Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's only one sure way to deal with this in finality.
Nina Paley? Are you kidding me? The only "movie" she ever produced was "Sita Sings The Blues" which was an 82 minute cartoon she made on her home computer for under $200,000.
Why wasn't copyright automatically applied to this film as well?
Interesting to note she infringed on ten songs and was able to settle a $220,000 claim for $50,000. According to her, the film has made back $132,000. Hard to see how one makes a reasonable living with these economics.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's only one sure way to deal with this in finality.
The average Nigerian film costs $20,000 and shoots in a week on a camcorder or if it's really high end a Red camera. What's the exposure to piracy? Do you really think there are people in every country in the world downloading Nollywood films? They're not and that's because these films are, by and large, shit.
The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) estimates that the Bollywood industry loses $100 million annually in loss of revenue from pirated home videos and DVDs. This in an industry of about 1.5 billion per year. Also a significantly higher percentage of annual revenues comes from the box office which is not affected by piracy.
Quoting statistics issued by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, the paper said that China produced 526 films in 2010. Of these, 17 took more than 100 million yuan (US$15.19m) at the box office, while 59 of them made more than 10 million yuan (US$1.52m) each.
However, only around 200 of the 526 films were ever screened in public and the average profit made by each film made was less than 20%. About 80% of the films that managed to be screened failed to recover their production costs.
The books are full of laws containing the provision "good faith". You can even look the term up in Black's Law dictionary. Sorry you don't care for it's application here.
Perhaps some "IP maximists" simply don't see scum from The Pirate Bay as a legitimate opposing spokesperson, rather a radical nutjob. There is room for debate and discussion but zealots bring nothing productive to it. Most people hate zealots even if they themselves might be sympathetic to the cause.
I'm no industry spokesman but I have no problem mixing it up with freeloaders, apologists, excuse-makers and particularly techdirtbags Mike and Larry.
There's a real simple explanation why the creative community gets drowned out by the freeloaders and apologists. The creative community is relatively small compared to the community of freeloaders who wants to enjoy their work for nothing.
Sponsors: Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Al Franken (D-Min) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).
It is a bill. It has been introduced. Mark-up is next week and will probably go out of committee 19-0 just like COICA did.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
Ummmm... I think you mean "Oligopolist" but even that doesn't apply. First of all, none of the studios own theaters. In foreign countries their indigenous productions stink so bad countries enact laws REQUIRING a certain percentage of films shown be indigenous. People watch US content, not because there is some oligopoly controlling the market but because the quality of the product can't be touched anywhere else.
You mean the use of similar laws to shut down over 80,000 legitimate sites was a non-issue?
Funny."
Boo-hoo ICE tried to take down child porn sites and people got caught in the slip stream.... for a few hours to a couple of days. No lasting damage. Where's their outrage that their provider was providing a playground for diddlers.
"It's about reigning in the rampant online theft that is occurring daily.
I see. So you're one of those people who can't tell the difference between theft and infringement. Tough to take you seriously when you can't get the basics right."
Parse words all you like doughboy. The fact is that people unlawfully convert the copyrighted content of others to their own use. If you sleep better by calling it infringement instead of stealing fine. No one takes you seriously.
"Pirates steal creative content (films, e-books, music, etc.) and then use it to MAKE money.
First of all, they don't steal. They may infringe, but that's different. And if they're making money, then why isn't the industry competing and setting up their own shops? Because the reality is that these sites aren't really making much money. It's a myth thrown around by those who wish to clamp down on innovation because it upsets their legacy business models."
Same parsing as above. They are making money on content they're not entitled to profit from. And you then blame the people who are being stolen from? Classic apologist-speak.
"To frame this as a debate about "free speech" is disingenuous.
No. It's not. When we see how many reports of the government totally screwing up and seizing blogs with protected speech on them and music that was given by the copyright holders... it is not disingenuous at all. It's real."
Having some legit material doesn't immunize you any more than a pawnshop with 75% stolen goods can make the same claim. How come your no one has come forward and even ADVANCED a free speech defense?
"It's time for people to examine what's happening online and work to find solutions.
Hilarious. For the better part of a decade I've been pointing out solutions. And I get called a "freeloader" and a "sociopath" for it. There are plenty of solutions that don't involve lawmakers trashing the Constitution. Those solutions are called: understand the economics and create a better business model. Plenty of folks are doing it already and it doesn't require any such law."
There are plenty of legitimate alternatives, however they require to pay. There is no business model imaginable that can compete with free. Oh, you forgot "apologist".
"Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren represents companies that profit from piracy (like Google) but she also represents a number of companies and individuals who earn their livings working in the content creation industries. I'm sure that's also the case for Senator Wyden.
It's not a one vs. the other thing, really. Google doesn't actually "profit from piracy" -- please give that myth a rest already. And this law is NOT about protecting those who create content. It's about protecting the business models of a few obsolete middlemen."
Read about campaign funding at opensecrets.com. And again, no business model can compete with free.
"Those who create content today are making MORE MONEY than ever before."
Try making a living as a freelancer on a film set, bozo. Then get back to me.
"Certainly everyone should be mindful of what's at stake here. There is room for debate and compromise. However, in the end, it's clear something needs to be done to diminish the impact that IP theft has had on our creative community.
Last I looked, the studies on this have shown the "impact" has been that more content than ever before is being made, and more money is being made by more creators as well.
So, um, why must something be done?"
Again, ditch the slap shoes, bulb nose and little tin horn and get out and talk to some of the middle class workers in the creative industries
"This isn't just about big businesses. It also impacts the little guys who, in fact, stand to lose the most. Their profit margins are smaller and they are less able to absorb the shock of online piracy than some of the bigger companies.
Another myth. Over and over and over again we've shown that there are plenty of folks, small, medium and large who are being quite successful embracing these new business models. The risk to them is not bigger, it's much less, because they no longer need to rely on a few gatekeepers."
See response above
"Their distribution outlets are also limited
Ha! I call bull. Their distribution outlets were entirely limited by a few gatekeepers until a few years ago. Now they have the power to go direct or go to one of a ton of new sources of distribution."
Could you please give me the names of people who are earning a full time living doing this?
"When their work can be so easily stolen (and monetized by others) it makes it nearly impossible to compete.
It's easy to compete. Ask anyone who's tried."
You are breathtakingly full of shit. So Producer A spends $1 million producing a film that will never get a N. American box office release. Scumbags 1-10,000 steal and distribute the film on their websites. Producer A out-competes them and wins the day. That is an astonishing statement even for apologist douchebag such as yourself.
"This legislation will not eliminate piracy, but it will help level the playing field.
Another talking point myth from the copyright maximalists. The "playing field" has been massively tilted towards the gatekeepers for over a century, and this bill just seeks to tilt it even further."
We'll see, because this bill will pass.... easily.
"Those who respect the law will having nothing to fear. We as a culture that values creativity will have much to gain.
I respect the law. I've never downloaded or uploaded any unauthorized media in my life. And I'm incredibly fearful of laws like this."
Peddle that nonsense elsewhere. You are a professional apologist and another one of Google's lickspittles.
Josh, seriously do you have a e-commerce site that sells tin foil hats? Either you see these laws as a huge marketing opportunity or really need to get some new schtick. In the meantime, how about a update from your vigil at Area 51?
No Wyden will use a procedural move and put a "hold" on the legislation. That means it will take 60 Senators to move the bill. Remember when the Dems were all happy about having 60 votes in the Senate. The "hold" is why.
It makes little difference in this case. The vote will be overwhelming. And if Wyden is too big a dick about it, he may well find holds on some of his own pet bills and lots of trouble from groups he's pissed of on PROTECT IP.
My understanding of the PROTECT IP protocol is that first there must be a good faith effort to notify the infringing sight owner. If he fails to appear then the government or rights holders can seek an order to have the enablers stop providing service service. So are you suggesting that safe harbor provisions could be jeopardized before a judge decided whether or not to issue an order to VISA?
Jay: PROTECT IP only permits orders on US ad networks, US payment processors, US search engines, etc. The common thread is US. There is no abuse of sovereignty nor are orders enforceable (or even contemplated) against foreign registered websites.
You can continue to freeload. You'll just have to do it without using the aforementioned US-based assets.
The answer is that it doesn't gut DMCA safe harbors. Mike is a second-rate piracy apologist who is perfectly willing to distort the facts to fit his position. He's entitled to his own position, but not his own facts. He blindly followed his liege lord, Prince Sherwin The Apologist into this trap and as a consequence has shit all over his face too. Expect no explanation of the safe harbors issue.
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's only one sure way to deal with this in finality.
Why wasn't copyright automatically applied to this film as well?
Interesting to note she infringed on ten songs and was able to settle a $220,000 claim for $50,000. According to her, the film has made back $132,000. Hard to see how one makes a reasonable living with these economics.
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's only one sure way to deal with this in finality.
The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) estimates that the Bollywood industry loses $100 million annually in loss of revenue from pirated home videos and DVDs. This in an industry of about 1.5 billion per year. Also a significantly higher percentage of annual revenues comes from the box office which is not affected by piracy.
Quoting statistics issued by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, the paper said that China produced 526 films in 2010. Of these, 17 took more than 100 million yuan (US$15.19m) at the box office, while 59 of them made more than 10 million yuan (US$1.52m) each.
However, only around 200 of the 526 films were ever screened in public and the average profit made by each film made was less than 20%. About 80% of the films that managed to be screened failed to recover their production costs.
Nice try though.
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: Re:
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: There's only one sure way to deal with this in finality.
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's only one sure way to deal with this in finality.
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
On the post: Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
I'm no industry spokesman but I have no problem mixing it up with freeloaders, apologists, excuse-makers and particularly techdirtbags Mike and Larry.
There's a real simple explanation why the creative community gets drowned out by the freeloaders and apologists. The creative community is relatively small compared to the community of freeloaders who wants to enjoy their work for nothing.
So bring it on.
On the post: Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures
Re:
It is a bill. It has been introduced. Mark-up is next week and will probably go out of committee 19-0 just like COICA did.
On the post: Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
MM would never get on the airwaves due to lack of talent, not opportunity.
On the post: Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 13th, 2011 @ 5:17pm
On the post: Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures
Re: Re: This won't damage free speech
You mean the use of similar laws to shut down over 80,000 legitimate sites was a non-issue?
Funny."
Boo-hoo ICE tried to take down child porn sites and people got caught in the slip stream.... for a few hours to a couple of days. No lasting damage. Where's their outrage that their provider was providing a playground for diddlers.
"It's about reigning in the rampant online theft that is occurring daily.
I see. So you're one of those people who can't tell the difference between theft and infringement. Tough to take you seriously when you can't get the basics right."
Parse words all you like doughboy. The fact is that people unlawfully convert the copyrighted content of others to their own use. If you sleep better by calling it infringement instead of stealing fine. No one takes you seriously.
"Pirates steal creative content (films, e-books, music, etc.) and then use it to MAKE money.
First of all, they don't steal. They may infringe, but that's different. And if they're making money, then why isn't the industry competing and setting up their own shops? Because the reality is that these sites aren't really making much money. It's a myth thrown around by those who wish to clamp down on innovation because it upsets their legacy business models."
Same parsing as above. They are making money on content they're not entitled to profit from. And you then blame the people who are being stolen from? Classic apologist-speak.
"To frame this as a debate about "free speech" is disingenuous.
No. It's not. When we see how many reports of the government totally screwing up and seizing blogs with protected speech on them and music that was given by the copyright holders... it is not disingenuous at all. It's real."
Having some legit material doesn't immunize you any more than a pawnshop with 75% stolen goods can make the same claim. How come your no one has come forward and even ADVANCED a free speech defense?
"It's time for people to examine what's happening online and work to find solutions.
Hilarious. For the better part of a decade I've been pointing out solutions. And I get called a "freeloader" and a "sociopath" for it. There are plenty of solutions that don't involve lawmakers trashing the Constitution. Those solutions are called: understand the economics and create a better business model. Plenty of folks are doing it already and it doesn't require any such law."
There are plenty of legitimate alternatives, however they require to pay. There is no business model imaginable that can compete with free. Oh, you forgot "apologist".
"Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren represents companies that profit from piracy (like Google) but she also represents a number of companies and individuals who earn their livings working in the content creation industries. I'm sure that's also the case for Senator Wyden.
It's not a one vs. the other thing, really. Google doesn't actually "profit from piracy" -- please give that myth a rest already. And this law is NOT about protecting those who create content. It's about protecting the business models of a few obsolete middlemen."
Read about campaign funding at opensecrets.com. And again, no business model can compete with free.
"Those who create content today are making MORE MONEY than ever before."
Try making a living as a freelancer on a film set, bozo. Then get back to me.
"Certainly everyone should be mindful of what's at stake here. There is room for debate and compromise. However, in the end, it's clear something needs to be done to diminish the impact that IP theft has had on our creative community.
Last I looked, the studies on this have shown the "impact" has been that more content than ever before is being made, and more money is being made by more creators as well.
So, um, why must something be done?"
Again, ditch the slap shoes, bulb nose and little tin horn and get out and talk to some of the middle class workers in the creative industries
"This isn't just about big businesses. It also impacts the little guys who, in fact, stand to lose the most. Their profit margins are smaller and they are less able to absorb the shock of online piracy than some of the bigger companies.
Another myth. Over and over and over again we've shown that there are plenty of folks, small, medium and large who are being quite successful embracing these new business models. The risk to them is not bigger, it's much less, because they no longer need to rely on a few gatekeepers."
See response above
"Their distribution outlets are also limited
Ha! I call bull. Their distribution outlets were entirely limited by a few gatekeepers until a few years ago. Now they have the power to go direct or go to one of a ton of new sources of distribution."
Could you please give me the names of people who are earning a full time living doing this?
"When their work can be so easily stolen (and monetized by others) it makes it nearly impossible to compete.
It's easy to compete. Ask anyone who's tried."
You are breathtakingly full of shit. So Producer A spends $1 million producing a film that will never get a N. American box office release. Scumbags 1-10,000 steal and distribute the film on their websites. Producer A out-competes them and wins the day. That is an astonishing statement even for apologist douchebag such as yourself.
"This legislation will not eliminate piracy, but it will help level the playing field.
Another talking point myth from the copyright maximalists. The "playing field" has been massively tilted towards the gatekeepers for over a century, and this bill just seeks to tilt it even further."
We'll see, because this bill will pass.... easily.
"Those who respect the law will having nothing to fear. We as a culture that values creativity will have much to gain.
I respect the law. I've never downloaded or uploaded any unauthorized media in my life. And I'm incredibly fearful of laws like this."
Peddle that nonsense elsewhere. You are a professional apologist and another one of Google's lickspittles.
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
Re:
http://www.illuminatiarchives.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/foil.jpg
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
Re: DRM Thought Police Chips is coming soon
On the post: Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures
Re: The cheese stands alone...
It makes little difference in this case. The vote will be overwhelming. And if Wyden is too big a dick about it, he may well find holds on some of his own pet bills and lots of trouble from groups he's pissed of on PROTECT IP.
Lofgren doesn't have a prayer.
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: Re:
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: The real targets
You can continue to freeload. You'll just have to do it without using the aforementioned US-based assets.
On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]
Re:
Next >>