"Vote with your eyes, your attention, and your wallet."
What rock have you been hiding under? We already are voting with our wallets! You just don't want to hear our message.
"Those models rely on copyright."
In a digital world where copying, transmitting and storing data has become cheap and easy, a business model that "relies on copyright" is doomed to fail.
"The attempt at over-intellectualizing this issue is very amusing."
Actually I'd argue that reducing the whole argument to "Don't steal my stuff!" significantly de-intellectualises a complex issue, so this article is more about bringing the intellectual level up to something more appropriate.
"After the invention of the automobile, it became possible for bank robbers to flee to another state, thus legally obtaining asylum from the law."
"...if you do a job you should be entitled to the wages associated just like anyone else in any business."
If someone wants a wage, they should go work 40+ hours a week in a regular job. The music industry has never promised that kind of financial security.
"its moronic to think that taking music for free isn't stealing..."
Well chalk up SCOTUS as being a bunch of morons.
What's moronic is still not seeing the difference between removing something from the owner's possession so they can no longer use it (stealing) and making a duplicate that leaves the original unaffected (copyright infringement).
"most music fans are die hard fans yet they refuse to pay for the record and then wonder why the artist doesn't tour in their country..."
Every single point in this line was made up by you in order to support your weak argument. That's called a strawman.
"No, actually the LAW is determining what the crime is."
And how do you think those laws came to be? It sure as hell wasn't because of a group of concerned citizens with the public's best interests at heart, it was thanks to a bunch of greedy gatekeepers and middlemen (not artists or creators) spending obscene amounts of money on political lobbyists in order to buy the laws that benefited them, completely corrupting copyright's original stated purpose at society's expense.
Just and fair laws are obeyed not just because of the threat of punishment, but because they're respected. The scale of copyright infringement shows exactly how little respect people have for the current state of these laws.
Or, we've read similar opinions from lots of people and happen to agree with them. You falsely assume we're all relying on one source of info, which would be a foolish assumption.
"None of the horrible stuff you guys have made up is in the bill. You twist stuff around because that's your agenda, as you love to rip off entertainment and don't want your illegal behavior policed."
Thank you for confirming the entire point of the post. Deny, deny, deny!
"And everybody knows it."
Jeez, that's the kind of thing schoolkids say to each other...
"You have to remember that while tech moves forward very quickly, media companies, content distribution, and such are always behind the game. They are always invested in the previous technology, and they are always one step behind those of us on the cutting edge."
We know this, and quite frankly we don't care. If you're in a business that is so affected by and dependant on technology, you need to keep up with the pace of change. Incompetence is no excuse.
"Yet, change comes, example the Blu-ray / DVD / Digital version combo packs, a step for me that is in the right direction, giving the purchaser of license plenty of options, and what is effectively a backup copy."
Great example! Low-res DVD, Blu-ray chock full of unskippable crap and a DRM-riddled digital copy. That certainly demonstrates your earlier point about them being behind the times.
"A little honesty in the matter from Mike would go a very, veyr long way here."
That's a little rich from an AC. How about you reveal your vested interests here. Why are you supporting this bill so strongly? Why are you trying so hard to discredit Mike? How about you demonstrate the same level of honesty you're demanding from him.
"Making a copy does not take anything away but sharing an album with 100,000 people who had every intent to actually purchase and album before they were able to download it for free certainly does."
Where did you get these 100,000 people from, the ones you know were going to purchase? Oh right, made them up, which gives your argument great credibility. If you still think every download is a lost sale you're far too clueless to discuss this topic.
"The fudge the numbers in the same manner that copyright minimalists attempt to suggest that piracy does no harm..."
It would be far more accurate to say that copyright minimalists ask repeatedly for independent, verifiable evidence that piracy does actual harm, or net harm (i.e. the bad outweighs the good). This has simply not been provided. In fact the "evidence" provided for the harm caused by piracy is another example of fudged numbers from the same companies behind this astroturfing group.
"...while ignoring that has happened to the recorded music industry since the Napster era."
It's ironic that you'd accuse copyright minimalists of this, since it's the copyright maximalists who completely ignore the many other changes in the music industries since then, like the explosion in popularity of digital singles, the rise in other forms of competing entertainment, and anti-fan lawsuit crusades, not to mention more recent events like that little economic problem we've all been having lately.
"But I will say that the advertisements are the part of the deal you make in order to get the free content. Bypassing them, blocking them, or skipping them to some extent breaks that agreement."
You're focussing on a technology that allows you to skip the ads, but in fact the end result is no different to flipping channels, muting the sound or simply leaving the room. Are all these actions also breaking this so-called agreement that none of us agreed to? Do you really think we need a "solution" to these problems as well?
"Not surprisingly, my earlier comment was "held for moderation" by Masnick's censors. In part, it included a link to this:
CPSC Alert: Counterfeit Smoke Alarms Distributed in Atlanta"
Sorry, I should've been clearer in my request, but I thought it was obvious I was asking for evidence of problems that this bill would fix. Were these 18,500 counterfeit smoke alarms bought from a website known to sell counterfeit goods? I certainly hope not. So thanks for a useless example that does not strengthen your argument one bit.
Re: Re: Re: IM-POSSIBLE that anyone thinks State Dept is for /any/ freedom.
Y'know what, no, it doesn't matter. Not as much as you want it to anyway. New technology and the internet allow us to do things that weren't practical or possible a decade ago, and those that don't want to adapt to these new and better ways of doing things should not be holding back those of us that do. It's called disruptive technology for a reason.
"Textbook example of Mike being anti-copyright and pro-piracy. No admonishing or acknowledgement of the purported wrongdoings of the defendants."
If you want to talk about right and wrong, go visit a church. Mike's opinion pieces are based around what's economically wise or unwise, and suing people who want to read your books falls firming unto the unwise category. As The Infamous Joe mentioned above, it is literally a waste of time and money.
"Masnick ridicules the position of the firefighters who have a vested interest in getting phony smoke and carbon monoxide detectors off the market along with bogus, unsafe consumer electronics."
Do you or the IAFF have any actual evidence of "phoney smoke and carbon monoxide detectors" and "unsafe consumer electronics" being problems of a magnitude that require these new laws? Or is this just a faith-based issue?
Also note that there are undoubtedly both legitimate consumer electronics that are unsafe and counterfeit consumer electronics that are perfectly safe. The bills' targets are supposed to be counterfeit products, not unsafe ones.
"And in his fulminations accuses an honorable group of people of being a bunch of stooges."
I read it as an accusation against the IAFF, not fire fighters in general, as any sensible person should. And yes, they certainly do come across and bought-and-paid-for stooges, because the connection between the fire fighting profession and the proposed bills seems very weak.
On the post: Luma Labs Discontinues Popular Product Line After Competitor Gets A Patent... Despite Prior Art Going Back Over A Century
Re:
On the post: Want To See Peak Copyright? Here's What To Do
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What rock have you been hiding under? We already are voting with our wallets! You just don't want to hear our message.
"Those models rely on copyright."
In a digital world where copying, transmitting and storing data has become cheap and easy, a business model that "relies on copyright" is doomed to fail.
On the post: Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
Re:
Actually I'd argue that reducing the whole argument to "Don't steal my stuff!" significantly de-intellectualises a complex issue, so this article is more about bringing the intellectual level up to something more appropriate.
"After the invention of the automobile, it became possible for bank robbers to flee to another state, thus legally obtaining asylum from the law."
Horses couldn't cross state lines?
On the post: The Color Purple... Trademarked
Re: Re:
On the post: Is Anthrax Trying To Become The New Metallica? Guitarist Wants To Kick 'Pirates' Off The Internet
Re:
If someone wants a wage, they should go work 40+ hours a week in a regular job. The music industry has never promised that kind of financial security.
"its moronic to think that taking music for free isn't stealing..."
Well chalk up SCOTUS as being a bunch of morons.
What's moronic is still not seeing the difference between removing something from the owner's possession so they can no longer use it (stealing) and making a duplicate that leaves the original unaffected (copyright infringement).
"most music fans are die hard fans yet they refuse to pay for the record and then wonder why the artist doesn't tour in their country..."
Every single point in this line was made up by you in order to support your weak argument. That's called a strawman.
On the post: A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how do you think those laws came to be? It sure as hell wasn't because of a group of concerned citizens with the public's best interests at heart, it was thanks to a bunch of greedy gatekeepers and middlemen (not artists or creators) spending obscene amounts of money on political lobbyists in order to buy the laws that benefited them, completely corrupting copyright's original stated purpose at society's expense.
Just and fair laws are obeyed not just because of the threat of punishment, but because they're respected. The scale of copyright infringement shows exactly how little respect people have for the current state of these laws.
On the post: RIAA Explains Its Interpretation Of SOPA; Which Doesn't Seem To Be Found In The Bill Itself
Re:
On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says
Re: Re: Re:
Or, we've read similar opinions from lots of people and happen to agree with them. You falsely assume we're all relying on one source of info, which would be a foolish assumption.
"None of the horrible stuff you guys have made up is in the bill. You twist stuff around because that's your agenda, as you love to rip off entertainment and don't want your illegal behavior policed."
Thank you for confirming the entire point of the post. Deny, deny, deny!
"And everybody knows it."
Jeez, that's the kind of thing schoolkids say to each other...
On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We know this, and quite frankly we don't care. If you're in a business that is so affected by and dependant on technology, you need to keep up with the pace of change. Incompetence is no excuse.
"Yet, change comes, example the Blu-ray / DVD / Digital version combo packs, a step for me that is in the right direction, giving the purchaser of license plenty of options, and what is effectively a backup copy."
Great example! Low-res DVD, Blu-ray chock full of unskippable crap and a DRM-riddled digital copy. That certainly demonstrates your earlier point about them being behind the times.
On the post: Copyright Industries Massive Success Shows That They're Dying And Need More Draconian Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a little rich from an AC. How about you reveal your vested interests here. Why are you supporting this bill so strongly? Why are you trying so hard to discredit Mike? How about you demonstrate the same level of honesty you're demanding from him.
On the post: EMI Loses Yet Again In Its Quixotic War With Michael Robertson And MP3Tunes
Re: It's true that nothing is /obvious/ to a lawyer or judge.
On the post: Pete Townshend Calls iTunes A Digital Vampire; Talkin' 'Bout His Generation...
Re:
Where did you get these 100,000 people from, the ones you know were going to purchase? Oh right, made them up, which gives your argument great credibility. If you still think every download is a lost sale you're far too clueless to discuss this topic.
On the post: Hollywood Front Group Rounds Up 4,000 Letters Sent To Congress, Pretending It's 100,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would be far more accurate to say that copyright minimalists ask repeatedly for independent, verifiable evidence that piracy does actual harm, or net harm (i.e. the bad outweighs the good). This has simply not been provided. In fact the "evidence" provided for the harm caused by piracy is another example of fudged numbers from the same companies behind this astroturfing group.
"...while ignoring that has happened to the recorded music industry since the Napster era."
It's ironic that you'd accuse copyright minimalists of this, since it's the copyright maximalists who completely ignore the many other changes in the music industries since then, like the explosion in popularity of digital singles, the rise in other forms of competing entertainment, and anti-fan lawsuit crusades, not to mention more recent events like that little economic problem we've all been having lately.
On the post: What Would The Movie Business Be Like If The MPAA Succeeded In Killing The VCR?
Re: Re: Re:
You're focussing on a technology that allows you to skip the ads, but in fact the end result is no different to flipping channels, muting the sound or simply leaving the room. Are all these actions also breaking this so-called agreement that none of us agreed to? Do you really think we need a "solution" to these problems as well?
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
CPSC Alert: Counterfeit Smoke Alarms Distributed in Atlanta"
Sorry, I should've been clearer in my request, but I thought it was obvious I was asking for evidence of problems that this bill would fix. Were these 18,500 counterfeit smoke alarms bought from a website known to sell counterfeit goods? I certainly hope not. So thanks for a useless example that does not strengthen your argument one bit.
On the post: White House Petition Against E-PARASITE/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: IM-POSSIBLE that anyone thinks State Dept is for /any/ freedom.
On the post: Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books
Re:
If you want to talk about right and wrong, go visit a church. Mike's opinion pieces are based around what's economically wise or unwise, and suing people who want to read your books falls firming unto the unwise category. As The Infamous Joe mentioned above, it is literally a waste of time and money.
On the post: Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the man in the tin foil hat who can't help but blame "Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy" in just about every comment.
And you need to look up astroturfing, it doesn't mean what you think it does.
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
Do you or the IAFF have any actual evidence of "phoney smoke and carbon monoxide detectors" and "unsafe consumer electronics" being problems of a magnitude that require these new laws? Or is this just a faith-based issue?
Also note that there are undoubtedly both legitimate consumer electronics that are unsafe and counterfeit consumer electronics that are perfectly safe. The bills' targets are supposed to be counterfeit products, not unsafe ones.
"And in his fulminations accuses an honorable group of people of being a bunch of stooges."
I read it as an accusation against the IAFF, not fire fighters in general, as any sensible person should. And yes, they certainly do come across and bought-and-paid-for stooges, because the connection between the fire fighting profession and the proposed bills seems very weak.
Next >>