and anonymous has this meme where anyone who disagrees with his false logic and backs up their statements with facts and references is a freetard. Be warned you poor fellow.
It's kinda both. The 1st amendment would be the prior restraint if the courts view it as such. The 4th is the seizures, but they did have a warrant. The only problem is the affidavit used to get that warrant was so fraught with errors I'm not sure how it's going to look for anyone involved in using it.
Funny how the asterisk usually has the more pertinent information that is most relevant to the story.
Such as "I will give you $100mil!!!*"
*Under a ridiculous set of circumstances which would never be able to happen in reality.
Now, what's more newsworthy? The fact that I offered you $100mil or the fact that I was so trying to falsely play up my philanthropy that I set it all up in such a way that I'd never have to give out that money? What's more telling about me and about the facts of the story?
If you were going to get $250k, wouldn't you be ok with the guy doing it again? Hell, I'd pay $100k to his friends to have them get him drunk and talk him into infringing. Good investment in my book.
"The real targets (as you can see in court) are people like Jammie Thomas, a fairly casual file sharer who didn't know it was wrong - or at least that it wasn't that wrong. Changing those peoples' minds is what will tip the balance on file sharing in the long run."
So you say the targets are the fans who don't realize they're doing anything wrong? The people who aren't trying to make an illegal buck off of this? Those are the people that the RIAA and MPAA are targeting? Please tell me you're not part of the RIAA's or MPAA's public relations.
And, by the way, if you're trying to paint a picture of the kindly parents trying to gently correct a child's wrong... maybe "target" isn't the best word to use.
Yeah, I have to chime in with the other two... there's no 'theft' going on here. We've discussed and proven (to my satisfaction... and others') that copyright infringement does not equal theft.
That said, I do see what you mean: why should the industry have to change because of someone else's actions? A valid question, but one with an easy answer: because they have no choice. Think of the horse-carriage industry, the pre-printing press copiers... anyone who has ever been put out by something else changing the landscape. The industry has to adapt to this new environment or perish.
As far as the government tolerating it... why should they do anything about it? It's not the government's place to enforce or protect any business model. Now we have in the past allowed them (and even asked them) to put laws in place to give them that power, but I don't think they should have it.
This all comes back to the free-market ideal we hold so dear... the market itself will dictate the terms of the game. It's wrong for the government to step in and force the market to allow or disallow anything.
I wasn't trying to call you to task on numbers. I was trying to point out that arguing amount on this is missing the point.
The company I work for is facing some serious financial issues. Some of the changes that are coming about really are pocket change to the big picture. But every little bit does help. A combination of small changes along with major shifts in our company's way of doing business is what's going to save us in the long run.
So too with the music industry. Stop wasting money on trying to affect change in unnecessary regulation and move those resources towards new business models that aren't as challenged by the changing times. Seems like a more logical way to go.
Sorry, but didn't Wired also give us such informative articles as "The Internet is Dead" and "Piracy is Over"? I'm with others around here that I'll believe it when I have it in my hands (or on a store shelf since I got over DN long ago).
"I love the logic. If only the RIAA stopped lobbying, suddenly the bottom line of the music business would improve greatly. Right. Where did you get your MBA from?"
Actually, basic logic would answer this for you... it may not increase the bottom line, but the first thing you do when you're in a hole is stop digging. If the recording industry is hemorrhaging money as it claims, why keep spending so much on changing law instead of investing the money into the development of a successful business model?
"Perhaps it would be better to frame the RIAA's lobbying effort with others."
That's comparing apples to oranges, ears of corn, tobacco leaves, and oil barrels. They are all different industries and all have different regulations. Therefore, in a more heavily-regulated arena, you would spend more on lobby since the regulation (law) has a stronger hold on your income.
"17 million is a nice golly number. But scaled to the size of their business, it is less than 2/10ths of a percent of income. They spend more on coffee for the lunch rooms."
any references for this? I get where you're going, but I'd be interested to see the proof that their lobby budget is that low on the line-item sheet. I know the coffee is just a sarcastic example and I don't want to hold you to 'how much do they spend on coffee', but unless you have their full budget info, how can you know how much they spend on any of it?
"Who the fuck else would keep sales figures for recorded music sales besides a music industry association, Einstein? "
Hmm... bad language and insults... maybe if we keep pushing, his head will explode and we'll be left in peace.
Who else would keep sales figures? You're right; no one. But the analysis of those figures by an independent third party is what he was asking for.
Whose analysis of Al Capone's books do you think would be more accurate and less biased (and, honestly, more honest): a non-interested accountant or Al Capone's accountant? Same with the RIAA. They want to show how bad things were, so they creatively gave the data to back that stance up. There have been many articles (again, by 3rd parties) that show how the reports the RIAA gave were just plain wrong. You know... "wrong"... much like yourself.
Wait... really? That's the best you can do? Someone cites knowledge of the law to show how you're mistaken and you respond with "what an idiot"? Without even trying to prove how he's an idiot by pointing out his errors?
You know... for the longest time, I thought you were just so adversarial that you refused to even acknowledge the possibility that someone else might be right. But now I see that you're just a childish asshole. I don't know how to make this any clearer, but I'll try:
You. Are. Wrong.
Looks like you're the one too cowardly to admit when you fucked up. Troll on douche, troll on.
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eliot Ness lives (AC)
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Re: Re: Eliot Ness lives (AC)
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Re:
Such as "I will give you $100mil!!!*"
*Under a ridiculous set of circumstances which would never be able to happen in reality.
Now, what's more newsworthy? The fact that I offered you $100mil or the fact that I was so trying to falsely play up my philanthropy that I set it all up in such a way that I'd never have to give out that money? What's more telling about me and about the facts of the story?
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Spent $90 Million In Lobbying The US In The Past Decade
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, by the way, if you're trying to paint a picture of the kindly parents trying to gently correct a child's wrong... maybe "target" isn't the best word to use.
On the post: Our Long National Nightmare Is Over? Duke Nukem Has A Release Date?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the real Duke Nukem?
On the post: RIAA Spent $90 Million In Lobbying The US In The Past Decade
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That said, I do see what you mean: why should the industry have to change because of someone else's actions? A valid question, but one with an easy answer: because they have no choice. Think of the horse-carriage industry, the pre-printing press copiers... anyone who has ever been put out by something else changing the landscape. The industry has to adapt to this new environment or perish.
As far as the government tolerating it... why should they do anything about it? It's not the government's place to enforce or protect any business model. Now we have in the past allowed them (and even asked them) to put laws in place to give them that power, but I don't think they should have it.
This all comes back to the free-market ideal we hold so dear... the market itself will dictate the terms of the game. It's wrong for the government to step in and force the market to allow or disallow anything.
On the post: Greek Apple Support Company Sues Customer For Complaining About Service
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmmm
On the post: RIAA Spent $90 Million In Lobbying The US In The Past Decade
Re: Re: Re:
The company I work for is facing some serious financial issues. Some of the changes that are coming about really are pocket change to the big picture. But every little bit does help. A combination of small changes along with major shifts in our company's way of doing business is what's going to save us in the long run.
So too with the music industry. Stop wasting money on trying to affect change in unnecessary regulation and move those resources towards new business models that aren't as challenged by the changing times. Seems like a more logical way to go.
On the post: Our Long National Nightmare Is Over? Duke Nukem Has A Release Date?
Re: Think a little bigger...
On the post: Our Long National Nightmare Is Over? Duke Nukem Has A Release Date?
Re: Not the real Duke Nukem?
On the post: RIAA Spent $90 Million In Lobbying The US In The Past Decade
Re:
That's comparing apples to oranges, ears of corn, tobacco leaves, and oil barrels. They are all different industries and all have different regulations. Therefore, in a more heavily-regulated arena, you would spend more on lobby since the regulation (law) has a stronger hold on your income.
any references for this? I get where you're going, but I'd be interested to see the proof that their lobby budget is that low on the line-item sheet. I know the coffee is just a sarcastic example and I don't want to hold you to 'how much do they spend on coffee', but unless you have their full budget info, how can you know how much they spend on any of it?
On the post: Did Homeland Security Make Up A Non-Existent Criminal Contributory Infringement Rule In Seizing Domain Names?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting...
On the post: Did Homeland Security Make Up A Non-Existent Criminal Contributory Infringement Rule In Seizing Domain Names?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: #1 AC
Who else would keep sales figures? You're right; no one. But the analysis of those figures by an independent third party is what he was asking for.
Whose analysis of Al Capone's books do you think would be more accurate and less biased (and, honestly, more honest): a non-interested accountant or Al Capone's accountant? Same with the RIAA. They want to show how bad things were, so they creatively gave the data to back that stance up. There have been many articles (again, by 3rd parties) that show how the reports the RIAA gave were just plain wrong. You know... "wrong"... much like yourself.
On the post: Did Homeland Security Make Up A Non-Existent Criminal Contributory Infringement Rule In Seizing Domain Names?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know... for the longest time, I thought you were just so adversarial that you refused to even acknowledge the possibility that someone else might be right. But now I see that you're just a childish asshole. I don't know how to make this any clearer, but I'll try:
You. Are. Wrong.
Looks like you're the one too cowardly to admit when you fucked up. Troll on douche, troll on.
Next >>