Re: Or how about shutting down the torrent links for a day
"How's this for an experiment: they shutdown links to the torrent sites and the isohunts for a day."
Did you not realize that the Pirate Bay was shut down for a while and people found alternatives?
"Then they only keep the official videos on YouTube instead of the ones that infringe on music copyrights."
Meanwhile the people that are putting up their own original content of games, remixes of music, and remixes of movies with new funny dialogue would go to Youbu...
" Then see if people really need all the extra piracy that Google facilitates"
And Google is not to blame for what people create. Good attempt at trolling. I give you a C-. It's average, but your points are too easily refuted.
"Uh, the power to command $150k for infringement is a pretty powerful incentive for Big Content to toss some crumbs to the artists. Who knows what is fair, but it's usually bigger than zero. In fact copyright law is the only reason that Google is even considering paying anything to the authors of the books they scanned."
*facepalms*
Look, I know Robin Hood was a great guy and all, but the fact remains that this "rob from the rich to give to the poor" idea that copyright seems to have going for it, just makes the system worse for everyone involved except the middlemen. Wielding the "power" of $150K per infringement is beyond stupid and getting blood from a turnip sure hasn't helped in people respecting copyright law.
Just please, PLEASE... Show me a courtcase, or a method of business that involves going to court for supposed damages and is successful. Show something that says this "power" is effective. It's been 10 years of copyright litigation through DMCA. How effective has it been?
"Only because you insist on remaking them instead. If Americans weren't so allergic to being exposed to other languages and cultures, things might be slightly different. Sadly, subtitles aren't a commercial option over there, though IMHO they can destroy a movie."
Actually, the problem is the distribution channels. I had to watch Oldboy through unauthorized channels (hint: a friend gave me a DVD) because it's a movie you won't find in Best Buy. The ways to get to the foreign movie market are extremely limited. But the access to American movies is far easier to attain in other countries.
I'm not discounting the fact that most movies are remade for the American audience in mind, but there are a few extra provisions that make the American market quite unique(?)/difficult(?) to assess.
No, he doesn't. Look specifically at what's going on here...
" Getting a government who is using pirated software to pay for it instead is good business, don't you think?"
Now, let's think about a few things that *AREN'T* pirated software...
Linux in general, which is used in China far more than Microsoft regardless of piracy rates. Most servers use a version of Linux in their distros, but because Microsoft lobbies the US government to act as their agent, other countries switch to MS software. Hell, if we really want to get serious about US products, why doesn't the US government promote Google products? Is it because they don't see a check in the mail?
In this scenario, what the Bosnian government uses shouldn't matter but they're choosing sides at the detriment of other legal alternatives. But then, by saying they're pirated seems like the choice was either MS or nothing at all. That's very misleading.
" I can argue the validity of the post up and down. "
Please do. Right now, it seems that you're trying to weasel out of the argument by being as vague as possible.
"More and more the US is a service and IP oriented country. More and more jobs depend on it, more and more jobs are created by it, etc. Would you not think that the US should stand up for it's growing industries?"
Uhm... No. It seems you're going the vague route. Let's put some specifics in there. "US as a service industry" means providing authorized (we'll skip the legal argument since this is an economic issue) means to access content for movies and music. Consumers, be they in the US or around the world, can choose their way to access content depending on their preferences. That's providing a service.
More jobs depend on it? If you're talking about enforcement, then you're wrong. The CBO shows it costs $10 million to run this special enforcement. It will have 22 new agents and 26 support staff for all of the paperwork. This is them running around on Google, pointing to "infringements" and enforcing copyright law for Hollywood. And since ICE will want to start arresting people like they did Brian McCarthy (who made $18000 in 5 years) or 19 yr old Ali (who made a little more than that), then you have to put their wages from their regular jobs before their arrest into the number of taxable income that the government loses to having to house those criminals. Enforcement := more jobs.
"Would you not think that the US should stand up for it's growing industries?"
If the US government can't help the situation (such as with IP law) it needs to stay as far away from those industries as possible. Laissez-faire means they stay OUT of the economy because the government supporting their hand picked winners and losers makes American society worse off.
"Do you think that Sweden is a net IP creator or consumer? Their motivations as a net consumer would be different from the US which is a net creator."
They're both. Most content creators are also consumers depending on what they're doing. So what's your point?
"It isn't any different between the business models and choices of content providers versus the business models and choices of pirate site owners. The pirate site owners want copyright abolished, it helps them. The copyright holders want the laws enforced and strengthened. It would be silly for a pirate site to be supporting copyright, wouldn't it?"
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You're putting a huge strawman in your argument by suggesting that a pirate site won't support copyright and judging from your previous statement, it seems that you're saying Sweden won't support copyright along these lines. And given that the export of the US was a lot of bullying by the MPAA and US government to change Sweden's laws against civil rights, it's putting your argument in a downward spiral.
"Can you be "arsed" to consider what motivates the posts, the content, and such? Can you be "arsed" to consider that the story is covered not because it is the truth, but because it supports the view?"
Can you be "arsed" to stop using strawmans for your argument and debate or is it simply un"arse"ceptable to consider that people can come to a conclusion that copyright enforcement won't make consumers buy products and services that don't work for them?
" It's reached a point where it appears that a Techdirt staffer is busy trying to troll me. Talk about shouting down an opinion. Do you support that Jay?"
Who's a Techdirt staffer? And who are you? Unless you can be "arsed" to put up a link to the Bloomberg thread in question, I have no idea who you are. And where did this "dissent?" question come from?
In recent memory, there was also the patent lawyer who discussed why people should pay up on patents. And you know what? I didn't agree, but then again seeing as how there's problems with the patent system in general, no one else did either.
"They agree with his conclusions, therefore they quote him and allow him to post."
So let's get this straight. You can't fight and argue the validity of the post. Any research into the piracy debate is lost on you because you can't be arsed to read and come to your own conclusions. Even if the fact that the issue of commercial interests and public interests have diverged because of digital technology, it's not a good topic because "oh, well Mike, Tim(2), and Joe Karaganis happen to have a similar viewpoint based on economic data."
Not only am I disappointed, you've just gained my pity. That's quite the limiting stance.
"However, self-entitled Americans should not call the kettle black. We roll over, not for foreign aggressors, but for domestic abrogation of our rights. Patriot Act, Protect IP, warrantless wiretaps, retroactive immunity, etc, etc. Hardly a peep from us patriots. We'd much rather watch reality TV and get lathered up about abortion or gay marriage."
Not ALL of us roll over. The ones aware of the problems of copyright infringement, the FISA Act, the current fiscal policies of "corporatism trumps all" hasn't gone unnoticed. But unless we file a report that will be ignored, a law that will take away freedoms, wiretaps that we aren't allowed to know about, and immunities not discussed by the people, aren't shown to us unless we look for it. It's difficult to tell others about these things.
Ask a Senator? Form letter
Ask a Congressman? Form letter.
Grievance against your government? Form letter.
Face it, the American process is just one form letter after another.
"First and foremost, speech that breaks the law generally is not protected speech."
Has a judge declared it so? No? Then it's protected.
"So the anonymous cloak tends to drop pretty fast when their is an illegal act."
Hmmm... Didn't know speaking your mind was illegal...
"You may not consider copyright violations to be a serious illegal act, but it does meet the standards of an illegal act, which makes the speech itself unprotected."
Here's the funny thing. A judge might not see it so, but you do. That's a difference in opinion. Tell you what, why not tell me your full name and address because by the power vested in me... you are given NO protected speech.
...
Wait, it didn't work? Dang...
"So there is no real first amendment right in play here."
And here's how I know that you've yet to read a damn thing from the article. This article is about former cultists who had an opinion about their guru. It was an opinion that would not need to be copyrighted. But the manual, insignificant by itself, is used to find their identities.
And you justify this by saying it's a hidey hole...
If you want to rail against free speech advocates and those derned pirates, be my guest. But do yourself a favor and read why the 1st Amendment allows people to speak anonymously if their actions may result in retaliatory bullying.
The creator is a Trekkie. The intention is to look like a Trekkie type deal so that others, who are Trekkies and grew up with the series since the 70s can look at this very functional and cool app that is useful to others.
Maybe CBS should make their own tricorder app with all of the sciencey goodness that this one provides. When you have a lawyer interested in physics, PLEASE let me know. Otherwise, the copyright takedown here is a useless one inhibiting the creation of a functional app.
On the post: Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation & Hurt Job Growth
Re: Re:
On the post: Sarkozy Routes Around Parliament, Ditches Net Neutrality, Forces Copyright Clauses Into All ISP Terms Of Service
Re:
On the post: Russian Bureaucrat: Google & YouTube Should Be Shut Down For Facilitating Infringement
Re: Or how about shutting down the torrent links for a day
Did you not realize that the Pirate Bay was shut down for a while and people found alternatives?
"Then they only keep the official videos on YouTube instead of the ones that infringe on music copyrights."
Meanwhile the people that are putting up their own original content of games, remixes of music, and remixes of movies with new funny dialogue would go to Youbu...
" Then see if people really need all the extra piracy that Google facilitates"
And Google is not to blame for what people create. Good attempt at trolling. I give you a C-. It's average, but your points are too easily refuted.
On the post: Russian Bureaucrat: Google & YouTube Should Be Shut Down For Facilitating Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
*facepalms*
Look, I know Robin Hood was a great guy and all, but the fact remains that this "rob from the rich to give to the poor" idea that copyright seems to have going for it, just makes the system worse for everyone involved except the middlemen. Wielding the "power" of $150K per infringement is beyond stupid and getting blood from a turnip sure hasn't helped in people respecting copyright law.
Just please, PLEASE... Show me a courtcase, or a method of business that involves going to court for supposed damages and is successful. Show something that says this "power" is effective. It's been 10 years of copyright litigation through DMCA. How effective has it been?
On the post: Printing Error Shows Flaw In 'Lock-It-Up' Video Game Business Model
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Europe's Copyright Strategy: Have Europeans Send As Much Money As Possible To US Companies
Re: Re:
Actually, the problem is the distribution channels. I had to watch Oldboy through unauthorized channels (hint: a friend gave me a DVD) because it's a movie you won't find in Best Buy. The ways to get to the foreign movie market are extremely limited. But the access to American movies is far easier to attain in other countries.
I'm not discounting the fact that most movies are remade for the American audience in mind, but there are a few extra provisions that make the American market quite unique(?)/difficult(?) to assess.
On the post: Since When Did US Diplomats Become Microsoft Sales Staff?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" Getting a government who is using pirated software to pay for it instead is good business, don't you think?"
Now, let's think about a few things that *AREN'T* pirated software...
Linux in general, which is used in China far more than Microsoft regardless of piracy rates. Most servers use a version of Linux in their distros, but because Microsoft lobbies the US government to act as their agent, other countries switch to MS software. Hell, if we really want to get serious about US products, why doesn't the US government promote Google products? Is it because they don't see a check in the mail?
In this scenario, what the Bosnian government uses shouldn't matter but they're choosing sides at the detriment of other legal alternatives. But then, by saying they're pirated seems like the choice was either MS or nothing at all. That's very misleading.
On the post: Puerto 80 Responds Forcefully To DOJ's Claims Concerning Domain Seizures
Re: Re: cars and cash versus speech?
On the post: How Sweden Dismantled Many Of Its Online Civil Rights At The Orders Of US Content Industries
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please do. Right now, it seems that you're trying to weasel out of the argument by being as vague as possible.
"More and more the US is a service and IP oriented country. More and more jobs depend on it, more and more jobs are created by it, etc. Would you not think that the US should stand up for it's growing industries?"
Uhm... No. It seems you're going the vague route. Let's put some specifics in there. "US as a service industry" means providing authorized (we'll skip the legal argument since this is an economic issue) means to access content for movies and music. Consumers, be they in the US or around the world, can choose their way to access content depending on their preferences. That's providing a service.
More jobs depend on it? If you're talking about enforcement, then you're wrong. The CBO shows it costs $10 million to run this special enforcement. It will have 22 new agents and 26 support staff for all of the paperwork. This is them running around on Google, pointing to "infringements" and enforcing copyright law for Hollywood. And since ICE will want to start arresting people like they did Brian McCarthy (who made $18000 in 5 years) or 19 yr old Ali (who made a little more than that), then you have to put their wages from their regular jobs before their arrest into the number of taxable income that the government loses to having to house those criminals. Enforcement := more jobs.
"Would you not think that the US should stand up for it's growing industries?"
If the US government can't help the situation (such as with IP law) it needs to stay as far away from those industries as possible. Laissez-faire means they stay OUT of the economy because the government supporting their hand picked winners and losers makes American society worse off.
"Do you think that Sweden is a net IP creator or consumer? Their motivations as a net consumer would be different from the US which is a net creator."
They're both. Most content creators are also consumers depending on what they're doing. So what's your point?
"It isn't any different between the business models and choices of content providers versus the business models and choices of pirate site owners. The pirate site owners want copyright abolished, it helps them. The copyright holders want the laws enforced and strengthened. It would be silly for a pirate site to be supporting copyright, wouldn't it?"
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You're putting a huge strawman in your argument by suggesting that a pirate site won't support copyright and judging from your previous statement, it seems that you're saying Sweden won't support copyright along these lines. And given that the export of the US was a lot of bullying by the MPAA and US government to change Sweden's laws against civil rights, it's putting your argument in a downward spiral.
"Can you be "arsed" to consider what motivates the posts, the content, and such? Can you be "arsed" to consider that the story is covered not because it is the truth, but because it supports the view?"
Can you be "arsed" to stop using strawmans for your argument and debate or is it simply un"arse"ceptable to consider that people can come to a conclusion that copyright enforcement won't make consumers buy products and services that don't work for them?
" It's reached a point where it appears that a Techdirt staffer is busy trying to troll me. Talk about shouting down an opinion. Do you support that Jay?"
Who's a Techdirt staffer? And who are you? Unless you can be "arsed" to put up a link to the Bloomberg thread in question, I have no idea who you are. And where did this "dissent?" question come from?
On the post: How Sweden Dismantled Many Of Its Online Civil Rights At The Orders Of US Content Industries
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Sweden Dismantled Many Of Its Online Civil Rights At The Orders Of US Content Industries
Re: Re: Re:
How did the MPAA compete against the VCR that was "strangling" them?
On the post: How Sweden Dismantled Many Of Its Online Civil Rights At The Orders Of US Content Industries
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kevin Donovan
Cario Longino
Derek Kerton
In recent memory, there was also the patent lawyer who discussed why people should pay up on patents. And you know what? I didn't agree, but then again seeing as how there's problems with the patent system in general, no one else did either.
"They agree with his conclusions, therefore they quote him and allow him to post."
So let's get this straight. You can't fight and argue the validity of the post. Any research into the piracy debate is lost on you because you can't be arsed to read and come to your own conclusions. Even if the fact that the issue of commercial interests and public interests have diverged because of digital technology, it's not a good topic because "oh, well Mike, Tim(2), and Joe Karaganis happen to have a similar viewpoint based on economic data."
Not only am I disappointed, you've just gained my pity. That's quite the limiting stance.
On the post: How Sweden Dismantled Many Of Its Online Civil Rights At The Orders Of US Content Industries
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: France: Copyright Is More Important Than Human Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not ALL of us roll over. The ones aware of the problems of copyright infringement, the FISA Act, the current fiscal policies of "corporatism trumps all" hasn't gone unnoticed. But unless we file a report that will be ignored, a law that will take away freedoms, wiretaps that we aren't allowed to know about, and immunities not discussed by the people, aren't shown to us unless we look for it. It's difficult to tell others about these things.
Ask a Senator? Form letter
Ask a Congressman? Form letter.
Grievance against your government? Form letter.
Face it, the American process is just one form letter after another.
On the post: How Sweden Dismantled Many Of Its Online Civil Rights At The Orders Of US Content Industries
Re: Re: Re:
Or have you not heard of his 3 year research book?
Ok, I guess a link to the same info on his site might work then.
On the post: The Impossibility Of Google Blocking All Pill Factories From Advertising
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll try on AC's behalf to make you see the obvious, Mike:
Ootb, or Buck?
On the post: Should Anonymity Be Dealt With Differently In Copyright Cases Than In Defamation Cases?
Re:
Has a judge declared it so? No? Then it's protected.
"So the anonymous cloak tends to drop pretty fast when their is an illegal act."
Hmmm... Didn't know speaking your mind was illegal...
"You may not consider copyright violations to be a serious illegal act, but it does meet the standards of an illegal act, which makes the speech itself unprotected."
Here's the funny thing. A judge might not see it so, but you do. That's a difference in opinion. Tell you what, why not tell me your full name and address because by the power vested in me... you are given NO protected speech.
...
Wait, it didn't work? Dang...
"So there is no real first amendment right in play here."
And here's how I know that you've yet to read a damn thing from the article. This article is about former cultists who had an opinion about their guru. It was an opinion that would not need to be copyrighted. But the manual, insignificant by itself, is used to find their identities.
And you justify this by saying it's a hidey hole...
If you want to rail against free speech advocates and those derned pirates, be my guest. But do yourself a favor and read why the 1st Amendment allows people to speak anonymously if their actions may result in retaliatory bullying.
On the post: How Sweden Dismantled Many Of Its Online Civil Rights At The Orders Of US Content Industries
Re:
Thumbs up good buddy for quality trolling.
On the post: Google Kills Tricorder Android App After CBS Sends A DMCA Takedown?
Re: o_O
The creator is a Trekkie. The intention is to look like a Trekkie type deal so that others, who are Trekkies and grew up with the series since the 70s can look at this very functional and cool app that is useful to others.
Maybe Kubrik's estate should be able to take down the tablet.
Maybe CBS should make their own tricorder app with all of the sciencey goodness that this one provides. When you have a lawyer interested in physics, PLEASE let me know. Otherwise, the copyright takedown here is a useless one inhibiting the creation of a functional app.
On the post: Google Kills Tricorder Android App After CBS Sends A DMCA Takedown?
Re: Re: Just to let everyone know...
It's not like Google Market is the *only* place to get apps...
Next >>