No shit, sherlock. That's why alternatives pop up.
"What you (and others like you) want to do is gain the right to dictate to content producers (you know, the guys and girls who actually make this stuff) how they will give it to you, how you can use it once you have it, and how you can reuse it without concern about them. Effectively, you want them to have few if any rights, and you want all the benefits."
A business does not have the right to make money. They have the ability to try and fail based on their merits. If their merits try to limit consumers, then the consequences fall on them also. Do more of what a customer wants, make more money. Do less, money goes to other service providers. It's not rocket science and yet, you continue to believe businesses have a license to print money from things that harm the public for short sighted gain?
" Nobody can tell you what to wear or tell you what to eat for dinner, so why should you be able to tell someone how their product should be sold or used?"
If you think the song, movie, game, is the only end product, then you're doing it wrong and you don't see the larger picture. Maybe you can tell me why people still make remixes, alternatives, and homages that aren't based on the product, but shout out to them as meanings and inspiration.
"Go make your own (without using their content to do it)."
Since I used the English language first, you have to stop using it. No really, stop reading this sentence. Come up with your own language so you can't communicate about a new form of entertainment, are left out of conversations, and leave your idea of businesses having personal rights elsewhere. They provide services. If they can't do that very simple thing, they don't get my money and it goes to competitors. Or it gets saved. It's that simple.
"The blame for collateral damage should go to those who break the law, and try to hide amongst law abiding people while doing it."
And that's the most asinine thing I've heard from someone advocating copyright. Collateral damage? When people find alternatives because the legal version is riddled with restrictions? When there's no difference between one version or the next? When the company can't figure out how to make it easier for their consumers to enjoy entertainment instead of bitching at Congress for more laws that will be fruitless?
You deserve pity for keeping such a sad sheltered life.
"Yes, it is also bottom line oriented - nobody should be forced to compete against people taking their products and giving them away for free illegally."
If they can't compete, get out of the market.
"Live with it, or live without it. You can't just take it and ignore the rights of others."
It happens. More laws ain't going to change it. The denial phase is gone, the anger phase has done nothing. All you have to do is accept it and learn how to move on with making alternatives instead of thinking Congress will actually save the day with copyright.
... Yeah tell the world how you really feel about the valid issues of the bill with no protections to allegations, but increases liability to legal sites.
"Where are the "illegal" acts of ICE? So far I have only seen acts committed after a warrant was issued by a court of law."
Here's a question, why was no information about the first raids put out? We have no affidavit, no warrants, and yet 15 places were ransacked at the same time.
We have a magistrate judge who allowed this, but there was no adversarial hearing for the first 9 sites. You basically have a one sided fight against piracy where the other sites don't even know they have to play the game.
And just because there's a warrant, it doesn't automatically make the act legal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy
And yet, you won't defend the lies you tell because there is no basis that says you're right.
If you're going to accuse others of FUD, the LEAST you could do is explain, in detail, how the legislation you support won't cause added liability for sites that Monster and the RIAA deem illegal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy
"No, what they want is the internet to go full light speed, and for the consequences to be settled at the snails pace of the legal system."
Bullshit.
"PROTECT IP is (like the ICE actions) a step towards bringing the legal system up to the speed of the internet. It's why they hate it so much, and why there is so much FUD being pushed about it here."
You keep saying that but the concerns of PIPA are ignored for your own FUD. How about before a site is taken, there's a court date set, the FBI says we're eyeing this domain and the person speaks up about why their domain is legal? Is that so hard?
" The authorities can download the content, and then make the site inaccessible in the US. We don't have to do "either or" here, Protect-IP doesn't stop law enforcement from doing their job fully."
How is that taking the camera away from the person that is causing the harm?
Better yet, how is that taking the child out of harm's way? You've just tipped off a website that they're transferring acts or, like the links below show, that new people won't get in. Now how are you going to capture them without censoring the site, monitoring the situation, or taking down a domain? The other parts are superfluous to the reason CP was brought up in the first place. That form of censorship does not work and it is a half-assed solution to a difficult problem.
"Further, if making it so others don't see the acts somehow can dissuade them from doing the same, then we have accomplished a lot"
No, it hasn't. Unless you've taken the child and put them through rehab, taken the scumbag down and arrested him, it's not the full job. All you've caused is for these people to scatter like roaches to a new location, change their tactics, and inflict new harms. That's the problem here.
"To be honest, I wouldn't read too much into Alec having Victoria's gmail address. Lots of people on all sides know each other and have outside emails. In fact, I actually think it's a *good* think that Espinel pushed the conversation over to her WH email."
I disagree for a number of reasons.
This shows that lobbyists are in constant contact with government officials. More than any interest of the public (EFF, PK, KEI, etc) ever will be. Any suggestion of public support will have a very hard time gaining acceptance in this atmosphere because of this one sided deal that the government/private interests are courting.
The public is also worse off for this collusion. Because of Biden's personal belief that copyright infringement is theft, he seems to be quite diligent in pursuing that interest for the trade industries. Meanwhile, where do we, the public stand? The government has no idea. And it does not care one whit. That's the most frustrating part.
I recall that people sent in heartfelt letters, hoping to sway their representatives opinion at the very least in copyright. Every one of them from the major copyright players (Cornyn, Klaboucher, Leahy) seems to have been met with a form letter after weeks with no replies. And yet, here is evidence that the opposite side of the coin has access to the Executive Branch in Biden, campaign donations for the Legislative, and the Judicial court system in the form of Beryl, who seems an odd choice for ruling over the H&R block merger.
Yes, I stand somewhat pessimistic about this, because it's all quite daunting to the individual. Their rights are impinged for the all mighty dollar and there's very few in government that truly fight for them.
Alec French, NBC’s top lobbyist, sent copyright czar Espinel an e-mail from his Blackberry in January of last year, asking if she was “available for call this am?”
She promptly replied: “Btw, i only check my gmail intermittently now so much quicker to reach me on omb email,” referrring to her work e-mail address provided by the Office of Management and Budget. She said she was available for the call. Her personal e-mail address was redacted in the documents.
"Instead, the President Barack Obama appointee referred Wired to the OMB press office. That office neither responded for comment nor replied to a follow-up e-mail."
*sigh*
THIS is the problem of our government. When anyone has a valid complaint, they get a form letter. When people speak up, it can be routinely ignored. But any lobbyist gets a personal email, daily discussions, and updates with those in power without any public consideration. That's not a democracy. It's hypocrisy. Glad to see the emails of the people that believe the public has no rights. It's time to create newer incentives than the ones that allow for a farce of government.
"Now days with the internet you can find anything and everything for free if you know where to look. The world has changed while the law stayed the same. The reasoning for the law doesn't really hold up anymore. But as was pointed out above, you hear stories all the time of some "perv" being busted for x counts of child porn. Now he/she is going to spend the rest of their life in prison even if the only person they ever abused was themselves."
Or the law is stretched to the breaking point by targeting those that don't abuse children. Link
"Gee thanks for the subject, it now makes my response look like I'm saying I do condone child porn."
I didn't even know you had posted until my post came about. So whatever you had to say was discovered independent of mine.
"This trick that idiots pull of making people feel forced to preface any argument with those words are part of what prevents rational debate about how to best protect children and keeps the conversation squarely on how manly a response they would give if they ever came into contact with someone who abused children"
Your first part seems good. But having read your other words, I'm not entirely sure I follow what in the world you're implying here. Sure, if you hurt a child, you deserve to be beaten within an inch of your life. But as I said, CP is emotionally charged and should be approached with caution. Usually, if someone is talking about this subject, the odds are they're trying to sell an idea of how to censor the internet. That's the point I'm making.
There's very few places that help victims of CP. One that I was made aware of was Mogis. Now think about how many people advocate censorship of CP. Then think about how many organizations are set up to assist victims, run counseling, help children adjust, or get them out of this very bad situation.
"He (Bambauer) is pointing out that, despite this being censorship, not all forms of censorship are seen as inherently bad."
Censorship of child porn is very, VERY hazardous.
The fact is, we can't help the victims, we can't find the culprits, nor can we find out an actual way to stop some maximalists from using it to further their own agenda.
Further, there's problems of how censoring child porn is used in ways unintended. If a 16 year old sends a text message to a 14 year old, that's child porn. So not only is "child porn" an emotionally charged word, but it can be used in dubious ways to convict the kids it's supposed to protect.
Not the used stores. I'm sure they'll always be around, albeit in a different capacity. I've always loved to explore the old stuff and read books at half the price.
Then the consumers just move to illegal alternatives... And Hulu might try a lawsuit. I find it sad that they're going to suffocate slowly when they were doing so well beforehand.
But it's the same lesson over and over... Never work with the legacy businesses unless you want to succeed.
Since the dawn of the 18th century, when our ancestors first discovered the censoring path with cunning and wit, money has been spilled in the name of copyright, from God to justice, to simple internet stupidity.
In the year 2011, after centuries of armed lawsuits, the destructive nature of censorship, could substain itself, no longer. The world was plunged into an abyss of dark nights, and silence.
But it was not, as some had predicted, the end of the world. Instead, the apocalypse was just the prologue to another bloody chapter of human history. For man, had succeded destroying the innovative world..
On the post: BearGriz72's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
No shit, sherlock. That's why alternatives pop up.
"What you (and others like you) want to do is gain the right to dictate to content producers (you know, the guys and girls who actually make this stuff) how they will give it to you, how you can use it once you have it, and how you can reuse it without concern about them. Effectively, you want them to have few if any rights, and you want all the benefits."
A business does not have the right to make money. They have the ability to try and fail based on their merits. If their merits try to limit consumers, then the consequences fall on them also. Do more of what a customer wants, make more money. Do less, money goes to other service providers. It's not rocket science and yet, you continue to believe businesses have a license to print money from things that harm the public for short sighted gain?
" Nobody can tell you what to wear or tell you what to eat for dinner, so why should you be able to tell someone how their product should be sold or used?"
If you think the song, movie, game, is the only end product, then you're doing it wrong and you don't see the larger picture. Maybe you can tell me why people still make remixes, alternatives, and homages that aren't based on the product, but shout out to them as meanings and inspiration.
"Go make your own (without using their content to do it)."
Since I used the English language first, you have to stop using it. No really, stop reading this sentence. Come up with your own language so you can't communicate about a new form of entertainment, are left out of conversations, and leave your idea of businesses having personal rights elsewhere. They provide services. If they can't do that very simple thing, they don't get my money and it goes to competitors. Or it gets saved. It's that simple.
"The blame for collateral damage should go to those who break the law, and try to hide amongst law abiding people while doing it."
And that's the most asinine thing I've heard from someone advocating copyright. Collateral damage? When people find alternatives because the legal version is riddled with restrictions? When there's no difference between one version or the next? When the company can't figure out how to make it easier for their consumers to enjoy entertainment instead of bitching at Congress for more laws that will be fruitless?
You deserve pity for keeping such a sad sheltered life.
On the post: BearGriz72's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Control Issues
If they can't compete, get out of the market.
"Live with it, or live without it. You can't just take it and ignore the rights of others."
It happens. More laws ain't going to change it. The denial phase is gone, the anger phase has done nothing. All you have to do is accept it and learn how to move on with making alternatives instead of thinking Congress will actually save the day with copyright.
On the post: BearGriz72's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?
Re: Re: Re:
Here's a question, why was no information about the first raids put out? We have no affidavit, no warrants, and yet 15 places were ransacked at the same time.
We have a magistrate judge who allowed this, but there was no adversarial hearing for the first 9 sites. You basically have a one sided fight against piracy where the other sites don't even know they have to play the game.
And just because there's a warrant, it doesn't automatically make the act legal.
On the post: Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy
If you're going to accuse others of FUD, the LEAST you could do is explain, in detail, how the legislation you support won't cause added liability for sites that Monster and the RIAA deem illegal.
On the post: Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy
Bullshit.
"PROTECT IP is (like the ICE actions) a step towards bringing the legal system up to the speed of the internet. It's why they hate it so much, and why there is so much FUD being pushed about it here."
You keep saying that but the concerns of PIPA are ignored for your own FUD. How about before a site is taken, there's a court date set, the FBI says we're eyeing this domain and the person speaks up about why their domain is legal? Is that so hard?
On the post: Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is that taking the camera away from the person that is causing the harm?
Better yet, how is that taking the child out of harm's way? You've just tipped off a website that they're transferring acts or, like the links below show, that new people won't get in. Now how are you going to capture them without censoring the site, monitoring the situation, or taking down a domain? The other parts are superfluous to the reason CP was brought up in the first place. That form of censorship does not work and it is a half-assed solution to a difficult problem.
"Further, if making it so others don't see the acts somehow can dissuade them from doing the same, then we have accomplished a lot"
No, it hasn't. Unless you've taken the child and put them through rehab, taken the scumbag down and arrested him, it's not the full job. All you've caused is for these people to scatter like roaches to a new location, change their tactics, and inflict new harms. That's the problem here.
On the post: Worst Kept Secret Now Confirmed: Government Was Very Involved Helping RIAA/MPAA Negotiate Six Strikes
Re: Re: Re: Just who are "the people".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110727/16233815292/another-day-another-study-that-sa ys-pirates-are-best-customers-this-time-hadopi.shtml
"Big Hardware-- "
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/09100416324/does-amazon-want-to-monopolize-entire-pub lishing-chain.shtml
"and Big Search."
Well ya got me there, since Google doesn't pay much. But Pirate Bay with its free advertising...
On the post: Worst Kept Secret Now Confirmed: Government Was Very Involved Helping RIAA/MPAA Negotiate Six Strikes
Re: Re: My issue with this...
I disagree for a number of reasons.
This shows that lobbyists are in constant contact with government officials. More than any interest of the public (EFF, PK, KEI, etc) ever will be. Any suggestion of public support will have a very hard time gaining acceptance in this atmosphere because of this one sided deal that the government/private interests are courting.
The public is also worse off for this collusion. Because of Biden's personal belief that copyright infringement is theft, he seems to be quite diligent in pursuing that interest for the trade industries. Meanwhile, where do we, the public stand? The government has no idea. And it does not care one whit. That's the most frustrating part.
I recall that people sent in heartfelt letters, hoping to sway their representatives opinion at the very least in copyright. Every one of them from the major copyright players (Cornyn, Klaboucher, Leahy) seems to have been met with a form letter after weeks with no replies. And yet, here is evidence that the opposite side of the coin has access to the Executive Branch in Biden, campaign donations for the Legislative, and the Judicial court system in the form of Beryl, who seems an odd choice for ruling over the H&R block merger.
Yes, I stand somewhat pessimistic about this, because it's all quite daunting to the individual. Their rights are impinged for the all mighty dollar and there's very few in government that truly fight for them.
On the post: Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The UK has had serious doubts
And of course, when one goes out to fight monsters... (Google is your friend and there are a lot of sickos out there)
On the post: Worst Kept Secret Now Confirmed: Government Was Very Involved Helping RIAA/MPAA Negotiate Six Strikes
My issue with this...
She promptly replied: “Btw, i only check my gmail intermittently now so much quicker to reach me on omb email,” referrring to her work e-mail address provided by the Office of Management and Budget. She said she was available for the call. Her personal e-mail address was redacted in the documents.
"Instead, the President Barack Obama appointee referred Wired to the OMB press office. That office neither responded for comment nor replied to a follow-up e-mail."
*sigh*
THIS is the problem of our government. When anyone has a valid complaint, they get a form letter. When people speak up, it can be routinely ignored. But any lobbyist gets a personal email, daily discussions, and updates with those in power without any public consideration. That's not a democracy. It's hypocrisy. Glad to see the emails of the people that believe the public has no rights. It's time to create newer incentives than the ones that allow for a farce of government.
On the post: Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?
Re: Re: Re:
Or the law is stretched to the breaking point by targeting those that don't abuse children. Link
On the post: Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?
I didn't even know you had posted until my post came about. So whatever you had to say was discovered independent of mine.
"This trick that idiots pull of making people feel forced to preface any argument with those words are part of what prevents rational debate about how to best protect children and keeps the conversation squarely on how manly a response they would give if they ever came into contact with someone who abused children"
Your first part seems good. But having read your other words, I'm not entirely sure I follow what in the world you're implying here. Sure, if you hurt a child, you deserve to be beaten within an inch of your life. But as I said, CP is emotionally charged and should be approached with caution. Usually, if someone is talking about this subject, the odds are they're trying to sell an idea of how to censor the internet. That's the point I'm making.
There's very few places that help victims of CP. One that I was made aware of was Mogis. Now think about how many people advocate censorship of CP. Then think about how many organizations are set up to assist victims, run counseling, help children adjust, or get them out of this very bad situation.
Do you see the problem here?
On the post: Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?
*NO, I DO NOT CONDONE CHILD PORN*
Censorship of child porn is very, VERY hazardous.
The fact is, we can't help the victims, we can't find the culprits, nor can we find out an actual way to stop some maximalists from using it to further their own agenda.
Further, there's problems of how censoring child porn is used in ways unintended. If a 16 year old sends a text message to a 14 year old, that's child porn. So not only is "child porn" an emotionally charged word, but it can be used in dubious ways to convict the kids it's supposed to protect.
On the post: Copyright Fight Brewing Over Who 'Owns' Steve Jobs Silhouette Inside The Apple Logo
Re: Re:
Does it even matter?
On the post: Hulu's Owners Unable To Find Idiots Willing To Overpay To Take Hulu Off Their Hands Before They Kill It
Re: Not just this
On the post: Does Amazon Want to Monopolize The Entire Publishing Chain?
Re: Re: Great news
On the post: Hulu's Owners Unable To Find Idiots Willing To Overpay To Take Hulu Off Their Hands Before They Kill It
Re:
But it's the same lesson over and over... Never work with the legacy businesses unless you want to succeed.
On the post: Copyright Fight Brewing Over Who 'Owns' Steve Jobs Silhouette Inside The Apple Logo
Everyone loses...
Since the dawn of the 18th century, when our ancestors first discovered the censoring path with cunning and wit, money has been spilled in the name of copyright, from God to justice, to simple internet stupidity.
In the year 2011, after centuries of armed lawsuits, the destructive nature of censorship, could substain itself, no longer. The world was plunged into an abyss of dark nights, and silence.
But it was not, as some had predicted, the end of the world. Instead, the apocalypse was just the prologue to another bloody chapter of human history. For man, had succeded destroying the innovative world..
Next >>