So let's apply that principle to other crimes. Every single person to ever attempt to hold up a particular bank is a co-conspirator even if the crimes were committed at different times and with zero collaboration between the different people involved other than the fact that the illicit goods (the money) came from the same source.
Drug dealers who get their product from a single source are automatic co-conspirators even if the purchases do not overlap and there's no collaboration between buyers.
I'm sorry, but the law simply doesn't work like that, never has, and if logic is any indication (admittedly that's a pretty big if, when politicians are involved), never will.
"Yes, they will 'preview' his alburn, but they will not go out a buy a legal version, they wont, they allready have it.
They did not illegally download it because they are his fans, fans do not steal off the person they idealize.
They illegally downloaded it because they could, (illegally) and they are happy to screw the creator of the content."
And therein lies one of the most fundamental errors of fact of the position you represent: the assumption that nobody will buy something they've already downloaded. If that were true, I would own a grand total of 0 albums, rather than the hundreds I have in my CD cabinet. And I'm not alone; not even close. Of course, as I'm known for being a music evangelist that obsessively promotes what I like, this goes far beyond me, and you can also attribute the albums I've incited other people to buy to "illegal downloading", as well.
Fans are fans whether they download or not, and they will support those they love and (very importantly) respect either way. The new reality is that downloading is the gateway drug to buying, and to becoming fans. Attacking downloaders will only end up causing you to lose actual sales in the end, as being abused is how people stop being fans. If that's how you conduct your business, you have nobody to blame but yourself for your own financial failure.
But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your vitriolic rants.
Ah, anybody who stands up for copyright is an intellectual looking for an honest debate and only insulting people that deserve it, while anyone who opposes them is a mindless barbarian that will attack anybody they please. Fair enough.
Ah, I must concede defeat. Mike insults various people, therefore it's totally permissible to insult him. Naturally that makes it totally permissible to insult you, for insulting him.
My bad. I thought you wanted people to take you seriously and not merely toss sarcastic insults at you. Carry on, everyone!
Uh, no. Only the truly saintly would ever seriously consider someone whose first post contains insults dripping with condescension worthy of their time. If want good productive debate, you're going to need to find such a person, because the way you attack people in your very first post ensures that nobody normal will ever take you seriously; if you can't find such a person here, I suggest you keep looking, because you're certain to never be satisfied by people responding to you in kind.
That applies to EVERY business. Only the most decadently bourgeois or salary-men who can do their entire job with their brain on autopilot are able to go through life without having to expend any effort at earning their living. When you work for someone else, they take care of the complexities of running a business, but you have to perform to their expectations. When you're independent, you get to build your business by performing to the expectations of your customers.
Seriously, who are you and what do you do; are you aristocracy? I've got a quite comfortable middle class life, and even I can't imagine someone so sheltered and conceited they think that they're entitled to a successful and comfortable life without expending any effort or having to perform to someone else's satisfaction at all.
Very interesting. All that and not once did you demonstrate that it doesn't work. Sounds like you're not looking for something that works at all; perhaps you're interested in debating high philosophy, instead?
Though that gives me an idea, Mike: create a regularly updated compilation of all the different businesses you've covered making it big in the pirate economy so the link can be trivially pasted in reply to every time the same anonymous cowards post that demand in every copyright-related thread.
As I pointed out in the other thread, ACTA was passed by a 53% majority vote. The biggest news here is that 47% of politicians (and a significantly larger portion of citizens) is what passes for an extremist fringe these days. Mandatory spin notwithstanding, if I were a supporter of ever-expanding corporate control, I'd be pretty worried about that number.
On the post: Court Shoots Down Mass Porn Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
Re:
Drug dealers who get their product from a single source are automatic co-conspirators even if the purchases do not overlap and there's no collaboration between buyers.
I'm sorry, but the law simply doesn't work like that, never has, and if logic is any indication (admittedly that's a pretty big if, when politicians are involved), never will.
On the post: Case Study: How Shpongle Went From Yelling At Fans To Embracing Fans
Re: They are not his 'fans'..
They did not illegally download it because they are his fans, fans do not steal off the person they idealize.
They illegally downloaded it because they could, (illegally) and they are happy to screw the creator of the content."
And therein lies one of the most fundamental errors of fact of the position you represent: the assumption that nobody will buy something they've already downloaded. If that were true, I would own a grand total of 0 albums, rather than the hundreds I have in my CD cabinet. And I'm not alone; not even close. Of course, as I'm known for being a music evangelist that obsessively promotes what I like, this goes far beyond me, and you can also attribute the albums I've incited other people to buy to "illegal downloading", as well.
Fans are fans whether they download or not, and they will support those they love and (very importantly) respect either way. The new reality is that downloading is the gateway drug to buying, and to becoming fans. Attacking downloaders will only end up causing you to lose actual sales in the end, as being abused is how people stop being fans. If that's how you conduct your business, you have nobody to blame but yourself for your own financial failure.
But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your vitriolic rants.
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My bad. I thought you wanted people to take you seriously and not merely toss sarcastic insults at you. Carry on, everyone!
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re: Re: Re:
That applies to EVERY business. Only the most decadently bourgeois or salary-men who can do their entire job with their brain on autopilot are able to go through life without having to expend any effort at earning their living. When you work for someone else, they take care of the complexities of running a business, but you have to perform to their expectations. When you're independent, you get to build your business by performing to the expectations of your customers.
Seriously, who are you and what do you do; are you aristocracy? I've got a quite comfortable middle class life, and even I can't imagine someone so sheltered and conceited they think that they're entitled to a successful and comfortable life without expending any effort or having to perform to someone else's satisfaction at all.
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re:
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re: Re:
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re:
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Not Entirely Right
Next >>