Who cares WHY you call the woman names, or why you troll on TechDirt and stalk Mike, or why you make it your business to piss people off in the comments?
The fact remains that you are an annoying prick, and I'd be very happy if there was a way for me not to have to read your comments every day.
Yes, except a musical is not exactly theatre, and she's a musician. I think you're just clutching at straws as usual to disagree with Mike. Or, do you expect all "real artists" to sit back and enjoy royalties forever without contributing anything?
And I'd downvote your comment because you are a prick, TAM. Facepalm? Seriously? *facepalm*
I don't mind them sharing their opinions. I just get annoyed when they start name-calling people, like TAM is now doing to Amanda Palmer, all the while abusing the Anonymous feature.
Mike, you REALLY need to implement a voting feature on the comments, like on YouTube! If a comment gathers enough negative votes, it gets hidden -- that way we can ignore the trolls without having to respond to them (and feed them).
If it were possible to take the average movement of the hands of 1000 people with minimal training in brain surgery cutting into someone's brain and compare it to the movement of the hands of a trained brain surgeon, you'll probably find the former is more accurate and less prone to error than the latter.
Your original post made no sense -- as in, it was very badly expressed. But it was just a strawman on fire, was it not?
What stood out is you saying that this guy was and wasn't not was victimised maybe not yes.
Well, understand this: there is no evidence to suggest that this guy lost money from piracy, but there's plenty of evidence that he made millions and won an oscar. Proven success trumps imaginary victimisation.
"The money is lost sales. Greater than zero, less than the equivalent of the total number of illegal copies. I think we've all agreed on that principle before. In this case, because the illegal copies became available 5 months before the movie's public release, it's likely that the lost sales are greater than the normal case."
Do you have any reason to believe that the illegal downloads didn't actually lead to MORE sales instead of less? Any proof either way?
"If people disagree with the guys business model, they have the right to not buy his product. They do not have the right to arbitrarily break the law, no matter what they might think of that law."
This civil disobedience can lead to the laws being changed, which is the lesson to take home. For instance, if women hadn't taken to the streets and demanded their rights, they'd still be subjugated by men.
"I'm betting that people who break the law by taking stuff without paying for it aren't big contributors to anything other than their own well-being. Robin Hood was just a story, Mike. Your disagreement with my perspective makes me a moron now? Nice."
And a draconian copyrights system is supposed to exist for the common good? Mass litigation is a selfless act?
"I'm saying that the amount of loss is somewhere between zero and the total amount of illegal copies, closer towards the zero end of the scale than the total end of the scale. In this particular case, as with the Wolverine case, I believe the loss is greater than the norm because the illegal copies became available well before the release of the movie. Based on the scale of the revenue, even a few percentage points equates to millions of dollars. I think my assumption is more reasonable than the idea that the impact is questionable because people were simply 'testing' the movie, but then again I'M the moron, right?"
Or perhaps both movies sucked and that's why they made no money? Yes, despite all the hype, they did suck quite badly. And again, you make the same assertions but show no proof that piracy led to more or less revenue.
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: addendum
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused Between A Huge Luxury Retailer And A Small Roadside Cafe?
Re: Survey Says
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused Between A Huge Luxury Retailer And A Small Roadside Cafe?
What's copyrighted? The font?
On the post: Times Online Says Competitors Will Go Out Of Business Without A Paywall
On the post: Patents Now Getting In The Way Of Important Brain Research
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Debate... (part 2)
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re:
Really, are these the "useful opinions" you feel will be ignored if a comment rating system is implemented?
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Record Labels, Art, Commerce & Retiring To Open A Juice Bar
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact remains that you are an annoying prick, and I'd be very happy if there was a way for me not to have to read your comments every day.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Record Labels, Art, Commerce & Retiring To Open A Juice Bar
Re: Re: Re:
And I'd downvote your comment because you are a prick, TAM. Facepalm? Seriously? *facepalm*
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Record Labels, Art, Commerce & Retiring To Open A Juice Bar
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Progress And Innovation Cannot Be Stopped -- Merely Hindered
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anarchy is a political term.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Record Labels, Art, Commerce & Retiring To Open A Juice Bar
Re:
Mike, you REALLY need to implement a voting feature on the comments, like on YouTube! If a comment gathers enough negative votes, it gets hidden -- that way we can ignore the trolls without having to respond to them (and feed them).
On the post: Can We Please Put The 'Amateur Brain Surgeon' Strawman To Rest?
Re: Re:
On the post: Can We Please Put The 'Amateur Brain Surgeon' Strawman To Rest?
On the post: Yet Another Person Sues, Claiming James Cameron Copied The Idea For Avatar
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
If the racketeers decide to sue, they should ally together and fight back -- right is obviously on their side.
If the racketeers decide to break their knee-caps with a baseball bat... hmm...
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're Missing a Point...
What stood out is you saying that this guy was and wasn't not was victimised maybe not yes.
Well, understand this: there is no evidence to suggest that this guy lost money from piracy, but there's plenty of evidence that he made millions and won an oscar. Proven success trumps imaginary victimisation.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: You're Missing a Point...
Do you have any reason to believe that the illegal downloads didn't actually lead to MORE sales instead of less? Any proof either way?
"If people disagree with the guys business model, they have the right to not buy his product. They do not have the right to arbitrarily break the law, no matter what they might think of that law."
This civil disobedience can lead to the laws being changed, which is the lesson to take home. For instance, if women hadn't taken to the streets and demanded their rights, they'd still be subjugated by men.
"I'm betting that people who break the law by taking stuff without paying for it aren't big contributors to anything other than their own well-being. Robin Hood was just a story, Mike. Your disagreement with my perspective makes me a moron now? Nice."
And a draconian copyrights system is supposed to exist for the common good? Mass litigation is a selfless act?
"I'm saying that the amount of loss is somewhere between zero and the total amount of illegal copies, closer towards the zero end of the scale than the total end of the scale. In this particular case, as with the Wolverine case, I believe the loss is greater than the norm because the illegal copies became available well before the release of the movie. Based on the scale of the revenue, even a few percentage points equates to millions of dollars. I think my assumption is more reasonable than the idea that the impact is questionable because people were simply 'testing' the movie, but then again I'M the moron, right?"
Or perhaps both movies sucked and that's why they made no money? Yes, despite all the hype, they did suck quite badly. And again, you make the same assertions but show no proof that piracy led to more or less revenue.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re:
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Next >>