"million and millions of copyright violations, versus the potential of a few potential issues of collateral damage."
Millions and millions of copyright violations most of which cause no provable harm, versus the potential of thousands of potential issues of collateral damage, based on our experience with existing legislation.
FTFY
"...I am not going to force copyright holders to give up their rights..."
Sorry, what rights are copyright holders being forced to give up?
"Sites that aggregate user submissions, sort of them, collect them, and republish them on other pages, in other formats, or through embeds are trying to claim they only make the tools. "
The tools that people want. God forbid somebody actually provide a useful, convenient tools that people want to use. Imagine that; satisfied customers! Can you imagine what might happen if the legacy content industries did something so revolutionary? They might be able to compete!
It's funny that you think piracy is the "real issue". The collateral damage these bills will do is far worse that the overblown claims of harm from piracy. More importantly, the number of people will are genuinely negatively affected by piracy are vastly outnumbered by those who will be negatively affected by these bills.
I think everyone should bookmark Loki's excellent comment and post that link any time someone claims the RIAA's efforts are "for the artists", or accuses downloaders of being thieves.
"Jay, you get rid of DMCA, and you can toss Youtube out the window. It's done. No notices, just sue their asses off for every infraction. They would be shut down in days."
Highly unlikely, but tell me, given how incredibly popular and useful YouTube is, how long do you think the companies responsible for killing YouTube would last. You don't think there'd be massive backlash against doing something so stupid?
Companies that go all legalistic on copyright infringer (whether correctly or incorrectly accused) need to keep in mind the negative perception most people have of their actions. Whatever losses you think you're suffering, being despised by your potential customers is not a recommended part of a business model.
The issue is not what he thinks he can do, but what he wants to do, as this affects the way he does his job. It seems like a terrible attitude for a law enforcement officer.
When they all start using the same old, seldom-used word at the same time, it looks like they're working from a pre-prepared script, which kills their credibility. I don't think they realise how silly it looks.
"All bias now served with a side of prejudice--FREE!"
Why do you make such a big deal about Techdirt being biased? Of course it is, it's an opinion blog. Your bias is just as strongly displayed, except your constant harping about bias adds a dollop of hypocrisy on top.
"The assumption is that piracy can only help."
That's BS. There are no assumptions; instead there are references to numerous non-industry studies that show the losses from infringement are far lower than claimed, and to numerous non-industry studies that show there are indirect gains resulting from infringement. If you interpret that as "piracy can only help" then your comprehension skills are lacking.
"Never mind the fact that this defendant consciously and deliberately chose to criminally violate other people's rights."
You say that as if all rights are equal. Copyright is not an inalienable human right, or a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a government-granted privilege that should only be upheld if the net benefit is to society, as was originally intended. The government is supposed to pass laws that reflect the will of the people, and it's become quite obvious that the general public has a very low opinion of these rights. So your moral outrage is noted, but dismissed.
"Would you agree that this post of Mike's is an example of piracy apology?"
A summary of Mike's post:
The punishment doesn't fit the crime (he didn't say he shouldn't be punished).
The judge called the crime "very serious", but it isn't.
There was no provable harm done to the movie's ability to make money. (IMO it made far more than it deserved.)
Fox could've taken the opportunity to make itself look good to fans, which has provable benefits to a company.
Fox's actions instead make them look bad to fans, which has provable harm to a company.
The FBI has far more serious crimes to investigate.
I'm struggling to see how any of these points can be described as piracy apology, and even if you do, the issues raised are far more important than your incessantly repeated accusation. No actually cares what you think of Mike, stick to arguing the issues instead. We'll still disagree with you, but you'll look like less of an asshole.
"in fairness, while there is no 3rd party (store) losing a physical product there is also no money going to the creator, so there is still a loss of revenue."
What if I pirate an album or movie that I don't want enough to pay money for? If my valuation of a product brings me to a decision to either get it for free or not have it at all, where is the loss of revenue? This is one of the big questions, and it has been thoroughly evaluated. I believe this situation is far, far more prevalent than genuine lost sales, but content providers would ever admit this because they overvalue their product.
"And I find it funny that you use the word PIRATE now but when you want to paint piracy in a favorable light you use the word INFRINGE. I am not even sure you are consciously aware of how biased your posts really are."
Actually Mike used the term anti-piracy, because that's exactly how BREIN describe themselves and their video. And it's not even copyright infringement, it's a breach of contract, so you fail twice.
It's ironic that you accuse Mike of bias (on an opinion blog) but in fact do a better job at highlighting your own bias.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Amazon e-books ...
It is well documented that fans of a band or musician do like to spend money on things they value, like live performances, merchandise, limited edition physical goods, etc. The fact tat you don't like any bands or musicians enough to do that doesn't take anything away from the concept.
Re: You don't want gov't action, but you don't want private action either
"It's just near impossible to conclude that your endless legalistic quibbling -- basically that NO solution can be found in law -- isn't to actually support piracy and counterfeiting."
It may be near impossible for you to come to any other conclusion, but that's simply an intellectual failing on your part.
On the post: Lamar Smith, Against Regulating The Internet... Until Hollywood Became His Biggest Campaign Funder
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Millions and millions of copyright violations most of which cause no provable harm, versus the potential of thousands of potential issues of collateral damage, based on our experience with existing legislation.
FTFY
"...I am not going to force copyright holders to give up their rights..."
Sorry, what rights are copyright holders being forced to give up?
On the post: Don't Confuse All Safe Harbors With Poorly Written Ones
Re: Re: Re:
The tools that people want. God forbid somebody actually provide a useful, convenient tools that people want to use. Imagine that; satisfied customers! Can you imagine what might happen if the legacy content industries did something so revolutionary? They might be able to compete!
On the post: Lamar Smith, Against Regulating The Internet... Until Hollywood Became His Biggest Campaign Funder
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: SOPA Supporters Learning (Slowly) That Pissing Off Reddit Is A Bad Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Highly unlikely, but tell me, given how incredibly popular and useful YouTube is, how long do you think the companies responsible for killing YouTube would last. You don't think there'd be massive backlash against doing something so stupid?
Companies that go all legalistic on copyright infringer (whether correctly or incorrectly accused) need to keep in mind the negative perception most people have of their actions. Whatever losses you think you're suffering, being despised by your potential customers is not a recommended part of a business model.
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did You Embed The Leaked Trailer For Dark Knight Rises On Your Blog? Under SOPA, You May Face Jail Time
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re: Re:
Why do you make such a big deal about Techdirt being biased? Of course it is, it's an opinion blog. Your bias is just as strongly displayed, except your constant harping about bias adds a dollop of hypocrisy on top.
"The assumption is that piracy can only help."
That's BS. There are no assumptions; instead there are references to numerous non-industry studies that show the losses from infringement are far lower than claimed, and to numerous non-industry studies that show there are indirect gains resulting from infringement. If you interpret that as "piracy can only help" then your comprehension skills are lacking.
"Never mind the fact that this defendant consciously and deliberately chose to criminally violate other people's rights."
You say that as if all rights are equal. Copyright is not an inalienable human right, or a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a government-granted privilege that should only be upheld if the net benefit is to society, as was originally intended. The government is supposed to pass laws that reflect the will of the people, and it's become quite obvious that the general public has a very low opinion of these rights. So your moral outrage is noted, but dismissed.
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A summary of Mike's post:
The punishment doesn't fit the crime (he didn't say he shouldn't be punished).
The judge called the crime "very serious", but it isn't.
There was no provable harm done to the movie's ability to make money. (IMO it made far more than it deserved.)
Fox could've taken the opportunity to make itself look good to fans, which has provable benefits to a company.
Fox's actions instead make them look bad to fans, which has provable harm to a company.
The FBI has far more serious crimes to investigate.
I'm struggling to see how any of these points can be described as piracy apology, and even if you do, the issues raised are far more important than your incessantly repeated accusation. No actually cares what you think of Mike, stick to arguing the issues instead. We'll still disagree with you, but you'll look like less of an asshole.
On the post: Reuters Media Columnist Explains That SOPA/PIPA Are A 'Cure Worse Than The Disease'
Re: Re: Re: Re: The core problem
What if I pirate an album or movie that I don't want enough to pay money for? If my valuation of a product brings me to a decision to either get it for free or not have it at all, where is the loss of revenue? This is one of the big questions, and it has been thoroughly evaluated. I believe this situation is far, far more prevalent than genuine lost sales, but content providers would ever admit this because they overvalue their product.
On the post: Despite Being Pirated 4.5 Millions Times, 'Witcher 2' Developer Refuses To Annoy Paying Customers With DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yesterday, it was "piracy cost MPAA /at most/ $60 million"...
You fail to understand a basic economic fundament, and I'm the stupid one?
You cannot compare physical goods with digital ones. It's stupid to even mention them together as you did, you just look ignorant.
On the post: As We Complain About SOPA & PIPA, Don't Forget The DMCA Already Has Significant Problems
Re: Re: Re:
"
Who exactly are these "pirate profiteers" and how much money are they making? You make this claim so surely you have some facts to back it up.
On the post: Why We Don't Need To 'Think Of The Artists': They're Doing Fine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
You said music has no value, and then "explained" it in terms of price. In other words, you're completely wrong.
And you need to look up the definition of ad hom, because that wasn't one.
On the post: Anti-Piracy Group Caught Pirating Song For Anti-Piracy Ad... Corruption Scandal Erupts In Response
Re:
Actually Mike used the term anti-piracy, because that's exactly how BREIN describe themselves and their video. And it's not even copyright infringement, it's a breach of contract, so you fail twice.
It's ironic that you accuse Mike of bias (on an opinion blog) but in fact do a better job at highlighting your own bias.
On the post: Despite Being Pirated 4.5 Millions Times, 'Witcher 2' Developer Refuses To Annoy Paying Customers With DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yesterday, it was "piracy cost MPAA /at most/ $60 million"...
But you can't make an unlimited number of copies of a car for free like you can with digital content, so your comparison is meaningless.
You would think by now people would get this simple but important concept...
On the post: Best Selling Author Barry Eisler On Copyright, Piracy And Why SOPA/PIPA Are 'Extremely Disturbing'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Amazon e-books ...
On the post: Best Selling Author Barry Eisler On Copyright, Piracy And Why SOPA/PIPA Are 'Extremely Disturbing'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Amazon e-books ...
You're right, which is why nobody's ever suggested something so stupid.
Next strawman?
On the post: Court Effectively Pretends SOPA Already Exists; Orders Domains Seized, De-Linked From Search
Re: You don't want gov't action, but you don't want private action either
It may be near impossible for you to come to any other conclusion, but that's simply an intellectual failing on your part.
On the post: A Step By Step Debunking Of US Chamber Of Commerce's Dishonest Stats About 'Rogue Sites'
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>