"I'll pay you for an article you wrote, delete the words from it I don't think anyone should read, and repost it on the net. Don't worry, it'll have YOUR name on it. I'm sure you'll have no objections, and the number of people reading my repost won't decrease the number of people reading your original at all."
That analogy is flawed. Your example lacks the copycat site informing people that it's made changes.
"For people who don't easily understand, using the term subdomains would imply that it something that is controlled at the registrar level, which is not the case."
Why would it imply that? Please explain the logic behind your reasoning.
'The EFF is only claiming "that some Does are still receiving notices from their ISP�s informing them that their identities are being sought in relation to" cases where that Doe was dismissed.'
Was that an echo?
"The EFF is not saying that any lawyer is inappropriately submitting any new subpoenas to any ISPs after such a dismissal."
I guess they're just looking into the issue for fun then.
"The fact is we don't know either way whether any lawyers are doing anything wrong here."
I don't see where Mike implied that any definite wrongdoings were going on.
"It seems just as likely to me--in fact more likely--that these subscribers are receiving notices pursuant to subpoenas that were issued before these Doe defendant's were dismissed. It takes time for the ISP to get the subpoena, look up the subscriber's information, and then inform the subscriber that they are the target of the subpoena."
Why does that seem more likely? You haven't given us any new information and there is no logic I can see to support the statement.
'I don�t. However, I do hold you to the views you espouse: �His statement is backed up by the evidence��, ��ignoring the fact that he was right in his conclusion.�'
Perhaps his last line is problematic due to it's flippancy, but you haven't actually done anything to refute the conclusion, merely pointed out that it might not be true. If you want to argue that Avatar was successful because of copyright despite the fact that it was the most pirated film of the time then go ahead, make that case. Until then I'm comfortable with the conclusion that copyright had nothing to do with its success. A bit like I'm comfortable with believing in evolution despite there being unanswered questions here and there, because no alternative theories have enough evidence to compete.
"So a high rate of piracy plus a high box office figure means copyright had nothing to do with a movie�s success? I�m not sure that�s what you meant to say."
Who said that? We're talking about the most pirated movie being also the most successful. Perhaps it would have been ten times more successful without the piracy, but it was successful either way. Perhaps you believe that copyright had a significant effect despite the high piracy rate, but I'm happy with the assumption that many of those who respected copyright now would pay for the movie regardless of copyright. I'd be interested to hear why that might not be the case.
"I don�t think there is anything inherently obvious about that fact that studios� revenue is almost 80% dependent on home entertainment sales."
It's a great point, I'm just unsure why you keep bringing it up on a thread about Avatar. I did ask you for an example where this point was relevant, but you haven't provided one.
'It�s unfortunate that those as �biased� as you hold such contempt for those of us who seek to offer perspective, all the while blindly and dogmatically defending unsupported arguments like those from Jay (which you STILL won�t admit was wrong).'
Hey, if I wanted to blindly and dogmatically defend Jay then I'd have just pointed out the ambiguity in his language, forgoing the need to agree with anything. I'm not doing anything blindly, I'm giving my honest and considered opinion. I'm sorry that hasn't worked out for you.
'I�m done with this �debate.� I�ll let you have the last word.'
"Is that a reason to support a poor argument? Your comment highlights why it is difficult to have productive conversations on this blog: we're right even when we're wrong, and it's someone else's fault."
Aside from my disagreement with your criticism of Joe's (obviously flippant) comment; why do you hold me responsible for the views of those who tend to agree with me? I recently made the point that it's good to criticise people who tend to agree with you, unfortunately that is reliant on not spending all your time replying to those who tend to disagree with you.
"No, his statements are not backed up by the evidence. He cites two data sets that in no way support his conclusion. Why is it so hard for you to admit that? "
Because I disagree with you. Why is that so hard to believe?
"I'm not making the argument that Avatar is failing in those markets, which is why I never did."
Then make the argument that someone else is failing in those markets. Avatar is the example at hand, feel free to provide some more. Of course, you'd still need to show the link to piracy (which is why Avatar was brought up, being the most pirated movie, but one that isn't failing).
"I wanted to provide data, however, to counter the billion-dollar figures as I have described above."
You haven't provided any data to counter the billion-dollar figures; all the available data supports the fact that Avatar is a success. All you've done is pointed out the difference between revenue and profit, which hopefully everyone knew anyway, while making a vague suggestion that home entertainment may be more at risk from piracy. Of course, any argument that it is more at risk makes the assumption that piracy is inherently harmful, rather than just another market force.
Re: Re: Re: when starvation finally catches up with this country
"Black rule brought Mugabe and starvation.
White rule was immoral and unethical.
Black rule is moral and ethical."
You seem to imply that black people are at fault for Mugabe, while ignoring the fact that he gained power as a result of liberation from white rule. Racism is not welcome here.
Re: Re: Re: when starvation finally catches up with this country
"No let them sort out their own problems any way they want and if that involves mass extermination like Rwanda that then is their problem not The West's nightly news problem."
Dismissing the plight of others under the guise of not wanting to appear racist is despicable. I agree that western involvement in any foreign issues is a big problem, especially considering our track record, but to ignore their plight just because we don't know how to help isn't the answer.
"And if you think that is cruel then you are most likely not aware of the fact that The East, China, is recolonizing Zimbabwe and the rest of Africa with the intent of doing exactly that The West did in the 18th century."
Why would one cruelty make another any less cruel? Perception is not reality.
"If it is like some of the examples we have seen here, they provide their names and claim innocence, but don't seem to provide the data required to match."
You don't appear to understand what's going on. The 'shakedown' lawyers are being forced to drop certain Does (potential defendents) from the lawsuits, at which point they only have the IP details and haven't necessarily been contacted by anyone. Some of these Does are apparently receiving letters from their ISP that correspond to case ID's that are listed in the database of dismissed cases.
Further information, apart from the date of the subpeaona, is irrelevant. The lawyers are apparently issuing subpeaonas for cases which have been dropped or dismissed. The cases wouldn't, in all logic and common sense, be dismissed by the subscriber details (which are unknown at that point), but by the case IDs.
Please please tell me you understand now and aren't claiming the lawyers need to have special powers to read the case IDs.
The EFF claim to have received reports from Does (potential defendents) whose cases have been dismissed. I can understand if you don't believe the EFF's claims, but otherwise I'm unsure what you're getting at.
"For all we know, these are subpoenas that were issued before the Doe defendants in question were dismissed, right?"
I believe the EFF wouldn't be bringing the issue up if that were a likely case. Again, maybe you don't trust the EFF, but there has been no serious suggestion so far that they're making the issue up.
"A strong correlation between the number of unlawful downloads of a movie and that movie's box-office revenue is NOT proof that copyright had nothing to do with the movie's success. It is proof that the movie is popular. Your desire to defend such a weak argument is unfortunate."
Had you originally argued that point then I may have supported you. We'll never know.
His statement is backed up by the evidence, even if not proven. Sure, he sounds a bit cocky, but hey, we're the ones who have to deal with 'copyright infringement is theft' all the time. Regardless, I'm not impartial, I'm biased.
"Since they are the ones producing the content, I thought it was important to point out that looking at box office revenues alone doesn't tell the whole story. The theater and home-entertainment markets may be impacted by piracy differently. Maybe not. But the distinction is important, and one that I wanted to point out to readers so they can draw their own conclusions."
If you want to make a case that Avatar is failing in those markets then go ahead. Strangely, you didn't make that distinction at all in your original reply to Joe.
"The first problem-->The didn't request prior permission. "
That's only a problem if you assume the other points are valid.
"The second problem-->These outfits often interfere with potential profits and current distribution"
They're buying legal copies and selling them on. How does that interfere with potential profits and current distribution?
"The third problem-->They could potentially completely alter the story when the original writers and editors could 'sanitize' the film in a way that is for broader audience but yet retains the concept of the film. "
Why is that a problem? If the original writers and editors would provide a sanitised version then others might not feel the need to provide their own.
"The fourth and final problem-->It is simply against the law and wastes everyone's time and money to pursue legal actions. It's not productive time and films/movies take long enough to make."
'It is simply against the law' is a contender for the most insidious phrase I have seen on this site. It's a textbook argument to authority, 'I'm right because I'm siding with the people with the guns'. Perhaps if the studios didn't sue everyone for doing stuff they aren't even trying to compete with anyway, then no one's time and money would be wasted.
On the post: Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They increased the price. Sales are down, revenue and profits are up. Ofc, for all I know sales are down because prices went up.
On the post: Hollywood Shuts Down Another 'Family Friendly' DVD Editing Operation
Re:
That analogy is flawed. Your example lacks the copycat site informing people that it's made changes.
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
Let me fix that for you: 'No, .co.uk is a top level domain, not a domain.'
Notice anything wrong?
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would it imply that? Please explain the logic behind your reasoning.
On the post: P2P Shakedown Lawyers Apparently Still Sending Subpoenas To Get Info On Defendants Who Had Cases Dismissed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Was that an echo?
"The EFF is not saying that any lawyer is inappropriately submitting any new subpoenas to any ISPs after such a dismissal."
I guess they're just looking into the issue for fun then.
"The fact is we don't know either way whether any lawyers are doing anything wrong here."
I don't see where Mike implied that any definite wrongdoings were going on.
"It seems just as likely to me--in fact more likely--that these subscribers are receiving notices pursuant to subpoenas that were issued before these Doe defendant's were dismissed. It takes time for the ISP to get the subpoena, look up the subscriber's information, and then inform the subscriber that they are the target of the subpoena."
Why does that seem more likely? You haven't given us any new information and there is no logic I can see to support the statement.
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps his last line is problematic due to it's flippancy, but you haven't actually done anything to refute the conclusion, merely pointed out that it might not be true. If you want to argue that Avatar was successful because of copyright despite the fact that it was the most pirated film of the time then go ahead, make that case. Until then I'm comfortable with the conclusion that copyright had nothing to do with its success. A bit like I'm comfortable with believing in evolution despite there being unanswered questions here and there, because no alternative theories have enough evidence to compete.
"So a high rate of piracy plus a high box office figure means copyright had nothing to do with a movie�s success? I�m not sure that�s what you meant to say."
Who said that? We're talking about the most pirated movie being also the most successful. Perhaps it would have been ten times more successful without the piracy, but it was successful either way. Perhaps you believe that copyright had a significant effect despite the high piracy rate, but I'm happy with the assumption that many of those who respected copyright now would pay for the movie regardless of copyright. I'd be interested to hear why that might not be the case.
"I don�t think there is anything inherently obvious about that fact that studios� revenue is almost 80% dependent on home entertainment sales."
It's a great point, I'm just unsure why you keep bringing it up on a thread about Avatar. I did ask you for an example where this point was relevant, but you haven't provided one.
'It�s unfortunate that those as �biased� as you hold such contempt for those of us who seek to offer perspective, all the while blindly and dogmatically defending unsupported arguments like those from Jay (which you STILL won�t admit was wrong).'
Hey, if I wanted to blindly and dogmatically defend Jay then I'd have just pointed out the ambiguity in his language, forgoing the need to agree with anything. I'm not doing anything blindly, I'm giving my honest and considered opinion. I'm sorry that hasn't worked out for you.
'I�m done with this �debate.� I�ll let you have the last word.'
You're so "gracious".
On the post: Zimbabwe Professor Arrested, Tortured For 'Treason' For Watching News Videos About Egypt & Tunisia
Re: Re: Re:
I would make unsupported vague statements about you, but you're posting anonymously so I'll just point that out instead.
"There are more than enough opinions out there without adding my own."
If only you truly believed that.
On the post: Zimbabwe Professor Arrested, Tortured For 'Treason' For Watching News Videos About Egypt & Tunisia
Re: Re: Zanu PF
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Pithy
I liked that.
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would calling them subdomains harm your argument too much?
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re:
Aside from my disagreement with your criticism of Joe's (obviously flippant) comment; why do you hold me responsible for the views of those who tend to agree with me? I recently made the point that it's good to criticise people who tend to agree with you, unfortunately that is reliant on not spending all your time replying to those who tend to disagree with you.
"No, his statements are not backed up by the evidence. He cites two data sets that in no way support his conclusion. Why is it so hard for you to admit that? "
Because I disagree with you. Why is that so hard to believe?
"I'm not making the argument that Avatar is failing in those markets, which is why I never did."
Then make the argument that someone else is failing in those markets. Avatar is the example at hand, feel free to provide some more. Of course, you'd still need to show the link to piracy (which is why Avatar was brought up, being the most pirated movie, but one that isn't failing).
"I wanted to provide data, however, to counter the billion-dollar figures as I have described above."
You haven't provided any data to counter the billion-dollar figures; all the available data supports the fact that Avatar is a success. All you've done is pointed out the difference between revenue and profit, which hopefully everyone knew anyway, while making a vague suggestion that home entertainment may be more at risk from piracy. Of course, any argument that it is more at risk makes the assumption that piracy is inherently harmful, rather than just another market force.
On the post: Zimbabwe Professor Arrested, Tortured For 'Treason' For Watching News Videos About Egypt & Tunisia
Re: Re: Re: when starvation finally catches up with this country
White rule was immoral and unethical.
Black rule is moral and ethical."
You seem to imply that black people are at fault for Mugabe, while ignoring the fact that he gained power as a result of liberation from white rule. Racism is not welcome here.
On the post: Zimbabwe Professor Arrested, Tortured For 'Treason' For Watching News Videos About Egypt & Tunisia
Re: Re: Re: when starvation finally catches up with this country
Dismissing the plight of others under the guise of not wanting to appear racist is despicable. I agree that western involvement in any foreign issues is a big problem, especially considering our track record, but to ignore their plight just because we don't know how to help isn't the answer.
"And if you think that is cruel then you are most likely not aware of the fact that The East, China, is recolonizing Zimbabwe and the rest of Africa with the intent of doing exactly that The West did in the 18th century."
Why would one cruelty make another any less cruel? Perception is not reality.
On the post: P2P Shakedown Lawyers Apparently Still Sending Subpoenas To Get Info On Defendants Who Had Cases Dismissed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't appear to understand what's going on. The 'shakedown' lawyers are being forced to drop certain Does (potential defendents) from the lawsuits, at which point they only have the IP details and haven't necessarily been contacted by anyone. Some of these Does are apparently receiving letters from their ISP that correspond to case ID's that are listed in the database of dismissed cases.
Further information, apart from the date of the subpeaona, is irrelevant. The lawyers are apparently issuing subpeaonas for cases which have been dropped or dismissed. The cases wouldn't, in all logic and common sense, be dismissed by the subscriber details (which are unknown at that point), but by the case IDs.
Please please tell me you understand now and aren't claiming the lawyers need to have special powers to read the case IDs.
On the post: P2P Shakedown Lawyers Apparently Still Sending Subpoenas To Get Info On Defendants Who Had Cases Dismissed
Re: Re:
The EFF claim to have received reports from Does (potential defendents) whose cases have been dismissed. I can understand if you don't believe the EFF's claims, but otherwise I'm unsure what you're getting at.
"For all we know, these are subpoenas that were issued before the Doe defendants in question were dismissed, right?"
I believe the EFF wouldn't be bringing the issue up if that were a likely case. Again, maybe you don't trust the EFF, but there has been no serious suggestion so far that they're making the issue up.
On the post: The Debate Over Copyright Gets Loud At Digital Music Forum
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that's possibly the best analogy you could have drawn to not make your point.
On the post: Zimbabwe Professor Arrested, Tortured For 'Treason' For Watching News Videos About Egypt & Tunisia
Re: when starvation finally catches up with this country
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Had you originally argued that point then I may have supported you. We'll never know.
His statement is backed up by the evidence, even if not proven. Sure, he sounds a bit cocky, but hey, we're the ones who have to deal with 'copyright infringement is theft' all the time. Regardless, I'm not impartial, I'm biased.
"Since they are the ones producing the content, I thought it was important to point out that looking at box office revenues alone doesn't tell the whole story. The theater and home-entertainment markets may be impacted by piracy differently. Maybe not. But the distinction is important, and one that I wanted to point out to readers so they can draw their own conclusions."
If you want to make a case that Avatar is failing in those markets then go ahead. Strangely, you didn't make that distinction at all in your original reply to Joe.
On the post: Just Because A Judge Signs A Warrant, Doesn't Make It Legal...
Re: They should have known he was a lawyer...
Does he get bonus points for using it where 'whoever' would have been more appropriate? More formal, more better!
On the post: Hollywood Shuts Down Another 'Family Friendly' DVD Editing Operation
Re: It's my film (mostly) I want control
That's only a problem if you assume the other points are valid.
"The second problem-->These outfits often interfere with potential profits and current distribution"
They're buying legal copies and selling them on. How does that interfere with potential profits and current distribution?
"The third problem-->They could potentially completely alter the story when the original writers and editors could 'sanitize' the film in a way that is for broader audience but yet retains the concept of the film. "
Why is that a problem? If the original writers and editors would provide a sanitised version then others might not feel the need to provide their own.
"The fourth and final problem-->It is simply against the law and wastes everyone's time and money to pursue legal actions. It's not productive time and films/movies take long enough to make."
'It is simply against the law' is a contender for the most insidious phrase I have seen on this site. It's a textbook argument to authority, 'I'm right because I'm siding with the people with the guns'. Perhaps if the studios didn't sue everyone for doing stuff they aren't even trying to compete with anyway, then no one's time and money would be wasted.
Next >>