"Ok, so suppose the newspaper manages to find a way such that the only way to access the newspaper's content is to first go to their home page,"
This really astounds me. Let me clear something up for you. It is ridiculously easy for any site to control access to any page through any number of criteria. This kind of thing is built into any modern web server. The argument of "We don't want people to link directly to our pages" holds no water at all, because they have complete control over that. What they want is to be paid by people sending them traffic, but that can't say that as we'd all see just how ridiculous it is.
Actually speeding is a crime, it is 100% (as opposed to 83%, really?) illegal. However because of the low risk nature, and high overhead of prosecution, speeding just a little bit is generally overlooked.
On the other hand we have copyright infringement, which has little impact, and high overhead of prosecution (if it were done right and actually went against the people who are breaking the law, at least in countries where this is even illegal). Here we see lawsuits against third parties because it's easier and they have more money.
This would be like a state billing/fining/suing Toyota based on the number of Toyota drivers that were speeding.
I'm trying to follow you here. In your weed example, you tell they guy two blocks down and it's not illegal. With TPB hosting torrents, TPB says 'I don't have the file, but here's how to find they guys that do' (which to me seems the same as 'two blocks down'). So are you saying TPB does not commit crimes? You seem to assert that they do in the first sentence.
Crap. That big white space was an example of an image link. I think it actually rendered an image link. I hope the guys at server.com don't sue me for hotlinking to http://your.server.com/images/coolImage.png
You have a failed understanding of the way the internet works.
A hotlink means that in my page I place a description of the image in question:
Your browser downloads that text from my server. Your browser then goes out and gets the image, and places it into the page. At no time did the image ever exist in any way on my server, nor did I ever copy, republish, or even access the image.
As a page designer I don't even know for sure if your browser will go and get the image. Some browsers don't (text browsers like links), while it's easy to turn off image loading in nearly every browser.
Not to mention it was your server that created the copy. The browser simply asked your server to give it a copy, your server could have refused, but your server, as configured by you, chose to give that file to the browser.
Re: Think outside the square and there is plenty of money to make
I'd go one step further. If a site would allow customers to download high quality videos, had a user friendly interface, and a general good experience, and a library that included nearly any movie anybody would want to watch, people would pay. Piracy doesn't beat convenience. Piracy is only winning because of inflated prices, and a lack of convenience.
I'm curious. What exactly are the "true costs costs of their 'infringements'" (sorry I'm not an English major, I don't know how to properly quote quotes)
A3: The run-time behaviour of a certain computer program cannot be deduced from its text ("code") alone. The dynamic semantics of the text largely depends on the processor which is assigned to execute the program. In fact, text and behaviour are largely independent from each other [01]:
One and the same functionality can be expressed by different texts. For example, the texts of computer programs implementing the RSA asymmetric cryptography algorithm can look quite different when written in C++ or Java. Even when only a single programming language is used, many different texts representing RSA are conceivable.
One and the same text can cause many different behaviours if run on different processors. For example, a program carefully written in C++ and implementing said RSA algorithm will perform RSA if run on a C++ processor, e.g. a general purpose computer equipped with a C++ compiler. If the same C++ text is run on another processor, say, on a general purpose computer equipped with a JAVA interpreter or with a PERL interpreter, other things will happen (usually an error message will be generated).
WTF?!? So because the PERL interpreter doesn't compile C++ that makes software patentable?
As for this part: "The run-time behaviour of a certain computer program cannot be deduced from its text ("code") alone." Only if you're doing things really wrong. The whole point of good readable code is that you can read the code to know what happens.
"No, by leaving out that part, Techdirt doesn't give the full picture."
So, ummm, why don't you post the correct numbers?
Could it be that for all your blustering that you are just lazy and won't do any research?
Your proposition is that illegal downloads are causing harm to legitimate music sales. So we would assume that there would be a correlating fall of music sales to the rise in popularity and use of P2P and other downloading means.
These are just the first three from a Google search, and while there's no peer reviewed journal article, they tend to argue that it's not a significant problem and maybe even a benefit to CD sales.
So please, if you are going to rail against anybody because they don't "give the full picture" at least bring something to to table.
At this point I'm going to assume your careful misquote is purposeful.
The 'no harm' claim that has been made, and well supported IMHO, that piracy causes no harm to the overall economy. It has been stated repeatedly that piracy causes harm to the recording industries current business model which is based on a scarcity that no longer exists.
On the post: Yet Another Plan To Change Copyright Law To Protect Newspapers
Re: Let them try this
This really astounds me. Let me clear something up for you. It is ridiculously easy for any site to control access to any page through any number of criteria. This kind of thing is built into any modern web server. The argument of "We don't want people to link directly to our pages" holds no water at all, because they have complete control over that. What they want is to be paid by people sending them traffic, but that can't say that as we'd all see just how ridiculous it is.
On the post: Can Someone Please Tell Us How You Determine What's A 'Legal' Search Engine From An 'Illegal' One?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand we have copyright infringement, which has little impact, and high overhead of prosecution (if it were done right and actually went against the people who are breaking the law, at least in countries where this is even illegal). Here we see lawsuits against third parties because it's easier and they have more money.
This would be like a state billing/fining/suing Toyota based on the number of Toyota drivers that were speeding.
On the post: Can Someone Please Tell Us How You Determine What's A 'Legal' Search Engine From An 'Illegal' One?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Um, Sorry, But You Don't Get To Sue When Somebody Moves Images You're Hotlinking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Um, Sorry, But You Don't Get To Sue When Somebody Moves Images You're Hotlinking
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A hotlink means that in my page I place a description of the image in question:
Your browser downloads that text from my server. Your browser then goes out and gets the image, and places it into the page. At no time did the image ever exist in any way on my server, nor did I ever copy, republish, or even access the image.
As a page designer I don't even know for sure if your browser will go and get the image. Some browsers don't (text browsers like links), while it's easy to turn off image loading in nearly every browser.
Not to mention it was your server that created the copy. The browser simply asked your server to give it a copy, your server could have refused, but your server, as configured by you, chose to give that file to the browser.
On the post: Study Says File Sharers Would Ignore Warning Letters; Recording Industry Gets The Wrong Message
Re: Think outside the square and there is plenty of money to make
On the post: Study Says File Sharers Would Ignore Warning Letters; Recording Industry Gets The Wrong Message
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court To Review Whether Business Models And Software Are Patentable
WTF?!? So because the PERL interpreter doesn't compile C++ that makes software patentable?
As for this part: "The run-time behaviour of a certain computer program cannot be deduced from its text ("code") alone." Only if you're doing things really wrong. The whole point of good readable code is that you can read the code to know what happens.
On the post: Now It's The UK's Turn For Some Bogus Piracy Stats
Re:
So, ummm, why don't you post the correct numbers?
Could it be that for all your blustering that you are just lazy and won't do any research?
Your proposition is that illegal downloads are causing harm to legitimate music sales. So we would assume that there would be a correlating fall of music sales to the rise in popularity and use of P2P and other downloading means.
Quick Google search would tend to counter that:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/175167/cd_sales_versus_p2p_downloading.html?cat=33
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1168/Itemid,85/nsub,/
ht tp://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/study-p2p-music-downloads-increase-music-cd-sales-2287/
These are just the first three from a Google search, and while there's no peer reviewed journal article, they tend to argue that it's not a significant problem and maybe even a benefit to CD sales.
So please, if you are going to rail against anybody because they don't "give the full picture" at least bring something to to table.
On the post: Now It's The UK's Turn For Some Bogus Piracy Stats
Re: Re: Re:
The 'no harm' claim that has been made, and well supported IMHO, that piracy causes no harm to the overall economy. It has been stated repeatedly that piracy causes harm to the recording industries current business model which is based on a scarcity that no longer exists.
On the post: Cable Companies Aren't Immune From The Economy As More People Go Online-Only For TV
Well...
At least for the three people who have a choice. This has been talked to death, but the real problem (as you well know) is the lack of competition.
Next >>