She's obviously not a real lawyer, I mean, c'mon, we *all* know that they teach law students to respond to questions with insults and to end said insulting response with "LOL". I see neither, thus, she can't be a lawyer.
and once informed of a copyright infringement or being made aware of the nature of the site, need to take action accordingly to limit their liability.
Informed by whom? What proof is required? Does it require a court of law to determine copyright infringement? If not, how does Fair Use play in, since it requires a court to determine Fair Use?
What law states this?
You seem to be stating wishes and desires as facts and laws.
You aren't trying hard enough.
Really, this makes it sound like you are supporting piracy and the way that they use to profit from piracy. Are you sure you want to be standing there?
Mike: "because we should place liability on parties actually responsible"
That sounds like he's against piracy and also against blaming the wrong people to me.
I am unsure which worries me more: the fact that you are unable or unwilling to educate yourself about what the pirate party stands for, or the fact that you seem okay with someone being persecuted for their political party.
Either way, you need to step back and assess who you are as a person, I think.
When your business is entirely based on the thing that is getting pirated, any piracy is a negative to your bottom line, directly or indirectly.
Corollary: When your business is based entirely around an infinite good, it's tough, but not impossible, to trick people into giving you money for it.
Ignoring your business being eroded by illegal actions would be stupid. What should they spend their energies on, making even better movies for people to rip off faster?
Yes, spending it on lawyers will certainly make people want to give you money. Suing people won't make them go to the movie, or buy DVDs. Scaring people into giving you money is not a sound, legal business practice. (It seems to work okay for organized crime. Hmm...)
It can't be stopped.
True. So, what percent is acceptable? This is a real question.
It can be slowed, it can be tamped down.
Citation required.
It's a question of time, of government action, and of a moral shift in the population.
It's about stopping technological progress to keep a business model from becoming obsolete. This is the wrong answer.
Right now we have a generation of people who think taking things for free is okay, acceptable, and good.
No, we had a technological advance that resulted in an infrastructure that made it trivial to cheaply pass large amounts of digital information quickly around the globe. If we set up an infrastructure that allowed people to move cheaply and quickly around the globe, would you rally around the then-unnecessary automobile industry to attempt to stop and then reverse that progress? Would you demand that people keep buying cars even though they were unneeded? Advancements in technology have resulted in the death of many industries-- but also in the birth of new ones. It happens. Deal with it.
No long term view, they are just looking at what they can take, take, take without respect for others.
Sounds like certain big media businesses I know.
That lack of respect is a horrible sign, because in the end, much of a freedom loving people is the respect of others and their tolerance of things.
Yes, indeed! And to preserve that freedom, we should allow our ISPs to watch what we do online, right? That will certainly help! Doublespeak much?
The only reason you find it hard is because you want it some way it isn't currently being sold, and you want it NOW, no matter what.
The only reason *I* find it hard is that there is zero reason I can't have it the way I want it, except that the people peddling it are unwilling to give me what I want, hoping that they can trick me into buying the same thing multiple times. They had a good run, but that run is coming to an end. I have no doubts they will continue to make profits creating movies, but those profits may not be quite as impressive as they once were.
Whiny, childish ways of looking at things, and you think for some reason this justifies taking it without paying.
In a free market, the customer is always right because without the customer, you are nothing.
As an aside: Have you noticed that the only markets really complaining about piracy are the same markets that require you to pay for the product, without a chance of a refund, regardless on if you are satisfied with the product or not. For example: I buy a steak and don't like it. I can send it back for a refund even though the business loses money. If I buy a song and it turns out to be, say, edited for profanity, I have no way to return that song. Or if I buy an album from itunes and it turns out that 2/3 of the songs are crap (crazy, I know!) then I am stuck with those songs even though I don't want them. To make matters worse-- returning a digital good does not result in an unusable good-- the business has lost nothing. Does that seem right?
I wonder if there is any data on piracy rates of Android apps when the window to return apps was dropped from 24 hrs to 15 mins.
If pirace was "all people" there would be no hollywood movies
Talk about hard to take seriously. I would discuss this with you, but phrases like "Once that is done, you can pirate all the "man hit in balls" videos off of youtube" make me 89% certain you're not actually here to discuss anything.
PS- Movies about getting hit in the balls are good money makers in this country. I sincerely hope you try it out. :)
If pirace was "all people" there would be no hollywood movies
Talk about hard to take seriously. I would discuss this with you, but phrases like "Once that is done, you can pirate all the "man hit in balls" videos off of youtube" make me 89% certain you're not actually here to discuss anything.
PS- Movies about getting hit in the balls are good money makers in this country. I sincerely hope you try it out. :)
No, you're still not getting it. Once the album is recorded, it takes no extra effort to allow people to pay what they want. The work has already been done. Since it takes no extra work, if they make just *one* sale from someone who thinks $9 is too high, but is willing to pay $1, that's $1 more than they would have made-- all for zero extra work. How is this not obvious? It's on torrent sites as we speak. I can get it for free if I so desire, or I can pay $9. There is no middle ground. With a pay-what-you-want scheme, there is flexibility for me, the consumer, to pay the price I see fit.
T rust me, they didn't sell those for $2.25.
Nor should they. The price of buying the disc, pressing it, packaging it and shipping it adds to the cost. Dare I mention how inefficient that process is when compared to the internet? I bet Gold-plated 8-tracks shipped by mules would cost quite a bit, too, and they're going to charge enough to make it profitable. Would you advise people to start selling Gold-plated 8-tracks shipped by mule? No, because it's an outdated technology with expensive materials and an inefficient distribution method.
They figured out that the freeloaders didn't do much for them, and this time they are selling the record directly.
It's obvious they over-value their music, if that is the case. If I ask you "How much will you give me for a cup of coffee?" and you say "$4" and I turn around and tell you it's $8 a cup, then I'm making a bad business decision.
Mike tends to shy away from these stories because he cannot find a positive spin on them.
This is a strange comment, when at least 5 times a day I read that all Mike does is spread FUD. Now, it's FUD with a positive spin on it?
The only way he could run it would be to call Radiohead fools, but considering how much shiny plastic disc business they did on the last record, he would be hard pressed to explain why Radiohead isn't repeating the free give away.
Yes, he'd be very hard pressed to explain that. Personally, I don't think he'd even try it. :P
That is actually proving my point.
Wait, what? Your point was that Mike didn't mention it, and when I pointed you, with link, that he did mention it, it proved *your* point? Wow.
Would you prefer that I call them "sad loners" instead? Or how about freeloaders?
You can call them potential customers, or underserved customers, or just call them "people". There have been studies that show that so-called freeloaders actually spend more on media than average. Guess freeloader is a bad term. As for "sad loner", my non-techie friends are starting to infringe on copyrights. Hell, my boss does it. These aren't computer geeks living in a basement with no friends, these are normal, everyday people who no longer see sharing culture as wrong. You make up names for these people as if they deserve your scorn, as if they are somehow different than other people. You're acting like a child, calling people names because you don't like something about them.
I don't know what your lot is in all of this, but I really think you need to stop and look around at the world. People are going to share their culture whether you like it or not. You simply cannot stop them. In a vain attempt to prevent this, companies are only succeeding in losing the goodwill of their potential customers, and driving away the customers they do have.
If you have a response, and I hope you do, be a pal and start a new thread at the bottom: This on will quickly become unreadable in threaded format. :)
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Again Explains How And Why Domain Seizures Violate The Law
That's no moon!
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Is a license a service or a product?
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Do What you Want
Amazing.
On the post: Darrell Issa Tells IP Czar That She's 'Not Trying' If She Can't Pin Liability For File Sharing On Third Parties
Re: Re: History.
On the post: Darrell Issa Tells IP Czar That She's 'Not Trying' If She Can't Pin Liability For File Sharing On Third Parties
Re:
Informed by whom? What proof is required? Does it require a court of law to determine copyright infringement? If not, how does Fair Use play in, since it requires a court to determine Fair Use?
What law states this?
You seem to be stating wishes and desires as facts and laws.
You aren't trying hard enough.
Really, this makes it sound like you are supporting piracy and the way that they use to profit from piracy. Are you sure you want to be standing there?
Mike: "because we should place liability on parties actually responsible"
That sounds like he's against piracy and also against blaming the wrong people to me.
On the post: Darrell Issa Tells IP Czar That She's 'Not Trying' If She Can't Pin Liability For File Sharing On Third Parties
History.
I can't believe they wouldn't allow women to vote.
I can't believe they used to prosecute people for sharing.
On the post: Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA is lost
On the post: Senator Franken Defends Censoring The Internet Because He Doesn't Think Hollywood Should Have To Change Biz Models?
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, that's kinda what you said.
On the post: Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member
Re: USA is lost
Either way, you need to step back and assess who you are as a person, I think.
On the post: Righthaven Sues Radio Giant For Hosting Caption Contest On Denver Post Photo
Re: Re:
At least one of us is guilty of copyright infringement, I bet.
On the post: Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More
Re: Re: Dealing with piracy
Corollary: When your business is based entirely around an infinite good, it's tough, but not impossible, to trick people into giving you money for it.
Ignoring your business being eroded by illegal actions would be stupid. What should they spend their energies on, making even better movies for people to rip off faster?
Yes, spending it on lawyers will certainly make people want to give you money. Suing people won't make them go to the movie, or buy DVDs. Scaring people into giving you money is not a sound, legal business practice. (It seems to work okay for organized crime. Hmm...)
It can't be stopped.
True. So, what percent is acceptable? This is a real question.
It can be slowed, it can be tamped down.
Citation required.
It's a question of time, of government action, and of a moral shift in the population.
It's about stopping technological progress to keep a business model from becoming obsolete. This is the wrong answer.
Right now we have a generation of people who think taking things for free is okay, acceptable, and good.
No, we had a technological advance that resulted in an infrastructure that made it trivial to cheaply pass large amounts of digital information quickly around the globe. If we set up an infrastructure that allowed people to move cheaply and quickly around the globe, would you rally around the then-unnecessary automobile industry to attempt to stop and then reverse that progress? Would you demand that people keep buying cars even though they were unneeded? Advancements in technology have resulted in the death of many industries-- but also in the birth of new ones. It happens. Deal with it.
No long term view, they are just looking at what they can take, take, take without respect for others.
Sounds like certain big media businesses I know.
That lack of respect is a horrible sign, because in the end, much of a freedom loving people is the respect of others and their tolerance of things.
Yes, indeed! And to preserve that freedom, we should allow our ISPs to watch what we do online, right? That will certainly help! Doublespeak much?
The only reason you find it hard is because you want it some way it isn't currently being sold, and you want it NOW, no matter what.
The only reason *I* find it hard is that there is zero reason I can't have it the way I want it, except that the people peddling it are unwilling to give me what I want, hoping that they can trick me into buying the same thing multiple times. They had a good run, but that run is coming to an end. I have no doubts they will continue to make profits creating movies, but those profits may not be quite as impressive as they once were.
Whiny, childish ways of looking at things, and you think for some reason this justifies taking it without paying.
In a free market, the customer is always right because without the customer, you are nothing.
As an aside: Have you noticed that the only markets really complaining about piracy are the same markets that require you to pay for the product, without a chance of a refund, regardless on if you are satisfied with the product or not. For example: I buy a steak and don't like it. I can send it back for a refund even though the business loses money. If I buy a song and it turns out to be, say, edited for profanity, I have no way to return that song. Or if I buy an album from itunes and it turns out that 2/3 of the songs are crap (crazy, I know!) then I am stuck with those songs even though I don't want them. To make matters worse-- returning a digital good does not result in an unusable good-- the business has lost nothing. Does that seem right?
I wonder if there is any data on piracy rates of Android apps when the window to return apps was dropped from 24 hrs to 15 mins.
Food for thought.
On the post: Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Talk about hard to take seriously. I would discuss this with you, but phrases like "Once that is done, you can pirate all the "man hit in balls" videos off of youtube" make me 89% certain you're not actually here to discuss anything.
PS- Movies about getting hit in the balls are good money makers in this country. I sincerely hope you try it out. :)
On the post: Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Talk about hard to take seriously. I would discuss this with you, but phrases like "Once that is done, you can pirate all the "man hit in balls" videos off of youtube" make me 89% certain you're not actually here to discuss anything.
PS- Movies about getting hit in the balls are good money makers in this country. I sincerely hope you try it out. :)
On the post: HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries
Re:
On the post: Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More
Re:
On the post: Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More
Re: Re:
Maybe pirates like big Hollywood studios but hate monopolies?
On the post: Righthaven So Busy Filing Lawsuits It Forgot To Renew Its Business License?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you're still not getting it. Once the album is recorded, it takes no extra effort to allow people to pay what they want. The work has already been done. Since it takes no extra work, if they make just *one* sale from someone who thinks $9 is too high, but is willing to pay $1, that's $1 more than they would have made-- all for zero extra work. How is this not obvious? It's on torrent sites as we speak. I can get it for free if I so desire, or I can pay $9. There is no middle ground. With a pay-what-you-want scheme, there is flexibility for me, the consumer, to pay the price I see fit.
T rust me, they didn't sell those for $2.25.
Nor should they. The price of buying the disc, pressing it, packaging it and shipping it adds to the cost. Dare I mention how inefficient that process is when compared to the internet? I bet Gold-plated 8-tracks shipped by mules would cost quite a bit, too, and they're going to charge enough to make it profitable. Would you advise people to start selling Gold-plated 8-tracks shipped by mule? No, because it's an outdated technology with expensive materials and an inefficient distribution method.
They figured out that the freeloaders didn't do much for them, and this time they are selling the record directly.
It's obvious they over-value their music, if that is the case. If I ask you "How much will you give me for a cup of coffee?" and you say "$4" and I turn around and tell you it's $8 a cup, then I'm making a bad business decision.
Mike tends to shy away from these stories because he cannot find a positive spin on them.
This is a strange comment, when at least 5 times a day I read that all Mike does is spread FUD. Now, it's FUD with a positive spin on it?
The only way he could run it would be to call Radiohead fools, but considering how much shiny plastic disc business they did on the last record, he would be hard pressed to explain why Radiohead isn't repeating the free give away.
Yes, he'd be very hard pressed to explain that. Personally, I don't think he'd even try it. :P
That is actually proving my point.
Wait, what? Your point was that Mike didn't mention it, and when I pointed you, with link, that he did mention it, it proved *your* point? Wow.
Would you prefer that I call them "sad loners" instead? Or how about freeloaders?
You can call them potential customers, or underserved customers, or just call them "people". There have been studies that show that so-called freeloaders actually spend more on media than average. Guess freeloader is a bad term. As for "sad loner", my non-techie friends are starting to infringe on copyrights. Hell, my boss does it. These aren't computer geeks living in a basement with no friends, these are normal, everyday people who no longer see sharing culture as wrong. You make up names for these people as if they deserve your scorn, as if they are somehow different than other people. You're acting like a child, calling people names because you don't like something about them.
I don't know what your lot is in all of this, but I really think you need to stop and look around at the world. People are going to share their culture whether you like it or not. You simply cannot stop them. In a vain attempt to prevent this, companies are only succeeding in losing the goodwill of their potential customers, and driving away the customers they do have.
If you have a response, and I hope you do, be a pal and start a new thread at the bottom: This on will quickly become unreadable in threaded format. :)
On the post: 'Consumer' Group Wants Netflix To Tax Customers To Give To Telcos?
Re:
It's worth noting that one can use Netflix with the US Postal Serviceand a dvd player. Why did they get picked for the tax? (versus Hulu, or youtube?)
On the post: Sony's Neverending War Against The Freedom To Tinker And Innovate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
They are literally suing their customers. It's breathtaking, really.
Next >>