"Perhaps if they took the time to consider what a "monopoly" classically comprises they would come to the realization that inventions and works preserved under US law actually do have to compete in the marketplace against the inventions and works of others (who may or may not have preserved rights available to them under law)"
By all means, hand the Big Bad MPAA and The Dragon (RIAA) the keys to the kingdom. Not only will they fight "crime" as a hard hitting duo, but once in a lifetime, you'll see why Evil never wins.
I'd say if you left an email address, it would show under your account settings, where you can claim it. If not, it's best just to write right under it.
I'd probably say it's more to do with divide and conquer. Nothing conspiratorial, but think about how each Senator is given committee assignments. Nothing is ever done with all members present. So the committees maintain individual influence over certain things until it comes to a vote.
So think about how Wyden is on the Intelligence committee and Demint is on the Finance committee. They probably won't talk to each other about copyright issues until it's on a full scale vote. Even then, there probably will be little time to debate. So you have to wonder how informed these people truly are concerning the issues they vote on.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
I'm suggesting when the industry has prices out of reach of consumers, they will look for cheaper/convenient alternatives.
One example: Rosetta Stone. It costs $800 in the US. One option for software is to use cheaper (MUCH CHEAPER) alternatives for it. Another option is piracy. Even if software developers have an ongoing relationship with consumers in various fields, there's much more than price that can be built by adequate relationships with customers that are underserved.
So Ford should sell a $20,000 truck for $5000 because its South Africa? Otherwise, any stealing is somehow justifiable?
If they want to sell the car for much cheaper, they would. And again, the car is a tangible product. The digital file? Not the same thing. Tell me, based on what I said before, how does the industry (here, we're talking about BACSA, RiSA, along with USAID) gain market penetration with their very unique factors described above?
Did you know that vendors in certain street markets don't necessarily copy their own movies but instead copy foreign films as copying their own would be "unpatriotic?"
I think you should read the report linked above.
" I could see some merit in that argument if we were talking about food, medicine, clean water, etc. "
Well, that's more a patent issue that Europe is dealing with right now. The fact that India is going through this right now, based on how hard it is to import medicines from Europe should give us pause in what exactly these IP issues are about.
" You act like there is some inalienable human right to be entertained."
Actually, no I don't. I'm just telling you the economics of a situation. First rule of economics: People respond to incentives. Charge too much? People find what they want elsewhere. Interfere with their routines? Well, let's ask Fox about their 8 day delay and the consequences of it.
"There are lots of non-necessities that I like but are priced higher than I want to pay. So I simply do without. Or it's something I treat myself to one in awhile."
Good for you. But... What you do doesn't affect the other billions of people in the world today and how they want to consume media. If you and the industry want to make money, there's alternatives. Why not learn to compete with these channels instead of spending all the money to enforce what just can't be enforced?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
One thing he ignores to go on the ad hom attack is how a commodity such as textbooks is of higher demand than digital goods in some areas. But that's just me talking...
" That the 3rd world countries your industry refuses to adequately service would not suddenly start buying full priced DVDs if the internet was somehow prevented from facilitating piracy?"
Don't forget, it's American pricing. It's far different from South Africa's Competitive Pricing Point which is actually lower. If I began talking about how those DVDs of shows are sold as low as R5 ($.65) the AC might have an aneurysm.
Let's not forget that Bollywood films are also a great cheap commodity in the same flea markets. He has a small point that a master is downloaded, but he ignores the rest of the point that the industry still can't serve all of the diverse parts of South Africa with market segmentation and cheap discs.
"Google does have a near monopoly on search, and they continue to work to reach as close to 100% as they can."
No... No, they do not. They don't stop anyone else from entering the marketplace, they just so happen to be the largest competitor.
"What they are doing certainly does line up with what Microsoft was doing in the past, using their size and their power to take over markets, and to "force" (without force) users onto using their platforms."
No... No it does not. Microsoft actively prevented competitors from coming into the marketplace. Google puts out products and says "here you go people, use it if you want" for the most part.
"Google dominates the market and is well on it's way to getting as close as you can get to a monopoly without being one."
But Google's domination doesn't mean that someone new can't enter. It's like saying Yahoo can't improve their own search engine and offerings because Google has the most penetration. It's a nonsensical argument.
"We won't even discuss how their ranking system in the end favors their own products, and how those products have been created to scavenge market from other successful companies by basically giving it all away for free."
Which companies have been harmed because Google's biased searches (lead by what customers, not businesses want) has harmed a competitor? I find good stuff from Google, but I find even better things through forums and Facebook. So what crimes are being committed by Google being people's go-to but not only resource?
Censorship hides the problem and causes more children to be abused, they say. Don’t close your eyes, but see reality and act on it. As hard as it is to force oneself to be confronted emotionally with this statement, it is rationally understandable that a problem can’t be addressed by hiding it. One of their slogans is “Crimes should be punished and not hidden”.
This puts the copyright industry’s efforts in perspective. In this context they don’t care in the slightest about children, only about their control over distribution channels. If you ever thought you knew cynical, this takes it to a whole new level.
The conclusion is as unpleasant as it is inevitable. The copyright industry lobby is actively trying to hide egregious crimes against children, obviously not because they care about the children, but because the resulting censorship mechanism can be a benefit to their business if they manage to broaden the censorship in the next stage. All this in defense of their lucrative monopoly that starves the public of culture.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
"Jay, congrats you listed enough entertainment for about an hour."
And that's a misleading statement. Fwong makes little snippets and his full time job is Youtube. Same with Rich or any other artist mentioned. I have yet to discuss Felicia Day, but her content has been based on a free platform along with the Red vs Blue episodes, shown every Monday on their site.
"Think scale"
Which is my post above. I find it odd that you can seriously consider the amount of money being made by the indies as paltry when they're making money on other scarcities. And they're dedicated to their fanbase that supports them far more than the labels (be it recording or movie) would do.
"All you have to to do is wander over to the "usual suspects" torrent sites, and see what is popular. It isn't anyting from "indie" anything, except perhaps indie porn. Otherwise, it's pure high end commercial product. That huge mass, that general pile, that collection of people are the Freetardian masses. They aren't looking at the extra credit indie fund, they want to download the latest Hollywood blockbuster."
I believe you summarily missed the arguments about where those downloads are coming from or who wants them. So, without the links, I'm going to bold that part.
"It is in fact other countries that are very interested in US entertainment. We have Hollywood helping to stop the spread of terrorism and an increased focus on foreign film markets."
In other words, legal availability of product is underdeveloped in other countries. Piracy, for the main part, has been about underserved customers. If the industry doesn't provide alternatives, people will find their own. Not a hard concept unless you ignore that "minor" piece of information.
Oh, and one more caveat...
Why is it that when Fox took away their free option of shows to Hulu, more people learned bittorrent to watch their show instead of waiting 8 days to watch it? I guess all those freetards/customers/culturalists/people can't wait to remain relevant with shows they want to watch, when it's convenient for them.
I truly hope that brown sportcoat was burned. Mike, we can start a crowdsource just for a nice black Italian blazer, but that sportcoat has GOT to go...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
"Because all you tards want and trade in Hollywood movies, mainstream label music, and commercial TV shows. You aren't just biting the hand that feeds you, you are shredding it without a lick of concern as to where you next content meal is coming from. Whatever advantages the internet brings you are entirely lost if there isn't anything to trade, is there?"
When you use any reference to "freetard", you actually retard your argument. You act as if it's mainly the US doing the downloading and automatically assume that the download has a correlation to lost income.
You have more legal options for movies here in the US than in other countries where piracy comes from underdeveloped distribution channels.
Finally, you have people that use free distribution to take advantage of other scarcities. Sadly, you don't seem to understand that.
"How many times have you watched Sita Sings the Blues? Never? Why not? It's free! Go on, watch it, over and over again. Guess what? That's all the entertainment that is going to be left, people like Nina Paley turning out movies that few people really want to watch."
Is that a bad thing? Here's a list of various artists that use "free". I guess they're "freetards" as well...
Rich Burlew - Uses his website to promote his books and make a living with a free comic
Madeon - Uses the free music to make his own sound and style
Freddie Wong - Uses the free of Youtube to make movies. BTW, he just made a new post for a project. It started yesterday. As of this writing, he's raised nearly all of his funds through crowdsourcing. Also, he works full time in releasing videos on Youtube.
I keep plugging away at the Extra Credits Indie Fund which amassed over $100,000 in 30 days. The one linked is the second fund. Extra Credits is known for their commentary in games, but when their artist might have lost her shoulder, the community of gamers paid a LOT more for her surgery and recouping. The artist now has a job at Relic Entertainment.
Quite frankly, if you can't see the forest for the trees, it's not my responsibility. But when all you can do is accuse people of merely "wanting stuff for free" when that's most certainly not the case, it exposes your own ignorance in the matter. Maybe next time, you can show those disadvantages you speak of. As I see it, the artists are finding their niches, communicating with their fans and finding out how to make individual successes for themselves.
On the post: Can The US Chamber Of Commerce Lobby For PROTECT IP Without Being So Blatantly Intellectually Dishonest?
Re: Re:
By all means, hand the Big Bad MPAA and The Dragon (RIAA) the keys to the kingdom. Not only will they fight "crime" as a hard hitting duo, but once in a lifetime, you'll see why Evil never wins.
Coming soon to a theater near you.
On the post: Size Doesn't Matter: The Question Is Whether Google Hurts Consumers
Re:
It's big, it doesn't give to charities like it could, and...
Oh yeah... They donate lavishly to the Republican party to screw over their employees.
Great to know that selective enforcement is the call of the day for Congress.
On the post: Size Doesn't Matter: The Question Is Whether Google Hurts Consumers
Re: Re: Size?
On the post: Senators Wyden & Udall To DOJ: Stop Saying Patriot Act Isn't A Secret Law When You Know It Is
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Wyden & Udall To DOJ: Stop Saying Patriot Act Isn't A Secret Law When You Know It Is
Re:
So think about how Wyden is on the Intelligence committee and Demint is on the Finance committee. They probably won't talk to each other about copyright issues until it's on a full scale vote. Even then, there probably will be little time to debate. So you have to wonder how informed these people truly are concerning the issues they vote on.
On the post: Craigslist Trying To Destroy The Life Of Someone Who Made Posting To Craigslist Easier
Re: Re: Re:
Sony really proved that with their lawsuit against Geohot.
On the post: Senators Wyden & Udall To DOJ: Stop Saying Patriot Act Isn't A Secret Law When You Know It Is
Re:
On the post: Size Doesn't Matter: The Question Is Whether Google Hurts Consumers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you learn nothing from the Robber Baron era, Mike?
Something about Google being evil then taking on the world in a blitzkrieg to leave the rest of the competition in the dust...
On the post: Size Doesn't Matter: The Question Is Whether Google Hurts Consumers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Google for Search Engines.
On the post: The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
One example: Rosetta Stone. It costs $800 in the US. One option for software is to use cheaper (MUCH CHEAPER) alternatives for it. Another option is piracy. Even if software developers have an ongoing relationship with consumers in various fields, there's much more than price that can be built by adequate relationships with customers that are underserved.
So Ford should sell a $20,000 truck for $5000 because its South Africa? Otherwise, any stealing is somehow justifiable?
If they want to sell the car for much cheaper, they would. And again, the car is a tangible product. The digital file? Not the same thing. Tell me, based on what I said before, how does the industry (here, we're talking about BACSA, RiSA, along with USAID) gain market penetration with their very unique factors described above?
Did you know that vendors in certain street markets don't necessarily copy their own movies but instead copy foreign films as copying their own would be "unpatriotic?"
I think you should read the report linked above.
" I could see some merit in that argument if we were talking about food, medicine, clean water, etc. "
Well, that's more a patent issue that Europe is dealing with right now. The fact that India is going through this right now, based on how hard it is to import medicines from Europe should give us pause in what exactly these IP issues are about.
" You act like there is some inalienable human right to be entertained."
Actually, no I don't. I'm just telling you the economics of a situation. First rule of economics: People respond to incentives. Charge too much? People find what they want elsewhere. Interfere with their routines? Well, let's ask Fox about their 8 day delay and the consequences of it.
"There are lots of non-necessities that I like but are priced higher than I want to pay. So I simply do without. Or it's something I treat myself to one in awhile."
Good for you. But... What you do doesn't affect the other billions of people in the world today and how they want to consume media. If you and the industry want to make money, there's alternatives. Why not learn to compete with these channels instead of spending all the money to enforce what just can't be enforced?
On the post: The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
" That the 3rd world countries your industry refuses to adequately service would not suddenly start buying full priced DVDs if the internet was somehow prevented from facilitating piracy?"
Don't forget, it's American pricing. It's far different from South Africa's Competitive Pricing Point which is actually lower. If I began talking about how those DVDs of shows are sold as low as R5 ($.65) the AC might have an aneurysm.
Let's not forget that Bollywood films are also a great cheap commodity in the same flea markets. He has a small point that a master is downloaded, but he ignores the rest of the point that the industry still can't serve all of the diverse parts of South Africa with market segmentation and cheap discs.
On the post: How Quickly We Forget: Google's Competitors Falsely Claim Google Dominates Because It Was 'First'
Re: Re: Re: It doesn't matter...
No... No, they do not. They don't stop anyone else from entering the marketplace, they just so happen to be the largest competitor.
"What they are doing certainly does line up with what Microsoft was doing in the past, using their size and their power to take over markets, and to "force" (without force) users onto using their platforms."
No... No it does not. Microsoft actively prevented competitors from coming into the marketplace. Google puts out products and says "here you go people, use it if you want" for the most part.
"Google dominates the market and is well on it's way to getting as close as you can get to a monopoly without being one."
But Google's domination doesn't mean that someone new can't enter. It's like saying Yahoo can't improve their own search engine and offerings because Google has the most penetration. It's a nonsensical argument.
"We won't even discuss how their ranking system in the end favors their own products, and how those products have been created to scavenge market from other successful companies by basically giving it all away for free."
Which companies have been harmed because Google's biased searches (lead by what customers, not businesses want) has harmed a competitor? I find good stuff from Google, but I find even better things through forums and Facebook. So what crimes are being committed by Google being people's go-to but not only resource?
On the post: The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Thank you for admitting that you want to use this for your own advantage in order to make a very serious problem worse:
Censorship hides the problem and causes more children to be abused, they say. Don’t close your eyes, but see reality and act on it. As hard as it is to force oneself to be confronted emotionally with this statement, it is rationally understandable that a problem can’t be addressed by hiding it. One of their slogans is “Crimes should be punished and not hidden”.
This puts the copyright industry’s efforts in perspective. In this context they don’t care in the slightest about children, only about their control over distribution channels. If you ever thought you knew cynical, this takes it to a whole new level.
The conclusion is as unpleasant as it is inevitable. The copyright industry lobby is actively trying to hide egregious crimes against children, obviously not because they care about the children, but because the resulting censorship mechanism can be a benefit to their business if they manage to broaden the censorship in the next stage. All this in defense of their lucrative monopoly that starves the public of culture.
On the post: The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Damn HTML...
On the post: The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
And that's a misleading statement. Fwong makes little snippets and his full time job is Youtube. Same with Rich or any other artist mentioned. I have yet to discuss Felicia Day, but her content has been based on a free platform along with the Red vs Blue episodes, shown every Monday on their site.
"Think scale"
Which is my post above. I find it odd that you can seriously consider the amount of money being made by the indies as paltry when they're making money on other scarcities. And they're dedicated to their fanbase that supports them far more than the labels (be it recording or movie) would do.
"All you have to to do is wander over to the "usual suspects" torrent sites, and see what is popular. It isn't anyting from "indie" anything, except perhaps indie porn. Otherwise, it's pure high end commercial product. That huge mass, that general pile, that collection of people are the Freetardian masses. They aren't looking at the extra credit indie fund, they want to download the latest Hollywood blockbuster."
I believe you summarily missed the arguments about where those downloads are coming from or who wants them. So, without the links, I'm going to bold that part.
"It is in fact other countries that are very interested in US entertainment. We have Hollywood helping to stop the spread of terrorism and an increased focus on foreign film markets."
In other words, legal availability of product is underdeveloped in other countries. Piracy, for the main part, has been about underserved customers. If the industry doesn't provide alternatives, people will find their own. Not a hard concept unless you ignore that "minor" piece of information.
Oh, and one more caveat...
Why is it that when Fox took away their free option of shows to Hulu, more people learned bittorrent to watch their show instead of waiting 8 days to watch it? I guess all those freetards/customers/culturalists/people can't wait to remain relevant with shows they want to watch, when it's convenient for them.
On the post: BMI Says Club Is Too Sexy For Standard Fees, Voids Check, Sues For Non-Payment
Re: Copyright...
On the post: The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
Re: FAKE MIKE!!!!
On the post: The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
$100,000 for the Indie Fund is people not looking at it?
$75,000 made in the course of a day or two is something to sneeze at?
On the post: The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
When you use any reference to "freetard", you actually retard your argument. You act as if it's mainly the US doing the downloading and automatically assume that the download has a correlation to lost income.
It is in fact other countries that are very interested in US entertainment. We have Hollywood helping to stop the spread of terrorism and an increased focus on foreign film markets.
You have more legal options for movies here in the US than in other countries where piracy comes from underdeveloped distribution channels.
Finally, you have people that use free distribution to take advantage of other scarcities. Sadly, you don't seem to understand that.
"How many times have you watched Sita Sings the Blues? Never? Why not? It's free! Go on, watch it, over and over again. Guess what? That's all the entertainment that is going to be left, people like Nina Paley turning out movies that few people really want to watch."
Is that a bad thing? Here's a list of various artists that use "free". I guess they're "freetards" as well...
Rich Burlew - Uses his website to promote his books and make a living with a free comic
Madeon - Uses the free music to make his own sound and style
Freddie Wong - Uses the free of Youtube to make movies. BTW, he just made a new post for a project. It started yesterday. As of this writing, he's raised nearly all of his funds through crowdsourcing. Also, he works full time in releasing videos on Youtube.
Comics, movies, music... Oh, I'm forgetting games, aren't I?
I keep plugging away at the Extra Credits Indie Fund which amassed over $100,000 in 30 days. The one linked is the second fund. Extra Credits is known for their commentary in games, but when their artist might have lost her shoulder, the community of gamers paid a LOT more for her surgery and recouping. The artist now has a job at Relic Entertainment.
Quite frankly, if you can't see the forest for the trees, it's not my responsibility. But when all you can do is accuse people of merely "wanting stuff for free" when that's most certainly not the case, it exposes your own ignorance in the matter. Maybe next time, you can show those disadvantages you speak of. As I see it, the artists are finding their niches, communicating with their fans and finding out how to make individual successes for themselves.
What are you doing?
On the post: Even If You Cancel Your OnStar Service, The Company Will Still Track (And Sell) Your Location
Do they have Sting as a customer?
Every breath you take
And every move you make
Every bond you break, every step you take
I'll be watching you
Every single day
And every word you say
Every game you play, every night you stay
I'll be watching you
Next >>