You do realize that the financial effect of piracy on a company is exactly the same as the financial effect of buying from someone else, right? There's no more lost in either scenario.
How would you propose the rights of rights holders be respected up front? Those words sound nice, but I can't quite figure out what the concept behind them is.
Perhaps you could go into more detail about what burden rights holders have under the DMCA? As far as I can tell they've got as broad powers as possible short of shutting down whole websites or making torrents illegal. They don't even have the burden of proof.
Not to detract from your point or anything, but what does Lord of the Flies have to do with any of this? That was just a story about children panicking about a threat that didn't exist and killing each other in the process.
...Okay, I see the comparison, but it still doesn't belong next to 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.
He was using what he had the rights to use and the page was still taken off Google. That is the problem. Agreeing that that shouldn't happen doesn't make you a pirate.
Well, court costs are apparently fairly pricey. When EVERYMD loses this case that'll at least be money out the window. If Facebook is feeling vindictive they should be able to waste court time right back and bury them under legal fees. But no, there's no official punishment for this unless you think you can get contempt of court to stick.
"it would have been much nicer and a hell of a lot more convincing if they had done so originally, rather than just a few weeks before the scheduled event when people started protesting."
And how were they supposed to do that? Everyone knows that nothing the government does is inherently unreasonable. They only become unreasonable when people protest them. Are you suggesting that the Department of Commerce should be able to somehow look into the future and predict protests before they happen?
Ah, okay, now I get it. The law is unfairly balanced towards anonymous comments.
That could easily be fixed without removing the reasonableness of a requirement of proof of wrongdoing. Just extend the protection to everyone regardless of the publicity of their name.
Good. You understand how piracy works now. Now all you need to do is stop being so dismissive of the idea.
The "psychopaths" comment was uncalled for, though. If someone was trying to sell you a t-shirt as a bulletproof vest, you'd want us to let you know, right? And if we did so you wouldn't assume that we planned on shooting you. This is the same principle.
I'd like to see how that proposal works out. "Yes, I've got a new encryption method. It's completely impregnable and will never be broken. I know it won't because it's illegal to do so."
No, they are what make it easy for me to copy music I already own. YouTube converters and torrent search sites are what make it easy for me to rip off music. Vinyl is harder to digitize and I personally lack the equipment, but that's no longer relevant because as long as one person has such equipment and is willing to put the music online I can get it from them. The nature of the Internet means it doesn't need to be easy for me. It just needs to be possible for someone.
The tech you're talking about is easily circumventable now that people don't need to watch things live and data can be stored in its pure form. For the example of HBO, all you need is one person with a) a subscription and b) a DVR, and the whole channel is compromised. A descrambler like you described would probably also be easier, since the scrambled data can be placed on a hard drive and decrypted at the hacker's leisure. Remember, with the Internet only one person needs to distribute something and everyone has it. This isn't like the days when everyone needed to steal HBO from the source.
There were also a number of centuries where it took months to cross the Atlantic, but if you tried running a shipping company with seventeenth-century technology you'd never get any customers. Closed systems worked fine in the twentieth century, but we are no longer in the twentieth century. Conditions have changed. Culture is no longer a one-way proposition.
That you think the ability to rip music is at all a choice of the companies shows that you have no idea how music works. No company would waste its money on DRM if it was really as easy as turning the ability to copy off. Music does not and can not just magically appear in the speaker. That's not how speakers work. Either the songs are stored with the speaker, in which case they can be retrieved from that storage, or they are transmitted to the speaker system, in which case a device to record the transmission can be incorporated into the speaker system DVR-style. Radio, CD's, vinyl, tapes, phonograph cylinders, and those things they put in birthday cards so they sing when you open them can all be read and transferred to a computer with only moderate effort. Closed systems only existed back when those were new because computers and the Internet had not yet hit their stride. The only unreadable format is something that doesn't at any point go through anything manmade, such as a trained parrot.
Oh, I see the problem. You think it's possible to ensure that artists are only available on a closed system. It's not. Firstly, there are many, many artists already available online, and people will always go to those before bending over for whatever monstrosity you propose. Popularity is defined by what the populous favors, and the populous will always gravitate towards the easily accessible offering, which in this century means the online one. All your plan would accomplish is the rise of a legion of Justin Beibers. Secondly, how, exactly, do you think an unrippable music player could be made? The closest thing in existence to an unbreakable recording method is teaching a parrot how to sing, and the audio quality with that is terrible. Anything else that stores data can have that data retrieved by someone, and it only needs to be ripped once to become available online. Once something's available online the copies will multiply, and when the original is taken down more will take its place. Or maybe you're proposing a system in which customer's devices play music as they receive it without storing any data. Congratulations, you've invented the radio. I don't think anyone's felt the need to figure out how to record XM yet, so if you do it that way you might be able to keep your data relatively secure for a week, possibly even two if no one cares about your music, though you will still have to contend with the microphone rips you mentioned earlier. After those two weeks are up your system will be as open to piracy as anything else.
If data is stored with the customer it will be broken into and copied. If data is not stored with the customer it will be recorded as it's received and copied. Either way your plan fails.
Actually having a kid would be remixing your DNA, which falls under fair use. You need to pay God royalties every time one of your cells undergoes mitosis. Cloning, of course, is a punishable offense, as it's an unlicensed reproduction.
And the record companies will have spent a crapton of money locking their competition out of a dying medium while their Pandora/iPod-equipped customers remained oblivious to the whole affair. Remember, every dollar spent on radio is a dollar that doesn't go to Congress. A slightly reduced driving experience would seem a small price to pay.
They didn't even pretend to have any kind of argument for their views. They just said they're disappointed. I'm disappointed when I can't get a cookie, but I don't ask for legislation to have cookies provided.
On the post: Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Tiny Drug Factories
On the post: Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes
Re:
...Okay, I see the comparison, but it still doesn't belong next to 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.
On the post: Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Romney, Santorum & Gingrich Sued For Patent Infringement Over Facebook Usage... Along With Millions Of FB Users
Re:
On the post: Commerce Department Postpones 'Africa IP Forum' After People Point Out How One-Sided It Is
And how were they supposed to do that? Everyone knows that nothing the government does is inherently unreasonable. They only become unreasonable when people protest them. Are you suggesting that the Department of Commerce should be able to somehow look into the future and predict protests before they happen?
On the post: Indiana Court Says Anonymous Commenters Deserve High Standard Before Being Exposed, But Aren't Necessarily Protected By Shield Laws
Re: Re: Re:
That could easily be fixed without removing the reasonableness of a requirement of proof of wrongdoing. Just extend the protection to everyone regardless of the publicity of their name.
On the post: Indiana Court Says Anonymous Commenters Deserve High Standard Before Being Exposed, But Aren't Necessarily Protected By Shield Laws
Re:
On the post: UK Labour Party: Let's Just Get On With Kicking People Offline Over Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Labour Party: Let's Just Get On With Kicking People Offline Over Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "psychopaths" comment was uncalled for, though. If someone was trying to sell you a t-shirt as a bulletproof vest, you'd want us to let you know, right? And if we did so you wouldn't assume that we planned on shooting you. This is the same principle.
On the post: UK Labour Party: Let's Just Get On With Kicking People Offline Over Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Labour Party: Let's Just Get On With Kicking People Offline Over Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Labour Party: Let's Just Get On With Kicking People Offline Over Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Labour Party: Let's Just Get On With Kicking People Offline Over Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That you think the ability to rip music is at all a choice of the companies shows that you have no idea how music works. No company would waste its money on DRM if it was really as easy as turning the ability to copy off. Music does not and can not just magically appear in the speaker. That's not how speakers work. Either the songs are stored with the speaker, in which case they can be retrieved from that storage, or they are transmitted to the speaker system, in which case a device to record the transmission can be incorporated into the speaker system DVR-style. Radio, CD's, vinyl, tapes, phonograph cylinders, and those things they put in birthday cards so they sing when you open them can all be read and transferred to a computer with only moderate effort. Closed systems only existed back when those were new because computers and the Internet had not yet hit their stride. The only unreadable format is something that doesn't at any point go through anything manmade, such as a trained parrot.
On the post: UK Labour Party: Let's Just Get On With Kicking People Offline Over Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If data is stored with the customer it will be broken into and copied. If data is not stored with the customer it will be recorded as it's received and copied. Either way your plan fails.
On the post: Reductio Ad Absurdum: Eternal Copyright Is Crazy... But What About Today's Copyright Term?
Re: Re:
On the post: Australian Collection Society Upset It Doesn't Get To Collect Extra For Radio Simulcasts Online
Re: Re: Payola
On the post: Australian Collection Society Upset It Doesn't Get To Collect Extra For Radio Simulcasts Online
Next >>