Thanks for the suggestion to read the external link... the situation is even more asinine with all of the details.
A seven year old does not have the mental faculties to understand sexual assault in any situation. In this situation, there clearly is no sexual assault only self defense.
The first thing taught in any self defense course is to attack the genitals. Would the principle prefer that his 1st graders avoid the genitals and go for the next best target of gouging the eyes or perhaps trying to break the nose? The author of the original article makes a pathetic attempt to justify the schools actions by asserting that the school must investigate both sides of the story but that's a crock. A 1st grader is incapable of committing a sexual assault in any way shape or form. Even if he crawled under a desk and stuck his hand up a girls skirt, there is still nothing sexual about the act. It's just kids being kids and doing stupid shit that they will learn not to do in the future.
How did Netflix do it? They started out much the same way as your hypothetical, although I can guarantee they had more than 50k in startup capital (you have to be realistic here and understand it will take more of an initial investment to start a streaming service). They provided convenient access at a reasonable price, and added value.
What they didn't do is say I can't compete with free so let's just give up and not try.
Re: Re: Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
A pirate site can have zero employees because the majority of them are not a business. One guy who sets up a tracker and rents a server is not necessarily a business. Some people do these things because they like to share. The MAFIAA likes to make it sound like all these torrent sites are flourishing pirate economies and the site admins are lounging about in their mansions smoking Cuban cigars when they aren't out on the high seas robbing cargo ships...
To me, this whole fiasco is a matter of wanting to have cake and wanting to eat cake at the same time, couple with a bit a the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing...
On the one hand, we want to go around the world condemning censorship and promoting a free and open internet whenever we can point a finger at another country to say they've done wrong. We want to speak out against countries like China, Iran, Libya, and the rest for not allowing their citizens a voice. We even want to fund the development of services like TOR and other technologies to help fight censorship and ensure communications for citizens under the thumb of an oppressive regime. But we are showing the world we have a very "do as I say, not as I do" attitude when it come to practicing that which we preach.
On the other hand we want to try and pass legislation like SOPA/PIPA which allows for the very same censorship that we were just speaking out against. It's amazing to me how boldly two-faced we can present ourselves on the global stage.
The rest of the world sees this double standard, and just like you said, they'll soon be providing tools to circumvent American censorship initiatives just the same as America has done to aid those oppressed.
Joel and Nesson are not being criticized for what they are saying, but rather when they are saying it. They are bringing up important arguments that should be heard by the courts, but they are doing it at the wrong times.
There are significant due process issues when the sharing of 21 dollars worth of music results in a $675,000 fine. No one in their right mind could think that this level of damages awarded for non-commercial personal infringement could ever withstand scrutiny on grounds of constitutionality.
I'm sure that if any one of us were in his shoes right now we'd be handling things significantly different. Even YOU could handle this better then they are.
The main reason that I would argue that SOPA is a censorship bill as opposed to simply a bill focused on the removal of infringing content is that the bill is agnostic to the collateral damage when uninfringing (not sure if that's a word, but it is now) content is removed as well.
Let's take the example of a sport blog to illustrate. Here we have tons of protected free speech where people talk about their favorite teams or players, and plenty of trash talking about the opposing teams to keep it lively. Now let's say that one of the users starts a thread about how stupid it is that he lives in a blackout zone and can't watch his favorite team play a game later this evening. In response to this someone tries to help him out and posts a link to justin.tv where he will be able to stream the game live and not miss the game. The content owners get wind of this link and decide to react to it...
Under current law, the link could be removed with a DMCA takedown notice and the rest of the blog would continue on its merry uninfringing way.
Under SOPA, the content industry could have it blocked on a DNS level and force any payment processors to not deal with the site. This effectively kills the entire site. When access to all of that uninfringing speech is removed to stop access to a legitimately infringing link, censorship has occurred.
It's possible that we just have a different understanding of the definition of censorship, but at least we agree on the important issue: that the language of SOPA is extremely troubling and ripe for abuse.
I would almost agree with that from the standpoint of legitimate requests under the bill, but it could be easily used illegitimately to have non-infringing speech removed. Because the liability issues favor removal of content immediately after receiving notice, how much due diligence do you think will actually be done to confirm the legitimacy of such requests?
It would seem to me that it is the content industry that seems to confuse combating infringement with censorship. They have written a piece of legislation with vague definitions and broad sweeping terms that would easily enable it to be used/abused for censorship. That's the biggest issue that people have with SOPA. The majority of the outcry is not to protect infringers, but rather because the people do not trust the government or the content industry not to abuse legislation that seems to be designed specifically to enable such abuses.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Doing the Math for Etsy, MPAA/RIAA Style
Your analogy is flawed. Most people do not self police their brake lights. Those that do will find these issues periodically, but most rely on feedback from others to inform them of this issue. Furthermore, if the self policing doesn't occur and feedback is not provided, the driver is pulled over and issued a warning or at worst repair citation to have the issue corrected (kinda like DMCA). They do not have their car impounded or become blacklisted to become prohibited from using gas stations (kinda like SOPA).
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of MAFIAA
You ain't going to make it with anyone of us
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
Sad thing is, this time it isn't gonna be all right
Re: Re: Re: Re: Librarians still use /books/! They even have "horse and buggy" books!
Thank you for the insight. It is a sad day indeed when a library must restrict the use of its materials for fear of a lawsuit. If your library is doing this now prior to the new legislation being passed, I can only imagine what steps they would take in the future, or what additional libraries would follow suit and hamper access and fair use.
"Having the abilty to do both creates the risk that an illegal act may happen, so could they in "good faith" operate the streaming servers, knowing that they content they are providing could be used illegally?"
Where is the greater good served?
It seems to me that it is their duty to continue to provide the services that facilitate education regardless of the inevitable fact that they could be abused. They are still acting in "good faith" that the purpose of the streaming is for educational uses and they should be absolved of any and all liability that could arise from the actions a few bad actors. Being that they even have to consider this alternative is greatly troubling and yet another reason that proposed legislation is poorly drafted.
As we have seen with the DMCA, the intentions of those that drafted the legislation is rarely, if ever, carried over to those that would enforce it.
I'm also a fan of Anthrax, but I have to disagree with your statements.
Specifically, this:
"Scott is not claiming that his band is the only band that are being "stolen" from but rather he is merely pointing out that after going through the music scene from the 80's through the present the albums sales have changed due to numnuts kids that download everything because they can and think its all free."
And this:
"This is not about quality of music because like he states everyone was buying music in the 80's and 90's. Since the internet wasnt around it was based on hearing singles on the radio and rotation on MTV."
I grew up in the late 80's early 90's, and I was not exposed to Anthrax through the radio (local stations didn't play them) or through MTV (I've never had cable). The way I found bands like Anthrax and Metallica and Public Enemy and NWA (etc...) was by my friends sharing and copying their music with me, as I did mine with them. We all made mixtapes for each other. We recorded what we could off the radio for free, and when we wanted something that the radio didn't play, we found someone who already had it and taped it. We didn't do this because we were trying to ripoff the artists, but rather because we were kids and didn't have any money. We certainly weren't going to spend the little money we had on something we hadn't already heard and knew was worth the precious expense. Because of this sharing we got more exposure to more bands, and although we didn't have a lot of money, we did buy (or ask the parents for) t-shirts and concert tickets.
As for the people saying that their music sucks and that's why no one is buying it, everyone has their own tastes in music and just because it isn't their taste doesn't mean it isn't mine. This argument is patently false. The real argument that I do think is compelling though is that the overall fanbase of this genre is not what it used to be, and because of that, I believe it is very reasonable to think that sales would be lower. How many of the metal heads that you used to hang with and go to shows with back in the day now wear a suit and tie and listen to what their wives tell them to or what their kids like?
I haven't heard the new Anthrax album, but I've heard it's actually good. I'll consider buying it once I've listened to it and have made an informed decision that it's worth my money. How will I listen to it? Good question... I'll download it from that one guy seeding the torrent. This is not because I'm a dirty non-paying freetard, and it is not because I don't have the money, it's because I'm tired of paying my hard earned money for crap that I can't return. If this makes me an evil person then so be it, but I think it makes me a concerned and critical consumer using the only viable option I have to make an informed decision.
Yes, this! Please stop making movies and music for at least one year! If possible stop for longer than that. This would pave the way for a true renaissance of quality. Musicians would continue to make music without the influence of demands of the major labels, so we'd actually get to hear the music they want to release and not what the labels force on them because they think it will sell. Independent and original films will be made that aren't just crappy remakes trying to gimmick their way into ticket sales through nostalgia or crappy 3D.
If you can't actually make that happen, then please stop teasing us.
I honestly think the more telling experiment is if all the freetards out there stopped buying music and movies for a year. You know, all the people that are demonized by the industries but have been shown are their best customers? I think the industry would be in for a very rude awakeneing if every single person who has downloaded something in the last year made the collective decision to not spend another dime on entertainment... Oh well, a guy can dream, right?
This is exactly what I was thinking. Why not release the album globally so the dedicated fans have immediate access all at once, and then promote the album the traditional way with the touring and marketing to get the new fans and the ones that were on the fence? To punish the dedicated people counting down to release by forcing on them an artificial delay just seems petty.
I would think this alternative method would actually give them better data on the effectiveness of their marketing efforts since it would be able to separate the sales from people that would have bought the album regardless from those that needed that extra push marketing and promotion provides.
On the post: First Grader Investigated For Sexual Harassment For Kicking A Bully In His Private Parts
Re:
A seven year old does not have the mental faculties to understand sexual assault in any situation. In this situation, there clearly is no sexual assault only self defense.
The first thing taught in any self defense course is to attack the genitals. Would the principle prefer that his 1st graders avoid the genitals and go for the next best target of gouging the eyes or perhaps trying to break the nose? The author of the original article makes a pathetic attempt to justify the schools actions by asserting that the school must investigate both sides of the story but that's a crock. A 1st grader is incapable of committing a sexual assault in any way shape or form. Even if he crawled under a desk and stuck his hand up a girls skirt, there is still nothing sexual about the act. It's just kids being kids and doing stupid shit that they will learn not to do in the future.
This situation is truly pathetic!
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Claims It Succeeded In Getting Piracy Under Control Years Ago
Re: Re: Re: Mike wants out-of-control piracy, upset by contrary claims.
File sharing is just fine though ;)
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re:
What they didn't do is say I can't compete with free so let's just give up and not try.
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re: Re: Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
On the post: How Other Parts Of The World View SOPA
Re: OOO, perhaps!
On the one hand, we want to go around the world condemning censorship and promoting a free and open internet whenever we can point a finger at another country to say they've done wrong. We want to speak out against countries like China, Iran, Libya, and the rest for not allowing their citizens a voice. We even want to fund the development of services like TOR and other technologies to help fight censorship and ensure communications for citizens under the thumb of an oppressive regime. But we are showing the world we have a very "do as I say, not as I do" attitude when it come to practicing that which we preach.
On the other hand we want to try and pass legislation like SOPA/PIPA which allows for the very same censorship that we were just speaking out against. It's amazing to me how boldly two-faced we can present ourselves on the global stage.
The rest of the world sees this double standard, and just like you said, they'll soon be providing tools to circumvent American censorship initiatives just the same as America has done to aid those oppressed.
On the post: Appeals Court Reject's Tenenbaum's Request To Rehear Arguments For Rejecting $675,000 Award For File Sharing
Re:
Joel and Nesson are not being criticized for what they are saying, but rather when they are saying it. They are bringing up important arguments that should be heard by the courts, but they are doing it at the wrong times.
There are significant due process issues when the sharing of 21 dollars worth of music results in a $675,000 fine. No one in their right mind could think that this level of damages awarded for non-commercial personal infringement could ever withstand scrutiny on grounds of constitutionality.
I'm sure that if any one of us were in his shoes right now we'd be handling things significantly different. Even YOU could handle this better then they are.
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's take the example of a sport blog to illustrate. Here we have tons of protected free speech where people talk about their favorite teams or players, and plenty of trash talking about the opposing teams to keep it lively. Now let's say that one of the users starts a thread about how stupid it is that he lives in a blackout zone and can't watch his favorite team play a game later this evening. In response to this someone tries to help him out and posts a link to justin.tv where he will be able to stream the game live and not miss the game. The content owners get wind of this link and decide to react to it...
Under current law, the link could be removed with a DMCA takedown notice and the rest of the blog would continue on its merry uninfringing way.
Under SOPA, the content industry could have it blocked on a DNS level and force any payment processors to not deal with the site. This effectively kills the entire site. When access to all of that uninfringing speech is removed to stop access to a legitimately infringing link, censorship has occurred.
It's possible that we just have a different understanding of the definition of censorship, but at least we agree on the important issue: that the language of SOPA is extremely troubling and ripe for abuse.
If you'd like to read up a bit on why others also believe this bill to be about promoting government sponsored censorship, here is a link to a prior article: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/03284916352/why-cant-protect-ip-supporters-just-admit-that -its-about-censorship.shtml There is a link to a paper published by Derek Bambauer on this exact issue (although it is aimed at PIPA). Unfortunately the article is a paid download.
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares
All piracy (if we're talking about file sharing on the internet) is sharing, but not all sharing is piracy.
0/10 for trolling.
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re:
On the post: A Look At Three Popular Sites That May Be In Trouble Under SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Doing the Math for Etsy, MPAA/RIAA Style
Care to try again?
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Wider Tech Industry Concerns About SOPA
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of MAFIAA
You ain't going to make it with anyone of us
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
Sad thing is, this time it isn't gonna be all right
On the post: When Even The Librarians Are Against SOPA...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Librarians still use /books/! They even have "horse and buggy" books!
On the post: When Even The Librarians Are Against SOPA...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Having the abilty to do both creates the risk that an illegal act may happen, so could they in "good faith" operate the streaming servers, knowing that they content they are providing could be used illegally?"
Where is the greater good served?
It seems to me that it is their duty to continue to provide the services that facilitate education regardless of the inevitable fact that they could be abused. They are still acting in "good faith" that the purpose of the streaming is for educational uses and they should be absolved of any and all liability that could arise from the actions a few bad actors. Being that they even have to consider this alternative is greatly troubling and yet another reason that proposed legislation is poorly drafted.
As we have seen with the DMCA, the intentions of those that drafted the legislation is rarely, if ever, carried over to those that would enforce it.
On the post: When Even The Librarians Are Against SOPA...
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Anthrax Trying To Become The New Metallica? Guitarist Wants To Kick 'Pirates' Off The Internet
Re:
Specifically, this:
"Scott is not claiming that his band is the only band that are being "stolen" from but rather he is merely pointing out that after going through the music scene from the 80's through the present the albums sales have changed due to numnuts kids that download everything because they can and think its all free."
And this:
"This is not about quality of music because like he states everyone was buying music in the 80's and 90's. Since the internet wasnt around it was based on hearing singles on the radio and rotation on MTV."
I grew up in the late 80's early 90's, and I was not exposed to Anthrax through the radio (local stations didn't play them) or through MTV (I've never had cable). The way I found bands like Anthrax and Metallica and Public Enemy and NWA (etc...) was by my friends sharing and copying their music with me, as I did mine with them. We all made mixtapes for each other. We recorded what we could off the radio for free, and when we wanted something that the radio didn't play, we found someone who already had it and taped it. We didn't do this because we were trying to ripoff the artists, but rather because we were kids and didn't have any money. We certainly weren't going to spend the little money we had on something we hadn't already heard and knew was worth the precious expense. Because of this sharing we got more exposure to more bands, and although we didn't have a lot of money, we did buy (or ask the parents for) t-shirts and concert tickets.
As for the people saying that their music sucks and that's why no one is buying it, everyone has their own tastes in music and just because it isn't their taste doesn't mean it isn't mine. This argument is patently false. The real argument that I do think is compelling though is that the overall fanbase of this genre is not what it used to be, and because of that, I believe it is very reasonable to think that sales would be lower. How many of the metal heads that you used to hang with and go to shows with back in the day now wear a suit and tie and listen to what their wives tell them to or what their kids like?
I haven't heard the new Anthrax album, but I've heard it's actually good. I'll consider buying it once I've listened to it and have made an informed decision that it's worth my money. How will I listen to it? Good question... I'll download it from that one guy seeding the torrent. This is not because I'm a dirty non-paying freetard, and it is not because I don't have the money, it's because I'm tired of paying my hard earned money for crap that I can't return. If this makes me an evil person then so be it, but I think it makes me a concerned and critical consumer using the only viable option I have to make an informed decision.
On the post: Is Anthrax Trying To Become The New Metallica? Guitarist Wants To Kick 'Pirates' Off The Internet
Re:
If you can't actually make that happen, then please stop teasing us.
I honestly think the more telling experiment is if all the freetards out there stopped buying music and movies for a year. You know, all the people that are demonized by the industries but have been shown are their best customers? I think the industry would be in for a very rude awakeneing if every single person who has downloaded something in the last year made the collective decision to not spend another dime on entertainment... Oh well, a guy can dream, right?
On the post: Record Labels: When You Make It Impossible For People To Pay You, You Drive Them To Unauthorized Versions
Re: Territories
I would think this alternative method would actually give them better data on the effectiveness of their marketing efforts since it would be able to separate the sales from people that would have bought the album regardless from those that needed that extra push marketing and promotion provides.
Next >>