I miss the good old days when you'd actually log in and provide longer posts that at least attempted to indicate what you thought was specifically wrong with a post. Even if I thought you were an idiotic troll, you were at least an idiot who took pride in his work and committed to the end goal of making really stupid statements and arguments.
Why do that when it's easier to just steal as many albums from iTunes as possible and sell them on the black market to the likes of Pirate Bay? I hear they've got plenty of money for it...
Re: Its not a competition - devaluation by comonality -
File sharing of movies or music (theft)
Or not theft, both literally and legally.
does not increase competition. There is no competition at all, there are not competing products.
Free digital distribution vs costly shiny plastic disc distribution.
All file sharing does is force the companies and artists that create the product that you desire so much, to compete with a free and illegal version of their OWN PRODUCT.
It forces companies who compete entirely on the basis of who provides the best service for creating copies of a work to live up to the fact that their job can be done at zero cost and by people who used to be customers.
The file downloaders desire it but are not willing to pay for it.
There's no need to pay for copies when the ability to copy something is priced at zero.
Even diamons would be 20cents each if they were as common as gravel.
That's a very accurate summary of supply and demand there. I hope that understanding will lead you to further realisations about basic economics, as it's a very promising start.
So there is no competition, and if you claim there is what is the alternative product that is the competing product.
Zero cost copy making vs enforced payment of zero cost copy making.
So what is it based on? It's well established that it certainly isn't facts, which leaves gurus like RJR and self interested profiteers like the RIAA, and all they ever do is spout "pap".
Nice to see the old classics make a come back. You should do a greatest hits album, then complain about how you can't make any money because everyone is stealing it.
Why do artists believe they're entitled to recurring payments based on work they did years ago at the exclusion of peoples rights to privacy and speech?
They obviously know if they went after Google they'd lose. Rather than risk having patents invalidated, go after the smaller player shipping the product and bully them.
All in the hope to either slow down competitors or to leech off of them.
Either way, the tactic is to shut out and bully competitors, not any genuine use of patents as protections of real inventions.
Mandelson has no good reputation to sully, and this is an example of obvious hypocritical behaviour. But I guess that doesn't stop the tamster from debating the author, not the point, especially as hypocritical behaviour is the forte of the tamster.
I have a right to waive my rights. In certain situations, I may feel that I benefit by doing so.
Except you're not. You get little genuine benefit from getting it through Netflix over getting it from the site, torrent, Youtube or other means, unless you consider not being able to copy, remix/reuse or distribute it a benefit.
I want to watch this movie on Netflix. Now I can't. Don't I have a right to do that?
No you don't. Netflix is a non essential service that provides a convenience, not a right. Sometimes rights create what may be inconvenient circumstances for some, but are more important to protect in the long run.
Not being able to watch on Netflix may be an inconvenience, but pales in comparison to the ability to copy, distribute and use the film as you please. Granting and protecting that is the fundamental principle.
I think what it comes down to is this: The view being proposed is that DRM is a revoking of what is someones inherent right or freedom. Assuming that this stands (Nina's belief), then anything that revokes those freedoms is counter productive.
There are actually 2 aspects to this:
Netflix doesn't remove DRM, even in instances where a work is freely allowed to be copied and distributed
Netflix won't allow "bumpers", which limits here promoting the fact the work is freely distributable and where it can be gained.
What's being lost is that Netlfix users are being restricted, in a way that's not compatible with Nina's beliefs. Many Netflix users may not know of the film and its website where the information is. Even as it is able to be gained from other places, netflix users may not have knowledge of this, and people who gain it from Netflix are being restricted.
This undermines the freedom that Nina is expressly granting and trying to maintain. In the same way that freedom of speech is thought of as an inalienable right that should not or can't ever be revoked even if there may be other avenues, regardless of time or situation, so too does the same view apply here. Even for a only a certain group of people or at a certain time, it is an undermining of their right to do something that is expressly being granted.
She has a personal disagreement in that Netflix uses DRM to control what people do with content, and she opposes this viewpoint. In turn, she uses copyleft license to ensure that, in a system with copyright all rights reserved by default, that the things she views as essential to peoples personal freedom are not revoked by another party (which wouldn't necessarily happen in a system without copyright).
Netflix saying they refuse to remove DRM for users who receive it through their service is a revoking of something she views as their inherent ability. Supporting a service that actively enforces DRM irrespective of what is seen to her as a users right is counter productive to what she believes and how Sita is subsequently being distributed.
Not supporting a service trying to control a work that is deliberately made to not be controlled is perfectly in line with her beliefs.
Right before I submitted this, I refreshed the page to see Nina's comment. Ignoring the obvious differences between my thoughts and those of the actual content creator, I stand by my point of view. I completely disagree with the idea that content creators should have no control over their work in any way, shape or form. That doesn't make sense to me.
Read more Techdirt articles, namely the ones linked to the right on the front page ("Most Popular Articles"),
When the United States Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed—and rejected [9]. Instead, the founders of our country adopted a different idea of copyright, one which places the public first [10]. Copyright in the United States is supposed to exist for the sake of users; benefits for publishers and even for authors are not given for the sake of those parties, but only as an inducement to change their behavior. As the Supreme Court said in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal: “The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.” [11]
On the post: FCC Gives Hollywood The Right To Break Your TV/DVR... Just 'Cause
Re:
On the post: Italian Officials Charged For Corruption In Red Light Camera Deal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Italian Officials Charged For Corruption In Red Light Camera Deal
Re: Re:
On the post: Yet Another Study Suggests File Sharers Are Frustrated Buyers
Re: Its not a competition - devaluation by comonality -
Or not theft, both literally and legally.
Free digital distribution vs costly shiny plastic disc distribution.
It forces companies who compete entirely on the basis of who provides the best service for creating copies of a work to live up to the fact that their job can be done at zero cost and by people who used to be customers.
There's no need to pay for copies when the ability to copy something is priced at zero.
That's a very accurate summary of supply and demand there. I hope that understanding will lead you to further realisations about basic economics, as it's a very promising start.
Zero cost copy making vs enforced payment of zero cost copy making.
On the post: The FCC Shakes Things Up (Somewhat) On The Net Neutrality Front
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The FCC Shakes Things Up (Somewhat) On The Net Neutrality Front
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The FCC Shakes Things Up (Somewhat) On The Net Neutrality Front
Re:
On the post: Draft Of Privacy Bill Introduced... And Pretty Much Everyone Hates It
Re: Re: Re:
That's your idea of "The Masnicks" concept out the window? Why am I surprised...
On the post: Washington Post Fails To Ask NBC's Rick Cotton Any Tough Questions
Re: "unfair" irony
On the post: Microsoft Suggests Android Violates Its Patents... But Gets HTC To Buy A License
Re: This is completely insane
All in the hope to either slow down competitors or to leech off of them.
Either way, the tactic is to shut out and bully competitors, not any genuine use of patents as protections of real inventions.
On the post: Justice Dept. Boosts Number Of FBI Agents, Attorneys Focusing On Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: intellectual dishonesty or cognitive dissonance?
So yes, it effectively means that the assumption of harm is based on nothing.
On the post: Avatar Sees Theater Attendance Bump After DVD Release
Re: Re: Re:
Audience attendance figures are just as important if not more so than pure revenue. Especially if the trend for audience figures is overall down.
On the post: Is That Two Strikes For Mandelson? Labour Caught With Another Potentially Infringing Poster
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re:
Except you're not. You get little genuine benefit from getting it through Netflix over getting it from the site, torrent, Youtube or other means, unless you consider not being able to copy, remix/reuse or distribute it a benefit.
No you don't. Netflix is a non essential service that provides a convenience, not a right. Sometimes rights create what may be inconvenient circumstances for some, but are more important to protect in the long run.
Not being able to watch on Netflix may be an inconvenience, but pales in comparison to the ability to copy, distribute and use the film as you please. Granting and protecting that is the fundamental principle.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re:
There are actually 2 aspects to this:
Netflix doesn't remove DRM, even in instances where a work is freely allowed to be copied and distributed
Netflix won't allow "bumpers", which limits here promoting the fact the work is freely distributable and where it can be gained.
What's being lost is that Netlfix users are being restricted, in a way that's not compatible with Nina's beliefs. Many Netflix users may not know of the film and its website where the information is. Even as it is able to be gained from other places, netflix users may not have knowledge of this, and people who gain it from Netflix are being restricted.
This undermines the freedom that Nina is expressly granting and trying to maintain. In the same way that freedom of speech is thought of as an inalienable right that should not or can't ever be revoked even if there may be other avenues, regardless of time or situation, so too does the same view apply here. Even for a only a certain group of people or at a certain time, it is an undermining of their right to do something that is expressly being granted.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Netflix saying they refuse to remove DRM for users who receive it through their service is a revoking of something she views as their inherent ability. Supporting a service that actively enforces DRM irrespective of what is seen to her as a users right is counter productive to what she believes and how Sita is subsequently being distributed.
Not supporting a service trying to control a work that is deliberately made to not be controlled is perfectly in line with her beliefs.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re:
Read more Techdirt articles, namely the ones linked to the right on the front page ("Most Popular Articles"),
Also see:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosoph y/reevaluating-copyright.html
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: the good fight
On the post: Blizzard Sells $2 Million In Virtual Livestock In Four Hours
Re:
http://www.teamfortress.com/post.php?id=3045&p=
Next >>