public. It's no longer about progressing the arts, it's about restricting the arts. That's where the rubber hits the road.
They aren't the wrong target. Without them, the files are just bits in the universe that nobody can find. They would just be random files. Google? Well, without listing sites, Google wouldn't find the files either, so that argument doesn't hold. Basically, these sites facilitate and encourage the behavior, and many of them profit grandly from it (see Ninja Video). It seems silly to try to deny their involvement in the process, and equally silly to ignore it
Ignore what? Google got its start by saying "I don't know the answer to this question, but here's a number of sites that do, pointing you to that direction. Youtube does the same thing and has HELPED in creating new content by giving artists a new platform. Anyone can make content, but you need somewhere to house it that people enjoy. Is it too much to ask that people have a platform like Google, like Break.com, like Cracked, like Soundcloud, TPB, or any other site to find an audience for their content without the platform being the culprit? Is it too much to ask for Warner Bros, Universal and the regular suspects realize that people want legal platforms for THEIR stuff so that they can push out more content without arbitrarily restricting what consumers do?
Craigslist and eBay do not "fit under the definition provided for "dedicated to theft of U.S. property.""
Because you say so? Where's your proof?
You go on and on about how this is dedicated to rogue sites, then, by the definitions given, you're scaling back your insistence by just saying it doesn't fit the definition. So how does it not fit it when everything shown proves otherwise?
This was when the US was a colony of England. However, King George III was pretty much an tyrant during his reign. Of course, there were Loyalists that loved him in the colonies, but it was a 1/3 split of people that liked him, hated him, and were neutral.
Long story short, this culminated into the Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773). The tea was taxed and the colonists didn't want it. Boston officials refused to return the tea, so colonists destroyed it by throwing it into the harbor. Wiki has this to say:
Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented.
Gotta love how bureaucrats don't think about consequences until they occur and bite them in the end.
Let's see... Successful Producers... Hmmm... You must have forgotten about DJs... Girltalk, OCRemix, and people that enjoy Minecraft. Shirly, you're not getting it yet...
Then you talk about engineers and I know that you're and I quote:
talking out of your ass!
Because if there's one you should know, it should be Paul Vixie. So what did Paul Vixie, one of the early creators of the internet had to say?
Ultimately there are two ways to modify DNSSEC data. You can either strip off the signatures in which case your modified response will be ignored, or you can just drop the query and never send a response at all. The trouble with these as lawful mandates is that they're indistinguishable from what evildoers will do. There's nothing in the DNSSEC protocol to say "this is a lawful insert or modification, you should accept it."
...
"Say your browser, when it's trying to decide whether some web site is or is not your bank's web site, sees the modifications or hears no response. It has to be able to try some other mechanism like a proxy or a VPN as a backup solution rather than just giving up (or just accepting the modification and saying "who cares?"). Using a proxy or VPN as a backup solution would, under PROTECT IP, break the law.
I have a special concern about this since we will have to implement backup plans in the BIND validator. which we will not do if PROTECT IP passes. and without this kind of backup plan, DNSSEC itself will never be commercially viable."
So good Shirly, you are wrong on your accounts. You're wrong about how pirates are ripping them off when they're making money on the internet. You're wrong about law enforcement doing a much needed job, because if anything ICE is already in the hot seat with their immigration tactics now. To have them trying to enforce copyright law would be asinine. They would fail miserably, as they've done oh so well with the Mooo.com domain.
Now, you see your little bridge there? It's calling your name, Shirly. No meal time for you.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even simpler.
Learn to base your business around what consumers demand instead of looking at everything as a lost sale. Make products and services that people want or try to sell an authorized version.
On the post: Content Industry Insists E-PARASITE Won't Rewrite DMCA, But Co-Author Of The Bill Admits That's The Plan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not hitting piracy at all. It's throwing an accusation at the wall, pulling its financial support and causing increased liability to site owners based on no evidence.
On the post: MPAA Helped Police Seize 'Pirated' DVDs That Were Actually Fully Authorized
Re:
Meanwhile, the defendant also has to deal with Visa, Mastercard, and other businesses pulling away while the details are sorted out. All because of an accusation of infringement that might be baseless.
On the post: Content Industry Insists E-PARASITE Won't Rewrite DMCA, But Co-Author Of The Bill Admits That's The Plan
Re: Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".
Our drug policy has failed but it's lead to an erosion of 4th Amendment rights. The Prohibition of Alcohol didn't work in the 20s and 30s. Again enforcement of what the law said did not work when no one respected that law. And now you're trying to conflate the topic of the day, the US economic crisis, with copyright law. Which is only similar in the fact that lobbyists are buying the politicians who thought this would breeze by. Sadly, you're mistaken. Youtube is not "Too big to fail". The fact is, the MPAA and RIAA business model needs to change to ensure the growth of the US, not the rest of the world conforms to their entitlement issues.
On the post: Content Industry Insists E-PARASITE Won't Rewrite DMCA, But Co-Author Of The Bill Admits That's The Plan
Re: Re: Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".
Our drug policy has failed but it's lead to an erosion of 4th Amendment rights. The Prohibition of Alcohol didn't work in the 20s and 30s. Again enforcement of what the law said did not work when no one respected that law. And now you're trying to conflate the topic of the day, the US economic crisis, with copyright law. Which is only similar in the fact that lobbyists are buying the politicians who thought this would breeze by. Sadly, you're mistaken. Youtube is not "Too big to fail". The fact is, the MPAA and RIAA business model needs to change to ensure the growth of the US, not the rest of the world conforms to their entitlement issues.
On the post: Content Industry Insists E-PARASITE Won't Rewrite DMCA, But Co-Author Of The Bill Admits That's The Plan
Re: Re: Re:
People have made money on them. There's plenty of free movies on Youtube. Google aggregates data from all over the world at this point. eBay allows consumers to pay for goods at wholesale prices if they can bid for it. And CL has been around for a while as a place for people to find good deals from others. All seem to be illegal from the looks of SOPA.
Quite frankly, I can't tell if the old content industry has a problem with aggregate data or platforms for expression of content. But because people other than those durned pirates are making money from ads, they're liable for what pirates do.
On the post: Content Industry Insists E-PARASITE Won't Rewrite DMCA, But Co-Author Of The Bill Admits That's The Plan
Re:
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the burden they have to bear in bringing about legislation that could bring about enormous consequences if convicted. However, doing all this for an accusation, when even the owners on numerous occasions, have been unable to figure out the difference between a pirated copy, an authorized copy, a remix, a cover, or anything else relating to their "property" is beyond the terms of the agreement that the holders have with the public. It's no longer about progressing the arts, it's about restricting the arts. That's where the rubber hits the road.
They aren't the wrong target. Without them, the files are just bits in the universe that nobody can find. They would just be random files. Google? Well, without listing sites, Google wouldn't find the files either, so that argument doesn't hold. Basically, these sites facilitate and encourage the behavior, and many of them profit grandly from it (see Ninja Video). It seems silly to try to deny their involvement in the process, and equally silly to ignore it
Ignore what? Google got its start by saying "I don't know the answer to this question, but here's a number of sites that do, pointing you to that direction. Youtube does the same thing and has HELPED in creating new content by giving artists a new platform. Anyone can make content, but you need somewhere to house it that people enjoy. Is it too much to ask that people have a platform like Google, like Break.com, like Cracked, like Soundcloud, TPB, or any other site to find an audience for their content without the platform being the culprit? Is it too much to ask for Warner Bros, Universal and the regular suspects realize that people want legal platforms for THEIR stuff so that they can push out more content without arbitrarily restricting what consumers do?
On the post: Don't Complain About Piracy When You Create Crappy Games
Re: Re: Re: give better refunds
On the post: Don't Complain About Piracy When You Create Crappy Games
Re: Re: Re: Actually, that exec is right
On the post: Ding Dong: Another DRM Is Dead... And With It All The Files You Thought You Bought
Re: Reinventing the glory days of past resale profits ...
I've barely heard anything about Blu-Ray or the Ultraviolet format that was good.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Easy to refute. TPB is just like Google. They host no content themselves. You should really look into what a Magnet link does.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill
Re: Re:
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you say so? Where's your proof?
You go on and on about how this is dedicated to rogue sites, then, by the definitions given, you're scaling back your insistence by just saying it doesn't fit the definition. So how does it not fit it when everything shown proves otherwise?
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re:
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, take notice of this artificial scarcity:
Available since today with 7 days left.
Top this off with selective showings of the damn show instead of allowing me to either download it or play it with another less proprietary format.
If you want to get your point across with Pete Townshend, PLEASE do it without an annoying paywall.
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Zero? Depends on who has you on payroll?
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Long story short, this culminated into the Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773). The tea was taxed and the colonists didn't want it. Boston officials refused to return the tea, so colonists destroyed it by throwing it into the harbor. Wiki has this to say:
Gotta love how bureaucrats don't think about consequences until they occur and bite them in the end.
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Musicians being ripped off? Are you Sure? Shirly, you are mistaken
Let's see... Successful Producers... Hmmm... You must have forgotten about DJs... Girltalk, OCRemix, and people that enjoy Minecraft. Shirly, you're not getting it yet...
Then you talk about engineers and I know that you're and I quote:
talking out of your ass!
Because if there's one you should know, it should be Paul Vixie. So what did Paul Vixie, one of the early creators of the internet had to say?
So good Shirly, you are wrong on your accounts. You're wrong about how pirates are ripping them off when they're making money on the internet. You're wrong about law enforcement doing a much needed job, because if anything ICE is already in the hot seat with their immigration tactics now. To have them trying to enforce copyright law would be asinine. They would fail miserably, as they've done oh so well with the Mooo.com domain.
Now, you see your little bridge there? It's calling your name, Shirly. No meal time for you.
Next >>