So what is your preferred term for when non-infringing content is taken offline without any adversarial process in a broad sweep to net infringing content?
"and yet they are still lining up to sign, and hoping that they will be signed up !!!"
One thing that's allowed the labels to succeed over the decades is the seemingly inexhaustible supply of people who think they'll be the Next Big Thing, and will be made rich and famous by a record label.
"they still create content, and are able to afford to continue to create content !!!"
Really? do you not realise that for every successful label musician there have always been hundreds of unsuccessful ones?
"and they make a profit as an agreed (AGREED) percentage of the earnings gained from the content."
Go look at the published stats for musicians that have recouped their paid costs and hence started to make a profit. It's a tiny fraction. Most make nothing. The new non-label models let musicians keep most of the profits and hence actually make a decent living.
"And STILL NOT ONE is FORCING them to sign, they WANT TO SIGN..."
This is a strawman argument. Nobody has ever claimed anyone is being forced to do anything. This claim shows the weakness of your argument, since you need to make stuff up to strengthen it.
"I guess the truth and facts are not things you are really interested in..."
That's an ironic thing to say considering the massive amount of independent research that has been published over the years that debunks arguments like yours, and yet continues to be ignored by the labels as they spiral downwards into obsolescence.
"If there was no one to sign with, they would simply not make the content in the first place."
I can't tell if that's a bold-faced lie or a massive denial of reality, but you're utterly wrong.
Laws that limit the huge innovation growth the internet allows are conceptually sound?
Laws that "target" infringement and yet will also allow removal of large swathes on non-infringing material are conceptually sound?
Laws written by industries with huge vested interests and championed by whichever politicians they paid the most are conceptually sound?
Laws open to gross abuse are conceptually sound?
Glad you don't have anything to do with writing laws. At least I hope you don't...
"...unless, of course, one is inclined to put his/her "rights" on a higher plane than the rights of those who created the original work."
Actually, thanks to constant expansions and abuse of the copyright system by rightsholders, corporations and governments, a large and growing proportion of the populace now hold copyright in very low regard and do in fact hold more fundamental and natural rights on a higher plane. As we all should.
"Also, for the next time someone tries to lie to you and say pirates aren't profiting..."
Well technically the "pirates" in this case, the people who uploaded and downloaded infringing material, are not profiting. A company that provided a useful service used by 180M people around the world, many quite legitimately, seems to have been profiting nicely. I know the distinction is difficult for some to grasp.
I think you need to investigate the reality of typical record label contracts. All require you to give up your copyrights, and most artists make no money from them. Very, very few artists make "lots of money".
"How are torrentfreak, megaupload etc "competition" when they create nothing ??? They simply take someone elses effort and creativity and illegally make millions off of it."
You mean they provide a successful service that millions of people around the world want, and yet despite the obvious opportunities offered by that demand and success, the big media companies continue to fight against providing or collaborating with services that can and do compete with piracy.
"These people are the most egregious examples of vulture capitalism."
So record companies that sign artists to contracts that take away all the rights to their own material, and which are almost never recouped because of ridiculous, meaningless costs and expenses, are not egregious examples of vulture capitalism? Movie studio accounting practices that make sure hardy any of those owed royalties ever see a dime because immensely popular movies supposedly failed to make a profit are not egregious examples of vulture capitalism? Sorry, you do not have a moral high ground to preach from here.
" Where are the AC's demanding Dodd be brought up on charges..."
Hell, where are all the AC's, period? The silence from them in the last couple of days has been deafening, even on the MegaUpload case which you'd expect them to be cheerfully gloating about.
"They don't provide the venture capital for movies or music."
That's not an answer to the question. They're still completely ignoring a proven stream of INCOME, one that comes with the bonus of building goodwill with your customers. Why are they ignoring that?
"Something of this magnitude would have to be MONTHS in the planning."
True, so it would've been no big deal to delay action for a couple of weeks or even a month so as to avoid looking this bad. But that would've required actually understanding the massive level of anger SOP/PIPA have caused.
"Archaic business models like offering their content for sale?"
Archaic business models like offering their content for sale in outdated formats at prices that exceed their value, while delaying or crippling the same content in methods and time-frames that newer technology allows and customers want.
"There absolutely should be strong federal punishments for proven content piracy."
No, there absolutely should be strong federal punishments for proven serious crimes that do provable harm. The content industries like to make claims of massive monetary and job losses, and base their demands for legal recourse based on those claims. Yet none of the independent, non-industry studies, even some from governments, can find any evidence that supports these outlandish claims. If you want to inflict strong federal punishments for crimes, there should be conclusive evidence and wide agreement of the actual effects of those crimes. The industries have failed miserably to prove that, and have instead succeeded in getting most of what they want due to massively lobbying dollars going to self-serving politicians who fit every definition of corrupt except the legal one.
Spoken like a true Luddite. If you think that "most of the internet" is just that stuff, then either your internet experience is limited or you're just not very good at finding the good stuff. The internet experience is what you make it; if you only find crap, stop looking for crap.
"Guess some rights are worth more than others, right? "
YES! Finally, you get it! Copyright is a government-granted right that should only exist if is to the public's benefit as originally intended. As far as rights go it already ranks fairly low on the scale. Public opinion of copyright is at an all-time low thanks to the ridiculous state of copyright laws today, whereas other more fundamental rights are far more treasured and respected, so it's entirely correct that "some rights are worth more than others."
Your house is burning down. Slowly, and with plenty of opportunity over the last decade to do something about it, except you keep trying to put it out with fire instead of water. The rest of the neighbourhood is doing just fine, and is in fact expanding to everyone's benefit.
"A small, noisy group of people forcing politicians to take a stand that they do not agree with, or "face the consequences" seems like really pushing the limits."
A large, widespread group of people strongly suggesting that politicians take a stand that represents them instead of corporate sponsors, or face the possibility of not getting re-elected, seems like how representative democracy is supposed to work.
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
Re: What a moron.
So what is your preferred term for when non-infringing content is taken offline without any adversarial process in a broad sweep to net infringing content?
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One thing that's allowed the labels to succeed over the decades is the seemingly inexhaustible supply of people who think they'll be the Next Big Thing, and will be made rich and famous by a record label.
"they still create content, and are able to afford to continue to create content !!!"
Really? do you not realise that for every successful label musician there have always been hundreds of unsuccessful ones?
"and they make a profit as an agreed (AGREED) percentage of the earnings gained from the content."
Go look at the published stats for musicians that have recouped their paid costs and hence started to make a profit. It's a tiny fraction. Most make nothing. The new non-label models let musicians keep most of the profits and hence actually make a decent living.
"And STILL NOT ONE is FORCING them to sign, they WANT TO SIGN..."
This is a strawman argument. Nobody has ever claimed anyone is being forced to do anything. This claim shows the weakness of your argument, since you need to make stuff up to strengthen it.
"I guess the truth and facts are not things you are really interested in..."
That's an ironic thing to say considering the massive amount of independent research that has been published over the years that debunks arguments like yours, and yet continues to be ignored by the labels as they spiral downwards into obsolescence.
"If there was no one to sign with, they would simply not make the content in the first place."
I can't tell if that's a bold-faced lie or a massive denial of reality, but you're utterly wrong.
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Laws that limit the huge innovation growth the internet allows are conceptually sound?
Laws that "target" infringement and yet will also allow removal of large swathes on non-infringing material are conceptually sound?
Laws written by industries with huge vested interests and championed by whichever politicians they paid the most are conceptually sound?
Laws open to gross abuse are conceptually sound?
Glad you don't have anything to do with writing laws. At least I hope you don't...
"...unless, of course, one is inclined to put his/her "rights" on a higher plane than the rights of those who created the original work."
Actually, thanks to constant expansions and abuse of the copyright system by rightsholders, corporations and governments, a large and growing proportion of the populace now hold copyright in very low regard and do in fact hold more fundamental and natural rights on a higher plane. As we all should.
On the post: DH's Love Child's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re:
Well technically the "pirates" in this case, the people who uploaded and downloaded infringing material, are not profiting. A company that provided a useful service used by 180M people around the world, many quite legitimately, seems to have been profiting nicely. I know the distinction is difficult for some to grasp.
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
Re: Re:
You mean they provide a successful service that millions of people around the world want, and yet despite the obvious opportunities offered by that demand and success, the big media companies continue to fight against providing or collaborating with services that can and do compete with piracy.
"These people are the most egregious examples of vulture capitalism."
So record companies that sign artists to contracts that take away all the rights to their own material, and which are almost never recouped because of ridiculous, meaningless costs and expenses, are not egregious examples of vulture capitalism? Movie studio accounting practices that make sure hardy any of those owed royalties ever see a dime because immensely popular movies supposedly failed to make a profit are not egregious examples of vulture capitalism? Sorry, you do not have a moral high ground to preach from here.
On the post: MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought
Re:
Hell, where are all the AC's, period? The silence from them in the last couple of days has been deafening, even on the MegaUpload case which you'd expect them to be cheerfully gloating about.
On the post: MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disgusting
On the post: Megaupload Details Raise Significant Concerns About What DOJ Considers Evidence Of Criminal Behavior
Re: Re: Re:
That's not an answer to the question. They're still completely ignoring a proven stream of INCOME, one that comes with the bonus of building goodwill with your customers. Why are they ignoring that?
On the post: Patrick Leahy Still Doesn't Get It; Says Stopping PIPA Is A Victory For Thieves
Re: Re:
And everyone knows it."
Can you point to the bit where Mike, or anyone else, says this doesn't happen?
Way to completely and utterly miss the point. Again.
On the post: The Internet Strikes Back: Anonymous Takes Down DOJ.gov, RIAA, MPAA Sites To Protest Megaupload Seizure
Re:
On the post: The Internet Strikes Back: Anonymous Takes Down DOJ.gov, RIAA, MPAA Sites To Protest Megaupload Seizure
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ Gives Its Opinion On SOPA By Unilaterally Shutting Down 'Foreign Rogue Site' Megaupload... Without SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, so it would've been no big deal to delay action for a couple of weeks or even a month so as to avoid looking this bad. But that would've required actually understanding the massive level of anger SOP/PIPA have caused.
On the post: Are Democrats About To Lose An Entire Generation Of Voters By Pushing PIPA/SOPA Forward?
Re: Re: Re: Yesterday was only the beginning
On the post: It's Official: Wikipedia To Go Dark On Wednesday
Re: Re:
Archaic business models like offering their content for sale in outdated formats at prices that exceed their value, while delaying or crippling the same content in methods and time-frames that newer technology allows and customers want.
On the post: White House Comes Out Against The Approach In SOPA/PIPA In Response To Online Petition
Re: Re: Positive development, but...
No, there absolutely should be strong federal punishments for proven serious crimes that do provable harm. The content industries like to make claims of massive monetary and job losses, and base their demands for legal recourse based on those claims. Yet none of the independent, non-industry studies, even some from governments, can find any evidence that supports these outlandish claims. If you want to inflict strong federal punishments for crimes, there should be conclusive evidence and wide agreement of the actual effects of those crimes. The industries have failed miserably to prove that, and have instead succeeded in getting most of what they want due to massively lobbying dollars going to self-serving politicians who fit every definition of corrupt except the legal one.
On the post: Study Confirms: News Networks Owned By SOPA Supporters... Are Ignoring SOPA/PIPA
Re:
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re:
YES! Finally, you get it! Copyright is a government-granted right that should only exist if is to the public's benefit as originally intended. As far as rights go it already ranks fairly low on the scale. Public opinion of copyright is at an all-time low thanks to the ridiculous state of copyright laws today, whereas other more fundamental rights are far more treasured and respected, so it's entirely correct that "some rights are worth more than others."
On the post: Indian ISP Blocks A Bunch Of Websites To Try To Prevent File Sharing Of A Single Movie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Who Will Be The First Politician To Be GoDaddy'd?
Re: Re: Re:
A large, widespread group of people strongly suggesting that politicians take a stand that represents them instead of corporate sponsors, or face the possibility of not getting re-elected, seems like how representative democracy is supposed to work.
Next >>