“You can’t say piracy is not an issue,” he said. “I don’t believe it’s going away, it’s a big issue. The government has to get involved.”
OK, let's change the topic.
“You can’t say criminal stupidity is not an issue,” he said. “I don’t believe it’s going away, it’s a big issue. The government has to get involved.”
Oh, wait a minute, that's what getting us deeper into this mess in the first place.
Ars Technica had a recent article on how the amine scene realized this fact more than two years ago. Indeed, the ability to view anime is, in some respects, better in the rest of the world than it is in Japan. It's good to see that some people understand the changes and are working to integrate them into a new business model.
... the domain owners that had their domain names seized over "pirating" (aka copyright infringement) by ICE sued over the fact that Congress never authorized this as a remedy for infringement?
I kind of wish the EFF had enough resources to take this on.
Why not a "Common Sense Party"? Their platform could be:
a political party for the people, not the corporations
a political party that would shift the cost of copyright enforcement from the government to the copyright holders
a political party that understand that just because there is a patent on a drug does not mean that it should cost a lot
a political party that understands that Patent reform is about patenting *new* things, not items found in nature (genes) or digital versions of physical items
a political party that understands transparency in government means you need to share more information and not penalize whistle blowers for doing what you asked them to do
a political party that understands the word "secular" and how it should be applied
a political party that understands that the federal budget would be a lot closer to being balanced if the special interest projects were removed
a political party that understands if the government is shut down then they shouldn't be paid either.
But, then again, I'm not sure the public is ready for such a radical choice.
If the digital music locker was as legal as Amazon would like people to believe, why is it only available in the U.S.? While I personally see no issue with it (after all, isn't my music mine?) I see this as Amazon baiting the RIAA and asking to be sued. I have no doubt that Amazon lawyers have already prepared their arguments as to why this is legal.
Does this mean that music purchased through Amazon will become more expensive as the recording industry "penalizes" Amazon for introducing a business model from which they are not getting their "fair share"?
First of all In addition, we have struggled with general uncertainty and unpredictability of delivering orders to our Canadian customers given customs and other logistics constraints. The customs transition between the U.S. and Canada is not labourious. The problem comes in the handoff between USPS and Canada Post. I ordered sewing patterns for my wife that took 29 days to get from California to Alberta through USPS and Canada Post. I order a cane, as a prop, from Indonesia and it took 61 hours to get to me via DHL courier. Shipping cheaply is the wrong way to go when trying to ship between countries. This is one of the primary reasons why organizations set up shipping centres in Canada so that this hassle can be avoided.
Second, many American companies have Canadian subsidiaries or have given exclusive Canadian distribution rights to another company. In those cases Zappos is legally bound not to ship to Canada unless it purchases the product through the Canadian subsidiary or distributor. This is due to the manufacturers requirements, not Zappos or the Canadian government. Failure to follow these requirements can result in having the products seized at the border at the request of the company or distributor. There are tens of thousands of items on Amazon.COM that Amazon will not ship to Canada due to these requirements. Does everyone follow these rules? No, but there are risks as my brother found out when trying to buy some electronic gear last year that was in short supply in Canada. It was seized at the border and he lost his money.
Third, TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Free Shipping and Free Returns cost money and that is factored into the cost. It's worse when you are being ripped off. For instance the same parcel that Zappos could ship within the US for $14.95 costs $35.50 to ship to Canada. On the reverse side, that same parcel would cost $23.50 to ship from Canada to the US and $15.35 within Canada. Inter country shipping agreements are costly and, based on some high level research, one country seems to be making an abnormally large profit margin on shipping.
I could go on, but hopefully you see my point: Canada Customs is actually the least of the issues between Canada and the US, USPS is actually much bigger.
Hang on a minute. Gravy on french fries is good, if you've got the right gravy. KFC gravy with McDonalds french fries actually works best. Something stupid is putting cheese curds AND gravy on french fries. Poutine? Why bother. NY Times? Why bother.
Is there a limit to the number of songs mankind can write?
Has anyone done a study to determine how many different bars of music you can actually create? Sure you can put those bars of music together in different manners, but at the base you still have x notes being played. Don't we, mankind, run out of music at some point? Are we at that point? If you want to make a record sound like 50's music, don't you have to "plagarize"?
So, because you say there is a problem with the law that means we should ignore the law all together? Ignore due process? Ignore "innocent until proven guilty"? Ignore what millions of Americans throughout the years have fought for? If the penalty for copyright infringement was death, would you let the MPAA and RIAA determine who lived and who died? Let's check your Visa and Mastercard statements and see who supported them the most for the past year. Top 10% get "accused" of copyright infringement and put to death. That will do wonders for their business model.
If a US company was facilitating infringement of Spanish IP and Spain decided to seize that company's .es domain, the US wouldn't think twice about it.
Mike's comment did not say anything at all about IP, he said that "the company had violated the law". What if Spain had a law that said anyone promoting the sale of American products was violating the law? With this law they could seize the domains of almost any American company. Not IP law, but a different law. Or what if they had one that said spitting on the sidewalk was illegal and a company posted a video of someone spitting on the sidewalk? They could take away the domain due to contributory infringement.
None of this has anything to do with IP law. Yes, the reason why the site was taken down was probably due to an American company complaining that the site violated their IP, but the process that is being undertaken does not restrict itself to IP issues. What if, due to the discussion of these topics, TechDirt.com was seized by ICE? No actual infringement, but merely talking about the infringement.
Just because the company that merely registered the domain name is located in the U.S. does not mean that it is U.S. property. Does a patent registered with the U.S. Patent Office now belong to the U.S. government if it wants to appropriate it?
This does highlight a bigger issues, however, in that there is a problem with Verisign being the "owner" of .COM. Welcome to a world where the U.S. government runs the Internet. Let's bring back the Internet Kill Switch. Let's give the MPAA and RIAA the reins to the country. After all, we know what a good job they did with their own market.
Welcome to the United States of American Corporations™. Please register your DNA as you enter so that we can make money from you.
OK, so 87% of those who signed got money from Comcast. So what? ComCast probably contributes money to a lot of politicians. Maybe they contributed money to 90% of the other representatives but none of them signed? This is only half a story. You need the other half of the story to sensationalize it.
For a long time I've been thinking that perhaps we are looking at the RIAA the wrong way and this article, in some ways, validates what I have been thinking.
Don't think of their "monoculture" as being recorded music, but think of their "monoculture" as being the type/quality of recorded music. I, personally, stopped buying recorded music when my wallet hit me in the head and asked me to justify $20 for 2 good songs and 8 bad songs. As a result, I stopped buying. A lot of my friends stopped buying as well. Our tastes had changed and the music industry was slow to adapt. Their propensity to pump out an album, regardless of how bad it was, led to that decision. When they flooded the market with trash the market responded by saying "We're not buying it."
Quality music still sold. The bell curve shifted but the music companies did not respond. They still believed that the public wanted 20% quality and 80% crap.
The public showed them a thing or two. When 80% of what you sell is wanted by so few people, it's amazing that your sales don't fall 80%. Think about it: the greatest hits album is usually two or three songs from each album the group has made. If all of their music was so damn good, why isn't every album a greatest hits compilation?
The music industry, or rather, a lot of the smaller players, the indie companies, the little guys out in Seattle with a steampunk band, those guys are giving the people what they want. Different music, quality music. Exposure is their problem and that is the one thing that the music industry can provide and that is, almost, their sole reason for survival.
The talk for so long has been about piracy and "theft" and people not buying music. People are still buying music, but the 80% trash isn't selling and if your economic model is based on selling trash then you better be prepared for the worst.
Have you thought about hiring Righthaven to enforce the copyright on that one single article? It would be poetic to have him sued over using a comment from TechDirt about using Righthaven to sue.
Robert Heinlein published a story 60 years ago about how to "own" the moon. I'm not surprised that people keep trying to do this. I'm personally working on a way to trademark the period, then I'm going to stick it to the book publishers. After that it I am going to publish a song with a single note and then sue everyone using that note saying that they are making a derivative copy of my work. I figure at $750 per song I could live quite comfortably while doing nothing.
I don't know about you, but the last time I went into a bank was 3 years ago for my mortgage. I haven't step foot in one since. Everything is done through banking machines or the Internet, where encryption is used between my browser and my banks servers.
I also do a fair amount of shopping over the Internet, buying items that I cannot normally find up here in Canada. Each site has an SSL certificate that encrypts data.
I have an application on my machine that stores the 150+ different web sites to which I have a userID and password. It stores both in an encrypted file so that it is not exposed to the world.
More crimes are committed with the use of phones (both land lines and cell phones) and yet people do not normally get a prohibition on using their phone. It is considered an "essential" service. With todays world, the Internet and encryption, are also "essential" services. I want to look at my daughters report card? I need to go online to get it through an encrypted link. Various government services are only available online, through an encrypted link. In the province where I live you can apply to any of the Universities and Colleges in the province through a single web site that uses encryption. You can then go to another encrypted web site to apply for a Student Loan. There is a push to take a look at e-voting (through encryption) although people are concerned about the lack of security and non-repudiation involved in the process.
Let the punishment fit the crime. If he received stolen goods make him perform community service so that he can see the impact that crime has had on others. Like one of the other comments listed above, these restrictions seem to have been put in there by his parents, not by the judge.
You know it is only a publicity stunt when they start attacking only Google. Google is not the only search engine, but it is the biggest brand in the search engine market. If we assume that CNET is correct then we should also be adding Bing and Yahoo into the mix.
Has the RIAA/MPAA approached them?
Have Bing/Yahoo offered to do things for free for them?
I would have to say that the answer is "no", otherwise the RIAA/MPAA would have loudly trumpeted their successful negotiations with them when talking about Google. This is a publicity stunt, nothing else.
On the post: Barry Diller Tries To Explain To Ari Emanuel That He's Wrong About 'Piracy' Being A Problem For Movies
Wait a minute ...
OK, let's change the topic.
“You can’t say criminal stupidity is not an issue,” he said. “I don’t believe it’s going away, it’s a big issue. The government has to get involved.”
Oh, wait a minute, that's what getting us deeper into this mess in the first place.
On the post: TV People Realizing That The Internet Is Global
Crunchyroll as an example
On the post: Another Loss For Righthaven: Court Explains That Its Demand For Domain Names Is Silly
So, what if ...
I kind of wish the EFF had enough resources to take this on.
On the post: Is It Time To Form A 'Rogue' Party Instead Of A 'Pirate' Party?
Perhaps this name?
But, then again, I'm not sure the public is ready for such a radical choice.
On the post: Amazon Launches Digital Music Locker, Even As Legality Is Still In Question
Amazon is asking to be sued
Does this mean that music purchased through Amazon will become more expensive as the recording industry "penalizes" Amazon for introducing a business model from which they are not getting their "fair share"?
On the post: Zappos Gives Up On Canada Due To Customs Problems
So many comments ... so little information
First of all In addition, we have struggled with general uncertainty and unpredictability of delivering orders to our Canadian customers given customs and other logistics constraints. The customs transition between the U.S. and Canada is not labourious. The problem comes in the handoff between USPS and Canada Post. I ordered sewing patterns for my wife that took 29 days to get from California to Alberta through USPS and Canada Post. I order a cane, as a prop, from Indonesia and it took 61 hours to get to me via DHL courier. Shipping cheaply is the wrong way to go when trying to ship between countries. This is one of the primary reasons why organizations set up shipping centres in Canada so that this hassle can be avoided.
Second, many American companies have Canadian subsidiaries or have given exclusive Canadian distribution rights to another company. In those cases Zappos is legally bound not to ship to Canada unless it purchases the product through the Canadian subsidiary or distributor. This is due to the manufacturers requirements, not Zappos or the Canadian government. Failure to follow these requirements can result in having the products seized at the border at the request of the company or distributor. There are tens of thousands of items on Amazon.COM that Amazon will not ship to Canada due to these requirements. Does everyone follow these rules? No, but there are risks as my brother found out when trying to buy some electronic gear last year that was in short supply in Canada. It was seized at the border and he lost his money.
Third, TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Free Shipping and Free Returns cost money and that is factored into the cost. It's worse when you are being ripped off. For instance the same parcel that Zappos could ship within the US for $14.95 costs $35.50 to ship to Canada. On the reverse side, that same parcel would cost $23.50 to ship from Canada to the US and $15.35 within Canada. Inter country shipping agreements are costly and, based on some high level research, one country seems to be making an abnormally large profit margin on shipping.
I could go on, but hopefully you see my point: Canada Customs is actually the least of the issues between Canada and the US, USPS is actually much bigger.
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Canuck weighing in here...
On the post: Craigslist A 'Cesspool Of Crime'? Or Are Bad Reporters A Cesspool Of Repeating Dubious Research?
Excellent response by Craiglist
On the post: Music Publisher Discovers A Song In Its Catalog Has Been Heavily Sampled For Decades... Sues Everyone
Is there a limit to the number of songs mankind can write?
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: the site was known to obey takedown requests
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: ICE Press Release
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
More confusion
The activities of the site seized were legal under Spanish law and illegal under American law.
And I guess so much for "innocent until proven guilty". What ever happened to "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave". Free? Brave?
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Totally confused
I am confused by some of the comments:
If a US company was facilitating infringement of Spanish IP and Spain decided to seize that company's .es domain, the US wouldn't think twice about it.Mike's comment did not say anything at all about IP, he said that "the company had violated the law". What if Spain had a law that said anyone promoting the sale of American products was violating the law? With this law they could seize the domains of almost any American company. Not IP law, but a different law. Or what if they had one that said spitting on the sidewalk was illegal and a company posted a video of someone spitting on the sidewalk? They could take away the domain due to contributory infringement.
None of this has anything to do with IP law. Yes, the reason why the site was taken down was probably due to an American company complaining that the site violated their IP, but the process that is being undertaken does not restrict itself to IP issues. What if, due to the discussion of these topics, TechDirt.com was seized by ICE? No actual infringement, but merely talking about the infringement.
Just because the company that merely registered the domain name is located in the U.S. does not mean that it is U.S. property. Does a patent registered with the U.S. Patent Office now belong to the U.S. government if it wants to appropriate it?
This does highlight a bigger issues, however, in that there is a problem with Verisign being the "owner" of .COM. Welcome to a world where the U.S. government runs the Internet. Let's bring back the Internet Kill Switch. Let's give the MPAA and RIAA the reins to the country. After all, we know what a good job they did with their own market.
Welcome to the United States of American Corporations™. Please register your DNA as you enter so that we can make money from you.
On the post: What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
What about the rest?
On the post: Where Record Labels Ran Into Trouble: Monoculture
Is it really adaptation to recorded music?
Don't think of their "monoculture" as being recorded music, but think of their "monoculture" as being the type/quality of recorded music. I, personally, stopped buying recorded music when my wallet hit me in the head and asked me to justify $20 for 2 good songs and 8 bad songs. As a result, I stopped buying. A lot of my friends stopped buying as well. Our tastes had changed and the music industry was slow to adapt. Their propensity to pump out an album, regardless of how bad it was, led to that decision. When they flooded the market with trash the market responded by saying "We're not buying it."
Quality music still sold. The bell curve shifted but the music companies did not respond. They still believed that the public wanted 20% quality and 80% crap.
The public showed them a thing or two. When 80% of what you sell is wanted by so few people, it's amazing that your sales don't fall 80%. Think about it: the greatest hits album is usually two or three songs from each album the group has made. If all of their music was so damn good, why isn't every album a greatest hits compilation?
The music industry, or rather, a lot of the smaller players, the indie companies, the little guys out in Seattle with a steampunk band, those guys are giving the people what they want. Different music, quality music. Exposure is their problem and that is the one thing that the music industry can provide and that is, almost, their sole reason for survival.
The talk for so long has been about piracy and "theft" and people not buying music. People are still buying music, but the 80% trash isn't selling and if your economic model is based on selling trash then you better be prepared for the worst.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
You might want to ...
On the post: Woman Claims Legal Loophole Means She Now Owns The Sun... And She Wants You To Pay Up
Old science fiction story covers this
Robert Heinlein published a story 60 years ago about how to "own" the moon. I'm not surprised that people keep trying to do this. I'm personally working on a way to trademark the period, then I'm going to stick it to the book publishers. After that it I am going to publish a song with a single note and then sue everyone using that note saying that they are making a derivative copy of my work. I figure at $750 per song I could live quite comfortably while doing nothing.
On the post: Botched TSA Pat Down Leaves Traveler Covered In Urine
Adam Savage and the TSA
On the post: Court Rejects Probation Rules On Teen That Ban Him From Using Social Networks Or Instant Messaging Programs
Re: well...
I also do a fair amount of shopping over the Internet, buying items that I cannot normally find up here in Canada. Each site has an SSL certificate that encrypts data.
I have an application on my machine that stores the 150+ different web sites to which I have a userID and password. It stores both in an encrypted file so that it is not exposed to the world.
More crimes are committed with the use of phones (both land lines and cell phones) and yet people do not normally get a prohibition on using their phone. It is considered an "essential" service. With todays world, the Internet and encryption, are also "essential" services. I want to look at my daughters report card? I need to go online to get it through an encrypted link. Various government services are only available online, through an encrypted link. In the province where I live you can apply to any of the Universities and Colleges in the province through a single web site that uses encryption. You can then go to another encrypted web site to apply for a Student Loan. There is a push to take a look at e-voting (through encryption) although people are concerned about the lack of security and non-repudiation involved in the process.
Let the punishment fit the crime. If he received stolen goods make him perform community service so that he can see the impact that crime has had on others. Like one of the other comments listed above, these restrictions seem to have been put in there by his parents, not by the judge.
On the post: Wait, So The RIAA Is Offended That Google Won't Do Work For Free?
Just Google
You know it is only a publicity stunt when they start attacking only Google. Google is not the only search engine, but it is the biggest brand in the search engine market. If we assume that CNET is correct then we should also be adding Bing and Yahoo into the mix.
Has the RIAA/MPAA approached them?
Have Bing/Yahoo offered to do things for free for them?
I would have to say that the answer is "no", otherwise the RIAA/MPAA would have loudly trumpeted their successful negotiations with them when talking about Google. This is a publicity stunt, nothing else.
Next >>