"If people want something, they will buy it if they can afford it. If they cannot afford it, they do without. Ask the people who are eating baloney on hand instead of filet mignon."
If I could copy a potato and feed everyone in the world, I'd do it.
"IPRED - when this became law in Sweden, file trading activity went down, and sales of recorded music went up. It is the best example to date, because there was a clear drop in traffic, a clear situation that made file trading less attractive legally, and the results showed up at the cash registers."
Which shows terrorism works, but only kind of. Two weeks later, p2p levels were back to normal.
"If all the people who used Photoshop actually paid for it, the software could easily be half the price and still bring in stellar profits."
95% of PC users use Windows, billions of them legally, yet it still costs more than $5. How does your theory account for that?
"the increase in production of copyright protectable works does not necessarily conflict with the proposition that copyright hinders such production, even if it makes it a harder proposition to support."
I don't think TFA made reference to an increase in production of copyright works in particular. The argument being made, which all of you are trying too hard to misrepresent, is that content production in general has vastly increased. That includes all non-professional content, much of which never gets published.
And that's what copyright really does discourage. Content publication. Even the most amazing non-professional work that doesn't have all rights to every last sample, song, quote (..) cleared is against the law and cannot be officially distributed.
"Masnick and many other Techdirters would gladly accept that logic if you were talking about, say, filesharing lawsuits (i.e. a rise in absolute numbers of filesharing shows that filesharing lawsuits don't hinder filesharing)."
Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. That argument is usually made like this: despite the billions spent on lawsuits and lobbying, the trends have not reversed in any statistically significant way. Cat, bag, out.
"It's the willingness to accept any half-hearted argument as gospel if it conforms with the kool-aid, while refusing to accept anything that does not unless it meets the most rigorous standards of proof, that is most annoying to me."
Come on, if anyone is guilty of obnoxiously pushing the same arguments it's you, and you do it in the most irritating way possible. You clearly take intellectual monopolies at face value and obsequiously go about trying to give everyone an enema with your "kool-aid" (more like vitriol, actually), conveniently leaving out your motivation for doing so (let me guess: IP lawyer?).
If Mike says something (or says something somebody else said), it's automatically false and wrong. If there are so many wrong, half-hearted arguments on this site, then why are you so afraid of them that you feel compelled to disprove them all? If you think everyone around here is an idiot without the ability of critical thought, why don't you go play with the clever kids? Clearly, if we are all idiots, then you have nothing to fear form us.
"I still don't understand why the TV networks are that upset by ivi"
It would have been a way around licensing restrictions, I suppose, as users in e.g. Europe could watch US TV without paying money to the European license-holders of the content. This means there was probably a push from foreign broadcasters to shut it down, combined of course with pressure from the IP holders, who always love more restrictions just in case.
The broadcasters themselves probably wanted to get rid of this as well, because the extra viewers watching through this service would not show up on their ratings. In their book that probably counts as a "lost sale", because their air-time has less value for advertisers than if those users were being counted.
tl;dr, a bunch of stupid business models could have been disrupted in case this sort of thing caught on, so the big boys are making sure we stay in the 20th century.
The MPAA is looking out for itself. As long as the film industry is failing to adapt, there's a need for lobbyists and lawyers. Should the problems be revolved, the MPAA will lose a lot of funding.
Simples. Strategy is:
1) Stir panic within filmmakers
2) Stifle internet business models
3) Legislate and lobby using filmmaker money
4) Profit for MPAA
More enforcement may lead to the demise of some file-sharing technologies, but it'll do absolutely nothing about people being pissed off with the copyright system. Quite the contrary, in fact.
More copyright enforcement will inevitably break the camel's back, and that's where radical change will come from.
Pathetic IP lawyers like yourself will be out of a job. Bide your time.
Funnily enough, the "Pirate" box seems to have been created in response to the industry's anti-piracy efforts, while the "Freedom" box was created as a response to oppressive regimes' persecution of innocent people.
Your immature "BUT COPYRIGHT!!!11" arguments aside, you MUST be able to see that there's a parallel between the two devices, even though they were created with different motivations.
Fair use is just an "affirmative defense", so they can sue if they want to.
This is part of why I think fair use is simply not enough to protect innocents from frivolous legislation, and more fair use is a "band-aid" rather than a fix to the issue of copyright.
"Yes, but in a patent thicket, one company would hold the patent, they wouldn't let anyone else use it, and we would still be stuck on analog."
Unless someone can afford to pay the license fees, which is a perfect mechanism for keeping small competitors out of the picture: they ask for ridiculous amounts, that only rich, lawyered-up companies can pay.
"The thicket blocks little except the sheep too stupid to think of a way around the only 8 foot section of fence on the whole field (or commons, if you like)."
You really have a problem with analogies. If it were ONE patent, then it's a fence you can get around of. If it's many different patents about many different aspects of a product, it's a jungle.
Just wait for the rise of the Chinese patent trolls. They'll first destroy every western company and then buy out whatever's left. There's been ample warning, but still there are things like ACTA in the works. Shows how incompetent our rulers have been at crafting economic policy...
Btw, Rick Falkvinge (former Pirate Party leader) has written a series of very interesting articles on copyright history. The final part was posted today and it's very much related to the above.
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I could copy a potato and feed everyone in the world, I'd do it.
"IPRED - when this became law in Sweden, file trading activity went down, and sales of recorded music went up. It is the best example to date, because there was a clear drop in traffic, a clear situation that made file trading less attractive legally, and the results showed up at the cash registers."
Which shows terrorism works, but only kind of. Two weeks later, p2p levels were back to normal.
"If all the people who used Photoshop actually paid for it, the software could easily be half the price and still bring in stellar profits."
95% of PC users use Windows, billions of them legally, yet it still costs more than $5. How does your theory account for that?
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re:
I don't think TFA made reference to an increase in production of copyright works in particular. The argument being made, which all of you are trying too hard to misrepresent, is that content production in general has vastly increased. That includes all non-professional content, much of which never gets published.
And that's what copyright really does discourage. Content publication. Even the most amazing non-professional work that doesn't have all rights to every last sample, song, quote (..) cleared is against the law and cannot be officially distributed.
"Masnick and many other Techdirters would gladly accept that logic if you were talking about, say, filesharing lawsuits (i.e. a rise in absolute numbers of filesharing shows that filesharing lawsuits don't hinder filesharing)."
Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. That argument is usually made like this: despite the billions spent on lawsuits and lobbying, the trends have not reversed in any statistically significant way. Cat, bag, out.
"It's the willingness to accept any half-hearted argument as gospel if it conforms with the kool-aid, while refusing to accept anything that does not unless it meets the most rigorous standards of proof, that is most annoying to me."
Come on, if anyone is guilty of obnoxiously pushing the same arguments it's you, and you do it in the most irritating way possible. You clearly take intellectual monopolies at face value and obsequiously go about trying to give everyone an enema with your "kool-aid" (more like vitriol, actually), conveniently leaving out your motivation for doing so (let me guess: IP lawyer?).
If Mike says something (or says something somebody else said), it's automatically false and wrong. If there are so many wrong, half-hearted arguments on this site, then why are you so afraid of them that you feel compelled to disprove them all? If you think everyone around here is an idiot without the ability of critical thought, why don't you go play with the clever kids? Clearly, if we are all idiots, then you have nothing to fear form us.
On the post: Did Scott Turow Keep The Copyright On His NY Times Op-Ed About The Importance Of Copyright?
Re: Re:
On the post: Did Scott Turow Keep The Copyright On His NY Times Op-Ed About The Importance Of Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: No, he didn't give up on copyright, he sold it. So it still gave him benefits and may have been an incentive to write.
Better step up your game.
On the post: Court Not Impressed With ivi's Legal Loopholes, Shoots Online TV Broadcaster Down
It would have been a way around licensing restrictions, I suppose, as users in e.g. Europe could watch US TV without paying money to the European license-holders of the content. This means there was probably a push from foreign broadcasters to shut it down, combined of course with pressure from the IP holders, who always love more restrictions just in case.
The broadcasters themselves probably wanted to get rid of this as well, because the extra viewers watching through this service would not show up on their ratings. In their book that probably counts as a "lost sale", because their air-time has less value for advertisers than if those users were being counted.
tl;dr, a bunch of stupid business models could have been disrupted in case this sort of thing caught on, so the big boys are making sure we stay in the 20th century.
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it doesn't matter one bit, because the rest of the music industry is thriving.
Keep clutching at straws.
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re: Re: When Censorship comes home
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Simples. Strategy is:
1) Stir panic within filmmakers
2) Stifle internet business models
3) Legislate and lobby using filmmaker money
4) Profit for MPAA
On the post: Sometimes 'Piracy' And Freedom Look Remarkably Similar
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More copyright enforcement will inevitably break the camel's back, and that's where radical change will come from.
Pathetic IP lawyers like yourself will be out of a job. Bide your time.
On the post: Sometimes 'Piracy' And Freedom Look Remarkably Similar
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sometimes 'Piracy' And Freedom Look Remarkably Similar
Re:
Your immature "BUT COPYRIGHT!!!11" arguments aside, you MUST be able to see that there's a parallel between the two devices, even though they were created with different motivations.
On the post: Does Re-Imagining Lord Of The Rings From The Perspective Of Mordor Violate Tolkien's Copyrights?
Re: Re:
On the post: James Earl Jones Reciting Justin Bieber Lyrics On TV... Copyright Infringement Or Not?
Re:
This is part of why I think fair use is simply not enough to protect innocents from frivolous legislation, and more fair use is a "band-aid" rather than a fix to the issue of copyright.
On the post: Multiple Lawsuits From Multiple People Who All Say They Came Up With Kung Fu Panda
Apparently the following image comes from that doc:
http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/kung_fu_pandas.jpg
Striking similarity, tbh, though perhaps it only shows how incredibly unoriginal both Disney and this guy are (who imo can't even draw).
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
TAM had the most insightful/funniest comment of the week!
Every upvote for DH's comments was a lost click for TAM's!
On the post: Chinese Researcher Points Out How Patents Can Hinder Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: I cant wait
Unless someone can afford to pay the license fees, which is a perfect mechanism for keeping small competitors out of the picture: they ask for ridiculous amounts, that only rich, lawyered-up companies can pay.
"The thicket blocks little except the sheep too stupid to think of a way around the only 8 foot section of fence on the whole field (or commons, if you like)."
You really have a problem with analogies. If it were ONE patent, then it's a fence you can get around of. If it's many different patents about many different aspects of a product, it's a jungle.
On the post: Chinese Researcher Points Out How Patents Can Hinder Innovation
Re: Re: I cant wait
Who do you think pays for all the lawsuits? The consumers, that's who.
And who gets paid for the lawsuits? The fucking lawyers, that's who. The greedy lawyers who wish the lawsuits last forever, like you do.
On the post: Chinese Researcher Points Out How Patents Can Hinder Innovation
Btw, Rick Falkvinge (former Pirate Party leader) has written a series of very interesting articles on copyright history. The final part was posted today and it's very much related to the above.
On the post: Did Watson Succeed On Jeopardy By Infringing Copyrights?
Re: Re: Re: Did they distribute
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But they're losing money!
Next >>