This is not about whether the stations paid for the music or not, just that they don't have a license to broadcast. But that doesn't fit your narrative, and you'll just resort to name calling as any other 5 year old.
I think they are using that sentence to be able to fine retroactively. That when they find the 'pirate station' still transmitting, even after sending a letter, that they can fine it for the time since they sent the letter.
And, unless they used recorded delivery, there is no 100% guarantee that the letter arrived the next day, so that sentence already looks pretty weird.
Well being heard outside NL isn't hard, if you set up shop around the border.
NL isn't so small that you can cover it with just one antenna. You need several to cover the entire country (thank god too, otherwise we'd have had no radio signal a few weeks ago, when the biggest antenna collapsed due to a fire in the tower)
So, if I'm reading all of this correctly -- and I pretty sure that I am -- according to the MPAA, the MPAA is being intellectually dishonest in suggesting that "it's fine -- or really, that it's inevitable -- to steal as a way of saving." Got it.
Music and movies, etc? Loss of demand of physical media, changing times.
The only person being mocked and *sniggered* at is you, anonymous coward.
You can stick your head in the sand, but that won't change the fact that the world has changed.
Labels aren't guaranteed the gazillion dollar profits that they were used to.
Their practices of not paying artists is also well known now. So people see even less of a reason to actually pay for the stuff.
That's not to say that it's illegal by law. But morally viewpoints of the masses can change. And the actions of the RIAA and the MPAA caused a lot of that moral change. It started by suing Napster. That action alone soured a lot of people, and created one hell of a game of whack-a-mole.
The horse drawn carriage sales have been slashed to extremely low values by the advent of the car, must have been illegal too.
The recording industry destroyed the pianola. Cause? Piracy. Duh!
The computer completely destroyed complete and entire other industries.
Robots killed human jobs in the auto-manufacturing.
It's called PROGRESS!
But by your logic:
- The video recorder must have killed the movie industry, like the Boston strangler killed women. Right?
- The audio recording destroyed live performances.
- Radio killed the music star.
- TV killed the movie star.
- People whistling their favorite music are dirty pirates, and should pay an extortion fee every time they even think about music.
Wake up, kid. it's not the 70s, 80s and 90s anymore.
Let's be honest, the time of the middle man in the music world is over. They've had their time, but now it's up to the artist to sell themselves, they don't need the labels for that, they have the vast Internet to help them.
What is equally sad is the people who can't understand that getting something for nothing without permission just isn't right.
That's why we always say that copyright infringement is indeed illegal!!!!!!!
But it's not the same as theft.
It has never been the same as theft, never will be.
And most people feel disenfranchised by the MPAA and the RIAA. It also doesn't help that those two organisations have tried their damned best to criminalize their audience, not learning from past mistakes. They also don't offer what the market wants, and that's the death knell in this case. The MPAA and RIAA failed to respond correctly when 'piracy' started to be more prevalent (it'd be a lie to say that there never was any piracy, nor that it has a 100% detrimental effect on the content providers), they still (10 years after Napster) don't offer something similar, instead hedging their bets on DRM and restrictions and lawsuits. Meanwhile destroying any goodwill they might still have. More and more people know about the MPAA and the RIAA, and more and more people hate their guts and see no problems in screwing them by downloading movies and music.
Sure, it isn't right, legally. But morally, perhaps not so much. The public is fed up being fucked by the RIAA and the MPAA, and decided to fuck them back.
If the punishment doesn't fit the crime, someone SHOULD stand up and shout it out.
When downloading songs is punished worse than real horrific crimes, then something is horribly wrong with the justice system. Especially when the content industry is using the threat of lawsuits as an extortion racket: "Pay up now, or we'll sue you, and you don't want us suing you!"
And while the content industry is criminalizing their audience, that same industry isn't offering the public anything in return. Nor are the artists or any of the other people working behind the scenes getting paid more.
But I guess you aren't interested in those facts, but rather would love to continue with your constant ad hom attacks on Mike Masnick, without further regard to reality that the world has changed.
sure, I pick up the stubs, and if I have collected enough, I make my own cigarette, without paying the tobacco industry. I'm sure they'll think I'm stealing from them.
Mike, I fear two errors/typos in your article have made it a bit incoherent.
"Pretending that a bad economy combined with dumb moves by movie studios might drive more people to unauthorized file sharing would be intellectually dishonest."
And "But it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that many, many people do find it socially acceptable."
Both those statements portray the exact opposite the rest of the article wants to show.
In the first sentence, I think you meant "less" instead of "more", and in the second "don't" instead of "do".
On the post: Dutch Communications Agency Cracks Down On Pirate Stations; Can Go From 'Warning' To 'Fine' In 30 Minutes
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Communications Agency Cracks Down On Pirate Stations; Can Go From 'Warning' To 'Fine' In 30 Minutes
Re:
a person (this article) was strangled (deliberately misread by a stupid troll).
On the post: Dutch Communications Agency Cracks Down On Pirate Stations; Can Go From 'Warning' To 'Fine' In 30 Minutes
Re: Re: Re: Registered Mail?
On the post: Dutch Communications Agency Cracks Down On Pirate Stations; Can Go From 'Warning' To 'Fine' In 30 Minutes
retroactive fining?
And, unless they used recorded delivery, there is no 100% guarantee that the letter arrived the next day, so that sentence already looks pretty weird.
On the post: Dutch Communications Agency Cracks Down On Pirate Stations; Can Go From 'Warning' To 'Fine' In 30 Minutes
Re:
NL isn't so small that you can cover it with just one antenna. You need several to cover the entire country (thank god too, otherwise we'd have had no radio signal a few weeks ago, when the biggest antenna collapsed due to a fire in the tower)
On the post: Samsung Cites 2001: A Space Odyssey As Prior Art For Tablet Design
On the post: Does The FBI Really Use Surveillance Vans With WiFi SSIDs Saying 'FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VAN'?
Re:
On the post: Does The FBI Really Use Surveillance Vans With WiFi SSIDs Saying 'FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VAN'?
Re: Re: my favorite tongue in cheek ssid...
On the post: MPAA Calls MPAA Intellectually Dishonest For Claiming That Infringement Is Inevitable
That I have to point this out to you, Mike
It's not stealing. It's infringing.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ad Hominem
The only person being mocked and *sniggered* at is you, anonymous coward.
You can stick your head in the sand, but that won't change the fact that the world has changed.
Labels aren't guaranteed the gazillion dollar profits that they were used to.
Their practices of not paying artists is also well known now. So people see even less of a reason to actually pay for the stuff.
That's not to say that it's illegal by law. But morally viewpoints of the masses can change. And the actions of the RIAA and the MPAA caused a lot of that moral change. It started by suing Napster. That action alone soured a lot of people, and created one hell of a game of whack-a-mole.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you fucking joking?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/11503015533/restaurant-owner-ordered-to-pay-bmi -30450-illegally-playing-four-unlicensed-songs.shtml
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: No pity
btw, newsgroups >> bittorrent, especially in speed.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: I am tired of paying for dates, so now I woman-share (gang rape)
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Ad Hominem
The recording industry destroyed the pianola. Cause? Piracy. Duh!
The computer completely destroyed complete and entire other industries.
Robots killed human jobs in the auto-manufacturing.
It's called PROGRESS!
But by your logic:
- The video recorder must have killed the movie industry, like the Boston strangler killed women. Right?
- The audio recording destroyed live performances.
- Radio killed the music star.
- TV killed the movie star.
- People whistling their favorite music are dirty pirates, and should pay an extortion fee every time they even think about music.
Wake up, kid. it's not the 70s, 80s and 90s anymore.
Let's be honest, the time of the middle man in the music world is over. They've had their time, but now it's up to the artist to sell themselves, they don't need the labels for that, they have the vast Internet to help them.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re:
That's why we always say that copyright infringement is indeed illegal!!!!!!!
But it's not the same as theft.
It has never been the same as theft, never will be.
And most people feel disenfranchised by the MPAA and the RIAA. It also doesn't help that those two organisations have tried their damned best to criminalize their audience, not learning from past mistakes. They also don't offer what the market wants, and that's the death knell in this case. The MPAA and RIAA failed to respond correctly when 'piracy' started to be more prevalent (it'd be a lie to say that there never was any piracy, nor that it has a 100% detrimental effect on the content providers), they still (10 years after Napster) don't offer something similar, instead hedging their bets on DRM and restrictions and lawsuits. Meanwhile destroying any goodwill they might still have. More and more people know about the MPAA and the RIAA, and more and more people hate their guts and see no problems in screwing them by downloading movies and music.
Sure, it isn't right, legally. But morally, perhaps not so much. The public is fed up being fucked by the RIAA and the MPAA, and decided to fuck them back.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When downloading songs is punished worse than real horrific crimes, then something is horribly wrong with the justice system. Especially when the content industry is using the threat of lawsuits as an extortion racket: "Pay up now, or we'll sue you, and you don't want us suing you!"
And while the content industry is criminalizing their audience, that same industry isn't offering the public anything in return. Nor are the artists or any of the other people working behind the scenes getting paid more.
But I guess you aren't interested in those facts, but rather would love to continue with your constant ad hom attacks on Mike Masnick, without further regard to reality that the world has changed.
On the post: Notch Comes Up With New Plan To Settle Trademark Dispute: Quake 3 Battle
yes, I went there.
YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Re: Re:
On the post: New Research: Internet Censorship To Stop Protests... Actually Increases Protests
well duh!
In order news, the sun is scorching hot.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
"Pretending that a bad economy combined with dumb moves by movie studios might drive more people to unauthorized file sharing would be intellectually dishonest."
And "But it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that many, many people do find it socially acceptable."
Both those statements portray the exact opposite the rest of the article wants to show.
In the first sentence, I think you meant "less" instead of "more", and in the second "don't" instead of "do".
Next >>