Good job ignoring the main point of the comment you replied to. Are the public complaining about Google's position in the market? Are the public complaining about the services Google offer? No, only their competitors. Where's the evidence of harm to the public?
Have you considered that Google's dominant position in the market is the result of offering a great service that people want? Why should they change that service, to the public's detriment, to appease a few whiny competitors?
"If I jump the turnstile at a train station, or stiff a cab driver, refuse to pay a plumber, sneak into a theater/concert etc... I have commited theft - it's called theft of service. Just because some physical object isn't taken doesn't mean it isn't theft."
Once again you fail to understand the difference between scarce and non-scarce. Even though your examples are not physical objects, they all rely of the use of scarcities. Trains have limited capacity and every extra passenger adds a small amount to the running cost, plumbers have limited time and also do actually install physical objects, theatres also have limited capacity, etc. So no, copyright infringement and theft of service are not the same, or even similar.
"All this time you have spent on this subject and you still don't get it."
Unfortunately, in most cases of a corporation being "sent a message" that "this sort of behavior" will not be tolerated, that message is a punishment that might be equivalent to, at best, a few percent of the corporation's value. In examples of copyright infringers being made examples of, the punishment is often many, many times more than the person's net financial worth.
"The existence of a tool that COULD be used for censorship isn't enough of a reason to say it is bad. A pair of scissors, used in the right way, could easily censor your internet access. Should we ban cutting tools?"
The USG has had the use of cutting tools at it's disposal for a very long time, somewhat longer than the internet's been around. During the internet's time, has the USG shown a propensity to cutting people's phone lines with a pair of scissors to censor them? No, I don't know of any cases of this happening. So can they be trusted with cutting tools? Yes, they can.
The USG has also had the ability to create new laws at it's disposal for a very long time, again somewhat longer than the internet's been around. During the internet's time, has the USG shown a propensity to write laws ostensibly to target certain bad activities, then grossly and cynically stretched those laws to cover things never intended, with terrible unintended consequences? Yes, they certainly have, many times. So can they be trusted with new internet crime-fighting laws that inherently allow censorship? Hell no!
In other words, typical AC analogy fail.
"I guess our libel laws, our consumer liability laws, our product protection laws, and all of that are moves towards censorship, at least by your definition."
Are you familiar with the concept that laws reflect the attitudes of the vast majority of the population? Have their been any mass protests about libel, consumer liability or product protection laws lately?
Oh noes! A gun! Just like the ones found in nearly half of US homes! Your point?
"I suspect they knew he had guns."
Probably, since an occupant of the house was a licensed gun owner. That doesn't even come close to justifying a paramilitary raid on people with absolutely no history to indicate violence was a possibility.
"Why is it if there is no real impact, is there so many people including Masnick trying to convince us there isno real impact ?"
Please reread the title of the post, particularly the last two words. Then ask someone to smack you on the back of the head for making a complete fool of yourself.
"Nobody wants to be entitled to a profit, they just want a fair chance."
Actually, given the constant and unrelenting pressure to expand copyright in both length and scope, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that copyright supporters do feel entitled to a profit, certainly far more profit than many believe they deserve. If you knew your copyright history you'd know that the original "fair chance" has become grossly unfair to the public.
"If you don't like the business model, then don't buy it. But not licking the business model doesn't grant you permission to be an asshole pirate."
Pro tip: Calling potential customers "asshole pirates" tends to make them less interested in giving you money, not more.
And why should we care about a business model that has been made obsolete by significant changes in technology and societal attitudes? Perhaps it's you who should "wake the fuck up already" and adapt to the way things really are.
"The idea here is that in order to allow "music sharing", aka piracy..."
It's telling that you think these are the same thing. "Piracy" is the content industries' boogie-man word for copyright infringement. Plenty of "music sharing" is authorised and hence not piracy. The proposal here is to make more music shareable, so your "aka piracy" comment is completely wrong.
I love watching free-to-air HD content on TV. My 46" screen and 8-foot viewing distance make HD look noticeably better than both DVD and SD broadcast TV. I often record HD movies that I own on DVD, simply because I enjoy watching them in a higher resolution.
I would much prefer to watch HD movies, but I haven�t bought a Blu-ray player even though they are now easily affordable for two main reasons. Firstly, I�m completely turned off by the DRM issues and unskippable content, and secondly because like a lot of people I simply buy a lot less shiny plastic discs than I used to.
When my 7yo DVD player dies, I might replace it with a Blu-ray player simply because they�re so cheap now, or I might just save that money and use my Xbox 360 for watching DVD�s.
"When you understand the differences, you can understand why a "war on piracy" isn't even comparable to a "war on drugs", except perhaps in the use of the word "war". If you fall for it (and apparently you did) then you really missed the boat."
The point was not the differences, but the similarities. The obvious similarities are that both "Wars" have been spectacular failures, in that they've utterly failed to meet their stated aim while at the same time creating new problems that are worse the the ones supposed to be eliminated. If you can't see that (and apparently you can't) then you really missed the boat.
"Drugs are bad for many reasons, and a war on drugs is still an important thing for the US to do."
How much worse will things need to get before you decide that even though you think the War On Drugs is still an important thing to do, it has in fact been a spectacular failure, and so a completely different approach is required to minimise the overall harm to society?
If you're can't see that the these policies cause as more or more harm than it's claimed they prevent, you're not looking very hard.
I can assure you that most of the music I listen to, legally or not, is more than a few years old. Not that that's relevant or has any effect on what I wrote.
You certainly don't have to be an asshole to want to encourage others to infringe on artist's copyrights, you just have to feel that copyright has been stretched ridiculously beyond its original intent, and is of far more benefit to the copyright holder than to the public, the exact opposite of what it was intended to be. And judging by the worldwide scale of copyright infringement, either most of the world are assholes, or copyright holders have simply lost most people's respect due to their actions.
"What Glyn tried to do is make the ends justify the means. There are plenty of much better, and much more certain ways to preserve culture than piracy."
So in the context of this article, can you explain what other "much better, and much more certain ways to preserve culture" could be used, and in fact whether they actually are being used. I got the impression little is being done, so people should take matters into their own hands. Please demonstrate how I'm wrong.
"If piracy is the best answer to cultural preservation, we are doomed."
That's some extraordinarily narrow thinking you're demonstrating there. I'd be a bit embarrassed by that...
"Just like any artist, since they control their work, it's also their choice if the keep it or not."
They "control" their work via copyright, which is supposed to be a deal between the creator and the public where after a limited time period of control, the content is released into the public domain. Thanks to constant strengthening of copyright laws, that deal has effectively been broken by copyright holders, most of whom now think the way you clearly do, with absolutely no consideration for the second part of the deal. Since you've failed to respect the deal, why should we?
The fact that technology has made copying so easy, combined with the declining respect people have for copyright for the reasons I've stated, mean that it's not really "their choice" any more. And in the long-term, culture can only benefit as a result.
On the post: UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims
Re: Re:
On the post: French Court Fails Digital Economics; Claims Free Google Maps Is Illegal
Re: Re: Re:
Have you considered that Google's dominant position in the market is the result of offering a great service that people want? Why should they change that service, to the public's detriment, to appease a few whiny competitors?
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Re:
Once again you fail to understand the difference between scarce and non-scarce. Even though your examples are not physical objects, they all rely of the use of scarcities. Trains have limited capacity and every extra passenger adds a small amount to the running cost, plumbers have limited time and also do actually install physical objects, theatres also have limited capacity, etc. So no, copyright infringement and theft of service are not the same, or even similar.
"All this time you have spent on this subject and you still don't get it."
Irony's a bitch...
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Always A Gatekeeper: RIAA Backs .music Proposal... If It's Only Limited To 'Accredited' Musicians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And they're just as unlikely to be financially successful as they've always been. Proud of that?
On the post: If The RIAA Wants To Talk About Misinformation Campaigns, Let's Start With The RIAA's Misinformation Campaign
Re: Re: Re:
The USG has had the use of cutting tools at it's disposal for a very long time, somewhat longer than the internet's been around. During the internet's time, has the USG shown a propensity to cutting people's phone lines with a pair of scissors to censor them? No, I don't know of any cases of this happening. So can they be trusted with cutting tools? Yes, they can.
The USG has also had the ability to create new laws at it's disposal for a very long time, again somewhat longer than the internet's been around. During the internet's time, has the USG shown a propensity to write laws ostensibly to target certain bad activities, then grossly and cynically stretched those laws to cover things never intended, with terrible unintended consequences? Yes, they certainly have, many times. So can they be trusted with new internet crime-fighting laws that inherently allow censorship? Hell no!
In other words, typical AC analogy fail.
"I guess our libel laws, our consumer liability laws, our product protection laws, and all of that are moves towards censorship, at least by your definition."
Are you familiar with the concept that laws reflect the attitudes of the vast majority of the population? Have their been any mass protests about libel, consumer liability or product protection laws lately?
On the post: Canadian Muslim Who Sends Text Urging His Employees To 'Blow Away' The Competition Arrested As A 'Terror' Suspect
Re: Re:
That ain't cheese...
On the post: Evidence Shows That Megaupload Shutdown Had No Real Impact On Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh noes! A gun! Just like the ones found in nearly half of US homes! Your point?
"I suspect they knew he had guns."
Probably, since an occupant of the house was a licensed gun owner. That doesn't even come close to justifying a paramilitary raid on people with absolutely no history to indicate violence was a possibility.
On the post: Evidence Shows That Megaupload Shutdown Had No Real Impact On Infringement
Re: No REAL impact ??
Please reread the title of the post, particularly the last two words. Then ask someone to smack you on the back of the head for making a complete fool of yourself.
On the post: PolitiFact Trashes Lamar Smith: Says His Claims About Economic Impact Of Piracy Are Flat Out False
Re:
I like the way you just pulled $100B out of your butt. Wouldn't it be neat if the real-world economy worked that way.
"Not losses, just good business that never happened."
Most of which would never have happened anyway, and some of which will encourage more business in the future.
On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, given the constant and unrelenting pressure to expand copyright in both length and scope, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that copyright supporters do feel entitled to a profit, certainly far more profit than many believe they deserve. If you knew your copyright history you'd know that the original "fair chance" has become grossly unfair to the public.
"If you don't like the business model, then don't buy it. But not licking the business model doesn't grant you permission to be an asshole pirate."
Pro tip: Calling potential customers "asshole pirates" tends to make them less interested in giving you money, not more.
And why should we care about a business model that has been made obsolete by significant changes in technology and societal attitudes? Perhaps it's you who should "wake the fuck up already" and adapt to the way things really are.
On the post: 70 Groups Tell Congress To Put The Brakes On Any Further Efforts To Expand Intellectual Property
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Canadian Songwriters Want To Embrace File Sharing, But Do They Have The Right Approach?
Re: Re: Re:
It's telling that you think these are the same thing. "Piracy" is the content industries' boogie-man word for copyright infringement. Plenty of "music sharing" is authorised and hence not piracy. The proposal here is to make more music shareable, so your "aka piracy" comment is completely wrong.
On the post: Hollywood Wants To Kill Piracy? No Problem: Just Offer Something Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would much prefer to watch HD movies, but I haven�t bought a Blu-ray player even though they are now easily affordable for two main reasons. Firstly, I�m completely turned off by the DRM issues and unskippable content, and secondly because like a lot of people I simply buy a lot less shiny plastic discs than I used to.
When my 7yo DVD player dies, I might replace it with a Blu-ray player simply because they�re so cheap now, or I might just save that money and use my Xbox 360 for watching DVD�s.
On the post: Mike C's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
The point was not the differences, but the similarities. The obvious similarities are that both "Wars" have been spectacular failures, in that they've utterly failed to meet their stated aim while at the same time creating new problems that are worse the the ones supposed to be eliminated. If you can't see that (and apparently you can't) then you really missed the boat.
On the post: One Nation, Under Guard
Re:
How much worse will things need to get before you decide that even though you think the War On Drugs is still an important thing to do, it has in fact been a spectacular failure, and so a completely different approach is required to minimise the overall harm to society?
If you're can't see that the these policies cause as more or more harm than it's claimed they prevent, you're not looking very hard.
On the post: Beach Boys Lyricist Goes After Artist Who Dared To Paint Works Inspired By Beach Boy Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Beach Boys Lyricist Goes After Artist Who Dared To Paint Works Inspired By Beach Boy Songs
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Piracy Is Indispensable For The Survival Of Our Culture
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Example:
So in the context of this article, can you explain what other "much better, and much more certain ways to preserve culture" could be used, and in fact whether they actually are being used. I got the impression little is being done, so people should take matters into their own hands. Please demonstrate how I'm wrong.
"If piracy is the best answer to cultural preservation, we are doomed."
That's some extraordinarily narrow thinking you're demonstrating there. I'd be a bit embarrassed by that...
On the post: Why Piracy Is Indispensable For The Survival Of Our Culture
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They "control" their work via copyright, which is supposed to be a deal between the creator and the public where after a limited time period of control, the content is released into the public domain. Thanks to constant strengthening of copyright laws, that deal has effectively been broken by copyright holders, most of whom now think the way you clearly do, with absolutely no consideration for the second part of the deal. Since you've failed to respect the deal, why should we?
The fact that technology has made copying so easy, combined with the declining respect people have for copyright for the reasons I've stated, mean that it's not really "their choice" any more. And in the long-term, culture can only benefit as a result.
Next >>