Do these people not understand how the Internet works? If they diminish Google and/or Facebook to the point that they are heavily censored, then some other site is going to pop up, and then another and another. That's the beauty of the Internet. Short of completely taking it down, and I very much doubt that is possible these days, I don't see how these people really think they can stop expression on the Internet.
If it wasn't so scary/dangerous, it would be funny how the powers that be are scurrying around like cockroaches now that their corruption can be so easily exposed to everyone.
Well they are quick to act...well someone is anyway. Either Smith's designer is scrambling to scrub the site for any images that are not properly licensed OR perhaps, though less likely, a DDoS?
Yes it's fun to poke at Lamar for this infringement and I think Mike says it right that this illustrates how easy it is to infringe.
If I were to guess his web designer simply didn't understand what Creative Commons means or maybe s/he didn't care. It's going to be easy for Smith to brush this off as a mistake and either give Mr. Schulte proper attribution or simply get another piece of photography that is properly licensed.
On the other hand, if he's going to play the part of copyright avenger, he better make sure he's 100% complaint with the laws/bills he supports.
The only problem I see with this is that it's just as one-sided as the House Judiciary Committee hearing was. I've very much against SOPA but we should be giving the pro's a chance to get their rhetoric shoved in their faces directly.
If I didn't see the movie in the theaters, then I clearly didn't think it was worth the price to see it there and thus I would prefer to watch it at home. Thus why would I pay $20-30 for a newly released DVD/Blu-Ray when I didn't pay the $9+ to see it in the theater?
Now being able to rent it for a couple dollars I may find that I enjoy the movie enough to buy the disk (or not). But delaying the availability of that rental isn't going to drive me to buy the disk.
Now I'm not one to go pirate the movie either. I'll wait for it to be on RedBox or perhaps On-Demand. I suspect this is more about supporting On-Demand from the cable companies than it is about selling physical media (at least for WB).
This reads more like a strategic move than a reduction of support. Perhaps they are seeing the reduction of support and rather than have the bill completely smashed they are suggesting making some compromises to get it through. The 'something is better than nothing' mentality.
My thinking is that the bill is poisoned at this point, even if good and reasonable changes are made to the bill to ease our fears, those who support it (even if 'fixed') will be labeled as supporting the original intent of the bill, even if they don't.
The bill is becoming more than it's language, it's about what it represents.
This has come up in these discussions before. It's censorship if you, as the end user have no control. Filtering if you do. I have no issue with the feature being there, but give users who don't want/need it the ability to turn it off.
I hate to be negative as I like Google and their products, but I think this is more politically motivated than anything else. Not to suggest that Google wouldn't have done anything but perhaps not as swiftly or decisively.
Google is under pretty serious scrutiny right now and they have to react like this to prevent giving their enemies any further ammunition.
My guess is that the government is trying to setup the case that there is some terroristic threat going on using Twitter.
Silence the dissenters and toss them in Guantanamo.
I don't personally care if they have the legal ability to do this, it's NOT right. The government hides things from the public left and right and then expects the people to just trust it without question? Yea...no.
I don't agree with you on the inflation statement. The dollar has deflated or been stagnant for the last few years. Additionally other costs, such as food and gas have risen significantly.
At the end of the day most movie goers have a very limited budget. They are going to focus on the necessities first and entertainment second. Theaters are providing less entertainment value while services like Netflix and RedBox are providing the same content (delayed sure but not an issue) at a much lesser price.
I've been to theaters that had amazing service, great projections and brain rattling audio. I didn't mind paying for that experience, but my local theaters are barely better than sitting at home watching on my flat screen.
To summarize, $8+ for a movie isn't terrible but the theaters have to provide an experience that is worth the money spent. As others have said, movies, as entertainment have a lot of competition now, and all of that legal.
Piracy as a factor is so minor as to be ignored, as Ebert did.
Anyone else find it odd that Lamar Smith's comments/arguments are almost word for word what many of the ACs spout on here? No real debate, just "If you oppose SOPA you support piracy!"
I personally find myself asking, "Is this movie worth the cost of going to the cinema or can I just wait for it to be on RedBox?" There are just some movies that you WANT to watch in the theater but many more that as just as enjoyable at home on Blu-Ray
Secondly, many of my friends with kids have stated they simply can't afford it. A movie night is pushing $100 in some cases. That's not an easy investment for some to make regularly.
The thing is, I think if people had to pay those fees it wouldn't be fun but most would shrug it off. It'd be like getting a speeding ticket. You know you were speeding, you got caught. The Hwy Patrol wins that round.
Of course the issue is that police aren't involved (and that's not a bad thing) and the cost of bringing these 'pirates' to court are certainly more than the actual damages.
So there would be little to no incentive for the rights holders to take casual downloaders to court if they couldn't swing those huge fines around. How else is it going to be worth their while?
Of course what they should really be doing is listening to their customers and what they want, but that's probably wishful thinking.
Even if 20-20 was unwilling to sell Real View a copy of the software directly, I'm sure that someone at Real View could have purchased the license, perfectly legally, as an individual.
Since the court determined that reverse engineering wasn't illegal in this case, it really doesn't matter how Real View got it's copy.
But since Real View did get their copy of the software illegally, that issue has to be resolved. It seems to be all other factors about what they did with the software afterwards are irrelevant to that specific case. Those other issues may still warrant cases of their own, but it wouldn't matter if the software was obtained legally or not.
So the fine should simply be put on the illegal download, IMO.
On the post: Jon Stewart Now Knows About SOPA/PIPA... And He's Not Impressed
Re: Nerds? Experts!
On the post: Entertainment Industry Lobbyists Don't Want To Let Canada Into Secret TPP Negotiations Until Canada Passes More Bad Laws
On the post: Indian Judge Tells Google And Facebook To 'Check And Remove Objectionable Material' Or Be Blocked
How the Internet works
If it wasn't so scary/dangerous, it would be funny how the powers that be are scurrying around like cockroaches now that their corruption can be so easily exposed to everyone.
On the post: Lamar Smith Caught Infringing On Photographer's Copyright
Re:
Well they are quick to act...well someone is anyway. Either Smith's designer is scrambling to scrub the site for any images that are not properly licensed OR perhaps, though less likely, a DDoS?
On the post: Lamar Smith Caught Infringing On Photographer's Copyright
Won't hold water
If I were to guess his web designer simply didn't understand what Creative Commons means or maybe s/he didn't care. It's going to be easy for Smith to brush this off as a mistake and either give Mr. Schulte proper attribution or simply get another piece of photography that is properly licensed.
On the other hand, if he's going to play the part of copyright avenger, he better make sure he's 100% complaint with the laws/bills he supports.
On the post: To Pols Trying To Raise Money From Silicon Valley: Supporting SOPA/PIPA Probably Isn't Wise
Empty tables
On the post: 'Nerds' Finally Get Their SOPA Hearings Over Technical Impact... But Not At The Judiciary Committee
On the post: WB, HBO Continue To Suck At Economics; New Policies Encourage Piracy
Now being able to rent it for a couple dollars I may find that I enjoy the movie enough to buy the disk (or not). But delaying the availability of that rental isn't going to drive me to buy the disk.
Now I'm not one to go pirate the movie either. I'll wait for it to be on RedBox or perhaps On-Demand. I suspect this is more about supporting On-Demand from the cable companies than it is about selling physical media (at least for WB).
On the post: Huge Supporter Of Stronger Copyright Law, Grover Norquist, Backing Away From SOPA
My thinking is that the bill is poisoned at this point, even if good and reasonable changes are made to the bill to ease our fears, those who support it (even if 'fixed') will be labeled as supporting the original intent of the bill, even if they don't.
The bill is becoming more than it's language, it's about what it represents.
On the post: Google Penalizing Its Own Google Chrome Search Results For Violating Google Paid Link Rules
Re: Re:
On the post: Google Penalizing Its Own Google Chrome Search Results For Violating Google Paid Link Rules
scrutiny
Google is under pretty serious scrutiny right now and they have to react like this to prevent giving their enemies any further ammunition.
On the post: Gov't Able To Keep Details Entirely Private In 'Public' Hearing Over Twitter Subpoena
My guess...
Silence the dissenters and toss them in Guantanamo.
I don't personally care if they have the legal ability to do this, it's NOT right. The government hides things from the public left and right and then expects the people to just trust it without question? Yea...no.
On the post: US Box Office Revenue Finally Drops; But Not Because Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
At the end of the day most movie goers have a very limited budget. They are going to focus on the necessities first and entertainment second. Theaters are providing less entertainment value while services like Netflix and RedBox are providing the same content (delayed sure but not an issue) at a much lesser price.
I've been to theaters that had amazing service, great projections and brain rattling audio. I didn't mind paying for that experience, but my local theaters are barely better than sitting at home watching on my flat screen.
To summarize, $8+ for a movie isn't terrible but the theaters have to provide an experience that is worth the money spent. As others have said, movies, as entertainment have a lot of competition now, and all of that legal.
Piracy as a factor is so minor as to be ignored, as Ebert did.
On the post: Lamar Smith Out Of Touch With The Internet: Still Thinks It's Just Google That Opposes SOPA
Is Lamar an AC?
On the post: US Box Office Revenue Finally Drops; But Not Because Of Infringement
Re:
I personally find myself asking, "Is this movie worth the cost of going to the cinema or can I just wait for it to be on RedBox?" There are just some movies that you WANT to watch in the theater but many more that as just as enjoyable at home on Blu-Ray
Secondly, many of my friends with kids have stated they simply can't afford it. A movie night is pushing $100 in some cases. That's not an easy investment for some to make regularly.
On the post: Company Caught Downloading Competitor's Software Just Has To Pay The Fee To Buy One License
Re: Actual damages for download
Of course the issue is that police aren't involved (and that's not a bad thing) and the cost of bringing these 'pirates' to court are certainly more than the actual damages.
So there would be little to no incentive for the rights holders to take casual downloaders to court if they couldn't swing those huge fines around. How else is it going to be worth their while?
Of course what they should really be doing is listening to their customers and what they want, but that's probably wishful thinking.
On the post: Company Caught Downloading Competitor's Software Just Has To Pay The Fee To Buy One License
Re:
Since the court determined that reverse engineering wasn't illegal in this case, it really doesn't matter how Real View got it's copy.
But since Real View did get their copy of the software illegally, that issue has to be resolved. It seems to be all other factors about what they did with the software afterwards are irrelevant to that specific case. Those other issues may still warrant cases of their own, but it wouldn't matter if the software was obtained legally or not.
So the fine should simply be put on the illegal download, IMO.
On the post: Copyright Tourism: Korean Companies Sue Guy From Australia For Copyright Infringement... In California
Re:
On the post: Senator Joe Lieberman Follows Up His 'Report Blog As Terrorist' Letter By Asking Twitter To Block Pro-Taliban Feeds
Re: Re: Scary
On the post: Cee Lo Green: Making Millions Even If His Albums Don't Sell
Re:
Next >>