Can you please just answer one simple question: Why does someone deserve financial compensation for doing absolutely nothing? Why does someone deserve financial compensation for somebody else creating a virtual representation of them (i.e. doing actual work) which results in free publicity for that person? Please explain.
A football player being used in a video game is simply a recreation of a factual situation. This person plays football in the real world, now he also "plays" football in a video game.
Why don't you go and tell them all about it. Will you post a copy of their response to you when they laugh at your mixture of desperation, paranoia and incompetence? I doubt it... Never mind, we're all having a laugh at you anyway.
"obviously, labels act in the best interest of labels, that is their responsibility as a business..."
So why don't the labels just come out and admit that, instead of lying about how they "support" artists?
"If the band has failed in part of their contractual obligation, which is probably the case."
So you admit you actually have no idea, you're just desperate to defend the labels' shrinking position of power in the music industry.
Ask yourself what's more likely. That the band is demanding royalties for sales that haven't occurred, or that the label hasn't paid them royalties owed for sales that did occur, as claimed. Given the well-documented history of labels' treatment of artists, I'd say the latter is far more likely, wouldn't you?
"Piracy forces musicians into a business model by lowering the price at which the music is offered."
Actually economics forces musicians into a business model by lowering the price at which the music can be offered. Digital music (or any other content) can be reproduced infinitely, and fundamental economic laws force the price towards or to zero as a result. Economics is the study of certain aspects of human nature, and "piracy" is a result of that human nature clashing with our constructed legal system. In a battle between laws and nature, I'll put my money on nature every time. Smart artists will do the same.
I think you grossly overestimate the public's respect for copyright. Most people are either ignorant of it's scope and effects, or view it as an anachronism in the context of today's technology. Genuine respect for copyright is reserved for a few who use it as a welfare system or a cash cow.
If you were genuinely concerned about the risk of Mike violating your privacy, you wouldn't post comments here.
Can you tell us the names of the people who've have their privacy violated? You must know, right? If you don't, there can't have been much of a privacy violation.
"Did he really receive no complaints from Hollywood? Many of the customers who paid him routinely complained that their emails went unanswered:"
Are you joking? Do you really think if the MPAA, RIAA, et al wanted to make a serious legal complaint to the company they would just send the website an email?
"If you're really dealing with so many complaints coming in from the world, that may be a clue that you're relying on a bad business model."
If you're really having to send out so many "complaints" to a file locker website, that may be a clue that you're running a bad business.
"Again, this shows the total disregard for the other people in society-- often a clue that someone is a criminal."
I'd say he was showing considerable regard for the 180 million happy Megaupload users. How many people are in the US movie business again? A few hundred thousand from memory. Why are they more important?
"Imagine you're running a bar. Every Friday night you serve too much alcohol and people start fighting outside, smashing some cars or raping some women."
As soon as you start using analogies involving rape, or any other serious violent crime, you sound like complete asshole. It's copyright infringement, nobody gets hurt. Your movies and songs are not that important.
"Gosh, he's a creep and a loon."
I hope you realise that's exactly what people here think about you.
I think you should read it again. He said "art warehouse". Why would there be food, clothing, etc at an art warehouse? I think the internet comparison is spot on.
"If you completely abandon the morality issue, then you can't complain when the other side does as well."
Don't make the mistake of thinking "the other side" has the moral high ground. They lost that decades ago. As far as 'immoral' behaviour goes, we're all novices playing catch-up.
"People do have unjustified feelings of being owed content in the manner that they want it, and they feel justified to take whatever action they want to get it."
It's not a justification, it's simply a reason. You don't need to justify doing something that you don't really believe is wrong. A large and growing proportion of the population no longer believe in the old-fashioned copyright model, so they simply go around it when it gets in their way.
"Without piracy, those who wanted to see the show (but didn't want to pay for cable) would instead pay or rent the product when it is released on DVD or for download."
In your fantasy world we're all so addicted to content we would simply have to rush out and buy it if there were no free source. This is BS of the stinkiest kind. There are plenty of things in this world I would like but don't buy because either I can't afford it or I the price is higher they I think it should be (i.e. I value my money more than the thing I want). In both a piracy-free fantasy land and the real world, simply not watching/listening to something is a perfectly valid option.
"What is the most funny is that when piracy becomes completely successful, there will be nothing new left to pirate."
Actually what's most funny is that this statement completely ignores thousands of years of human cultural history, and assumes the only reason people create is to get rich. There will always be new content. Always.
If you don't money pay for it, it's free. Simple fact.
And don't give us any blah, blah about the advertising. Watching ads is no cost to me; I can mute them, skip them or leave the room any time I want, so if I choose to stare at the screen instead I lose nothing.
On the post: Columnist Accuses EA Of 'Identity Theft' For Using Player Likenesses
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A football player being used in a video game is simply a recreation of a factual situation. This person plays football in the real world, now he also "plays" football in a video game.
On the post: Why LulzSec Was Un-Hackable, And Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you go and tell them all about it. Will you post a copy of their response to you when they laugh at your mixture of desperation, paranoia and incompetence? I doubt it... Never mind, we're all having a laugh at you anyway.
On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want
Re:
That is a the funniest thing I've heard in ages. I picture gorillas breaking down a door and pummeling some poor kid uploading a movie.
On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want
Re: Re: Re: google - I don't think you understand what a law is or ethics
Hopefully, but in the case of copyright law, not. Not even a little bit.
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Re:
The liability lies somewhere far out of range of anything this band said.
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Re: read the freaking contract - and stop whinning band..
So when somebody reneges on a contract with you, do you just blame yourself and call yourself an idiot?
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Re: Re: Re:
So why don't the labels just come out and admit that, instead of lying about how they "support" artists?
"If the band has failed in part of their contractual obligation, which is probably the case."
So you admit you actually have no idea, you're just desperate to defend the labels' shrinking position of power in the music industry.
Ask yourself what's more likely. That the band is demanding royalties for sales that haven't occurred, or that the label hasn't paid them royalties owed for sales that did occur, as claimed. Given the well-documented history of labels' treatment of artists, I'd say the latter is far more likely, wouldn't you?
On the post: As BPI Tries To Block The Pirate Bay From The UK, Dan Bull Explains Why Musicians Should Block BPI
Re: uhh
No they don't.
On the post: As BPI Tries To Block The Pirate Bay From The UK, Dan Bull Explains Why Musicians Should Block BPI
Re: Re: Re: Dan Bull Sh*t
Actually economics forces musicians into a business model by lowering the price at which the music can be offered. Digital music (or any other content) can be reproduced infinitely, and fundamental economic laws force the price towards or to zero as a result. Economics is the study of certain aspects of human nature, and "piracy" is a result of that human nature clashing with our constructed legal system. In a battle between laws and nature, I'll put my money on nature every time. Smart artists will do the same.
On the post: As BPI Tries To Block The Pirate Bay From The UK, Dan Bull Explains Why Musicians Should Block BPI
Re: Re: Re: Dan Bull Sh*t
I think you grossly overestimate the public's respect for copyright. Most people are either ignorant of it's scope and effects, or view it as an anachronism in the context of today's technology. Genuine respect for copyright is reserved for a few who use it as a welfare system or a cash cow.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
And you're still posting, so obviously there's no chilling effect, proving my point.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Can you tell us the names of the people who've have their privacy violated? You must know, right? If you don't, there can't have been much of a privacy violation.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke
Re: Re: Re:
They were previously owned by Canadian company, but now their owners are Australian. No US interests.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke
Re: What a skillful bit of horsemanure.
Are you joking? Do you really think if the MPAA, RIAA, et al wanted to make a serious legal complaint to the company they would just send the website an email?
"If you're really dealing with so many complaints coming in from the world, that may be a clue that you're relying on a bad business model."
If you're really having to send out so many "complaints" to a file locker website, that may be a clue that you're running a bad business.
"Again, this shows the total disregard for the other people in society-- often a clue that someone is a criminal."
I'd say he was showing considerable regard for the 180 million happy Megaupload users. How many people are in the US movie business again? A few hundred thousand from memory. Why are they more important?
"Imagine you're running a bar. Every Friday night you serve too much alcohol and people start fighting outside, smashing some cars or raping some women."
As soon as you start using analogies involving rape, or any other serious violent crime, you sound like complete asshole. It's copyright infringement, nobody gets hurt. Your movies and songs are not that important.
"Gosh, he's a creep and a loon."
I hope you realise that's exactly what people here think about you.
On the post: Yes, Online And Offline Rules Are Different... Because Online And Offline Are Different
Re: Re: Re:
Are you basing that assessment on your actual experience of the real Wild West, or just what you've seen in countless movies.
On the post: Wale: I Just Want To Make Music & Give It To Fans For Free... They'll Support Me
Re: Re: Beethoven
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
Re:
Don't make the mistake of thinking "the other side" has the moral high ground. They lost that decades ago. As far as 'immoral' behaviour goes, we're all novices playing catch-up.
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
Re: Off topic
It's not a justification, it's simply a reason. You don't need to justify doing something that you don't really believe is wrong. A large and growing proportion of the population no longer believe in the old-fashioned copyright model, so they simply go around it when it gets in their way.
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In your fantasy world we're all so addicted to content we would simply have to rush out and buy it if there were no free source. This is BS of the stinkiest kind. There are plenty of things in this world I would like but don't buy because either I can't afford it or I the price is higher they I think it should be (i.e. I value my money more than the thing I want). In both a piracy-free fantasy land and the real world, simply not watching/listening to something is a perfectly valid option.
"What is the most funny is that when piracy becomes completely successful, there will be nothing new left to pirate."
Actually what's most funny is that this statement completely ignores thousands of years of human cultural history, and assumes the only reason people create is to get rich. There will always be new content. Always.
On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And don't give us any blah, blah about the advertising. Watching ads is no cost to me; I can mute them, skip them or leave the room any time I want, so if I choose to stare at the screen instead I lose nothing.
Next >>