Mr. Masnick, I think you have missed the point here. Ballmer understands abundantly well that piracy is only helping Microsoft in China, because once the consumers make enough money to be able to buy the real thing comfortably, they will do so without giving a second thought to alternatives. He has said this himself, and that's why Microsoft isn't actually doing anything about piracy in China. This is just lip service being paid to the RIAA/MPAA/et cetera.
I do believe Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig and GPL creator Richard Stallman both said that their respective libre licenses wouldn't be necessary if copyright didn't exist, and their strength only derives from the status quo strength of copyright. So it's nice to see that such a situation isn't just hypothetical but is quite real indeed.
Well, the idea of restaurants going out of business due to cheapness isn't that far-fetched; many restaurants did do noticeably poorer during the recession. That said, it may be worth mentioning that in my family and among our extended family as well as family friends, cooking at home is far and away the norm, while eating out is a pretty rare occurrence (maybe once a month, at most).
Then again, with restaurants the benefits are also of convenience; it is quite a bit more convenient to have your food served to you than to make it yourself. With movies, on the other hand, watching a movie at a theater is only marginally more convenient, if at all, than watching a movie at home.
I agree that the option should be there, but I was always confused as to why people would actually pick it (aside from, of course, the ridiculously artificially long wait between when a movie is shown in theaters and when it is released on DVD/BD/whatever).
I will admit that for a while I was confused as to exactly how the theater experience could be made to be more valuable than watching a movie at home, after having read so many articles mentioning (but not explaining) it on TechDirt. I always figured that if you can get cheaper food, watch the movie at your own pace, and can joke about it loudly with family and friends in the middle, why watch it at an expensive, restrictive theater? Well, the last paragraph cleared that up for me (people want to get out of the house on Fridays and Saturdays). Thank you very much for this article, Mr. Masnick.
"How do you sell someone a $60 game that's really worth it? They're used to 99 cents."
It's funny because this is really a call to action on their part: they need to figure out how to make a traditional game worth the money of people who are used to $1-games. Yet, somehow, they twist it into a plea for unwarranted support. How sad.
I think the statement about "democratizing culture" says it all. xkcd had it right in the alt-text of one of its comics: the **AAs want to stamp out all culture they don't control. At least the guy who said this is honest and forthcoming about the RIAA's position.
I have an idea - from now on, let's mod as many posts like the one above as possible as "funny". I mean, really, at this point I'm having trouble distinguishing the trolls from the hilariously sarcastic troll-imitators.
Also, regarding the comment just below mine - I can attest to that as well. I'm the author of a blog, and I constantly try to find new ways to promote my articles, typically among link aggregation sites. I'm always happy when people link to my posts and comment on them too.
I will say that Samsung could possibly have designed different-looking icons to avoid the trademark lawsuits, though I'm not sure how broadly the trademarks cover the icons (whether it covers the particular icon designs or just having icons representing these functions, period). Also, it isn't clear exactly how broad/specific the patents are on "electronic device". Otherwise, wow. Just, wow.
Dear Mr. Masnick,
What is with you and your cruel, heartless, uninformed blog posts? Are you really going to be in favor of holding up a bill that would bring millions of dollars in aid to those suffering from broken lives and those suffering from broken business models? All we want is for everyone's lives to go back to the status quo; just because the earthquake was a literal disruption does not mean we need further figurative business disruption.
Thank you for your inanity.
Sincerely, the RIAA, New Zealand branch.
(That was supposed to be sarcastic.)
I know I didn't stress it quite enough (I always think I stress a point enough but I never do), but I understand that the character portrayals are pretty inaccurate. The accuracy comes with the chronicling of the events, though again the details are probably embellished; the point is, the lawsuits and their results actually happened, as did the communiques between Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevosses/Eduardo Saverin (his friend).
Here is my take on the movie and the original case, though I am not a legal scholar by any means — I'm just an avid TechDirt reader:
The movie was pretty good, pretty entertaining, and never boring. Most mainstream publications have said after interviewing many of the real people portrayed in the movie that the characters' personalities are often quite different from the corresponding real personalities. Other than that, it's good at illustrating what the cases were about and what each side had to say about them. I don't think the Winklevoss twins were made to be tragic heroes of any kind; I think the movie did a good job of making at least me think that they are whiny rich brats who can't give good ideas proper execution. For that same reason, I think the only thing that they could ethically and reasonably charge against Mark Zuckerberg is breach of contract; through their face-to-face and electronic communications, Zuckerberg had agreed to contribute work to the Winklevoss twins' project, and he instead diverted that work to form his own competing project. Other than that, they don't really have much of a case. And this? Give me a break. They aren't happy with $160 million for not being able to properly execute an idea? If I had a penny for every time that I was wrong, I would be quite a rich person by now. (Oh, and I thought the dispute between Narendra and the Winklevosses about how "suing is not gentlemanly and unbefitting of Harvard students" was hilarious, and I totally agreed with character Larry Summers's words.)
On the post: Microsoft Blaming 'Piracy' Rather Than Basic Economics For Its Struggles In China
On the post: Why Innovation Is Under Attack
On the post: Could The Ultimate Legacy Organization - The Vatican - Be Out In Front On Copyright?
On the post: Why Creative Commons Hasn't Caught On In Serbia: They're Happier Without Copyright At All
On the post: Big Hollywood Directors Seem To Think People Will Actually Pay $30 To Watch Movies At Home
On the post: Scientists Finally Tackle The Age Old 'That's What She Said' Problem
Re: Failed ones?
On the post: US On What Makes A Good Canadian Heritage Minister: Willing To Disappoint Canadians To Please Big Business
Wow
On the post: Mexican IP Official: Infringement Is A More Serious Problem Than Drug Trafficking
Re:
On the post: Not Every Theater Owner Fears Competing With Your Home Theater System
Re: Re:
Then again, with restaurants the benefits are also of convenience; it is quite a bit more convenient to have your food served to you than to make it yourself. With movies, on the other hand, watching a movie at a theater is only marginally more convenient, if at all, than watching a movie at home.
I agree that the option should be there, but I was always confused as to why people would actually pick it (aside from, of course, the ridiculously artificially long wait between when a movie is shown in theaters and when it is released on DVD/BD/whatever).
On the post: Not Every Theater Owner Fears Competing With Your Home Theater System
On the post: More Video Game Makers Fear The Free Market And Don't Know How To Compete
It's funny because this is really a call to action on their part: they need to figure out how to make a traditional game worth the money of people who are used to $1-games. Yet, somehow, they twist it into a plea for unwarranted support. How sad.
On the post: MPAA Hypocrisy: We Must Protect Culture! But We're Not Interested In Protecting Culture!
On the post: Why Authors Shouldn't Sign On With Publishers Focused On 'Fighting Piracy'
Re: Re: Obscurity is the real enemy...
Also, regarding the comment just below mine - I can attest to that as well. I'm the author of a blog, and I constantly try to find new ways to promote my articles, typically among link aggregation sites. I'm always happy when people link to my posts and comment on them too.
On the post: Details Of Apple's Lawsuit Against Samsung Revealed; And It's Even More Ridiculous
On the post: New Zealand Uses Earthquake As An Excuse To Sneak 3 Strikes Law Through
What is with you and your cruel, heartless, uninformed blog posts? Are you really going to be in favor of holding up a bill that would bring millions of dollars in aid to those suffering from broken lives and those suffering from broken business models? All we want is for everyone's lives to go back to the status quo; just because the earthquake was a literal disruption does not mean we need further figurative business disruption.
Thank you for your inanity.
Sincerely, the RIAA, New Zealand branch.
(That was supposed to be sarcastic.)
On the post: Is It Time To Form A 'Rogue' Party Instead Of A 'Pirate' Party?
On the post: Winklevoss Twins Told To Accept The Millions Facebook Has Already Given Them And To Stop Complaining
Re: Re:
On the post: Did The Library Of Congress Just Honor Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re:
On the post: Winklevoss Twins Told To Accept The Millions Facebook Has Already Given Them And To Stop Complaining
The movie was pretty good, pretty entertaining, and never boring. Most mainstream publications have said after interviewing many of the real people portrayed in the movie that the characters' personalities are often quite different from the corresponding real personalities. Other than that, it's good at illustrating what the cases were about and what each side had to say about them. I don't think the Winklevoss twins were made to be tragic heroes of any kind; I think the movie did a good job of making at least me think that they are whiny rich brats who can't give good ideas proper execution. For that same reason, I think the only thing that they could ethically and reasonably charge against Mark Zuckerberg is breach of contract; through their face-to-face and electronic communications, Zuckerberg had agreed to contribute work to the Winklevoss twins' project, and he instead diverted that work to form his own competing project. Other than that, they don't really have much of a case. And this? Give me a break. They aren't happy with $160 million for not being able to properly execute an idea? If I had a penny for every time that I was wrong, I would be quite a rich person by now. (Oh, and I thought the dispute between Narendra and the Winklevosses about how "suing is not gentlemanly and unbefitting of Harvard students" was hilarious, and I totally agreed with character Larry Summers's words.)
On the post: Can You Copyright Pi? Lawsuit Filed Over Copyright On Pi Symphony
Next >>