What is it with people like you who assume these things are mutually exclusive?
As a publisher, it used to make sense to have a hand in the creation of content because publishing was expensive, and you as a venture wanting to make a profit want to maximise your chances of that happening, so you select which content you'd prefer to distribute (or actively bid for certain content that you thing will do well). Nowadays, Youtube and its ilk shows how those 2 aspects have now completely separated - there is little need to be selective about what you'll publish or directly influence it for the best chances of commercial success as the likes of WB, Paramount & co do.
Die Hard has been out for years. The content hasn't changed significantly, so why would I not be happy with a VHS version? Because the container changed and improved. Selling me convenience and quality is just as much of part of their business as content is, if not more so (considering most publishing businesses are typically pitched to by others who have already made the show/film/music/etc).
I'm sure the rest of the normal world, those that simply like their service, has nothing to do with it.
And these people are mutually exclusive of being pirates because...?
P.S. Before you make snide "reality called" remarks, you should look up, y'know, the real world where evidence exists. It's called Media Piracy in Emerging Economies.
In contrast, distributors of Bollywood films have sharply reduced prices of their products over the years. New players like Moser Baer have negotiated rights to popular Indian films on terms that permit much lower pricing—as low as Rs.40 ($0.85 cents) for VCDs and Rs.99 ($2.12) for DVDs. Some blockbuster films have been kept out of the price war, such as Ghajini, which costs Rs.199 ($4.24) on VCD and Rs.399 ($8.50) on DVD. But most traditional home- video distribution companies, such as Shemaroo and Eagle, have been forced to reduce their prices to stay competitive. In 2008, T-Series dropped the average price of its VCD releases of new films to Rs.38 in a bid to compete.
As a result, the difference in cost between a pirated and an original copy of a Bollywood film is far less than for a Hollywood title—often a factor of two rather than ten or more. This difference has proved small enough to produce dramatic increases in legal DVD sales. Sales of over a million discs for major releases have become relatively common. The Moser Baer DVD of the hit Jab We Met sold over six million discs when it was released on home video, five weeks after it hit theatres in 2008.
“The officers told me even they thought this was a waste of time, and that they could use their day better than driving around the whole day to pick up 50 movies and a computer,” Halfdan told us.
“I’m very surprised that the police went in on the case at all, but it does say quite a bit that they waited 3 months [after the initial complaint] to move, and that it’ll take at least 6 months before they start investigating my computer. This has a very, very low priority for them.”
You tried hard, but failed. That only happens when you use the word censorship. So sorry, you fail.
And if it wasn't obvious already, we now know for sure that you're an outright liar. It happens when you get the government involved, it happens when you use the word censorship, and it happens when you tell them there's a chance of legitimate content being blocked. That you deliberately ignore and even outright lie about this clear finding, quoted already about 3 times, is quite funny.
Censorship was not part of the question bringing up that possibility. You even referenced the chart that clearly shows this - censorship was it's own question, separate from bringing up government involvement and separate from mentioning that legal content may be blocked.
In fact, here's the full image taken from the PDF - they even highlight the questions that imply blocking is easy and the ones that imply blocking is messy, the entire reason for colouring the graph green and blue:
The question you point to invokes "the government", which immediately tilts the answers.
And? This is news because? Nice work by the way, defying your own assertions that this has no relevance to SOPA. Like you said, people don't want the government involved in blocking or filtering content.
Clearly, a majority support blocking.
Ignoring of course that they don't when there's a chance of legitimate content being blocked.
So basically, unless you use the word censor, or reference "government", the public is generally supportive of blocking pirate sites.
Evidently not:
Results are much more volatile for commercial intermediaries such as ISPs, social media sites, and search engines. A majority of American Internet users supports requirements that ISPs and search engines “block” infringing material (58% for ISPs; 53% for search engines). This support runs as high as 61% for a soft requirement that user-content-driven sites like Facebook “try to screen all material and reject pirated copies of music and videos.” But that majority disappears when blocking by ISPs is characterized as censorship (46% support) and falls further when associated with the blocking of legal content or
activity (36% support).
The favorable (61%) response to whether social media and cloud storage sites should “try to screen” and remove infringing content is counterbalanced by the 69% opposed to monitoring for the purpose of preventing copyright infringement. Since screening requires monitoring in such contexts, these responses can be read as reflecting a low information / high information divide.
tl;dr - People only support blocking if they're kept ignorant of what blocking involves.
So nice work there. You undermined your own argument by saying people don't want the government blocking or filtering content, showed how you rely on ignorance to convince people things like SOPA are a good idea and generally misrepresented data as saying what it doesn't.
Also, I should add the 30-49 group you love so much emphatically do not want their internet activity monitored. As noted, you can't reconcile that with active searching and blocking of material. One entails the other.
Umm, I read it. As soon as they use the loaded word "censor", the answers shift (which is why Mike and his friends use this term over and over again). But when asked straight up if the "user submitted content" sites should block out piracy, 60% are for it. Hmm! Basically, if you misrepresent things, you can get more people on your side.
Except the part I posted had nothing to do with their use of the word censor. So once again you failed at basic reading skills.
But as soon as you drop the censorship word and ask them direct questions, they support ISPs, "service providers" and such being held to block piracy.
They evidently don't when there's a chance of false positives, regardless of whether you use the word censor:
Solid majorities of American Internet users oppose copyright enforcement when it is perceived to intrude on personal rights and freedoms. 69% oppose monitoring of their Internet activity for the purposes of enforcement. 57% oppose blocking or filtering if those measures also block some legal content or activity.
Comparable majorities (56%) oppose government involvement in “blocking” access to infringing material. This number increases to 64% when the term “censor” is used. Government intervention in this area is unpopular.
What if efforts to block infringing files and links to infringing content also result in the blocking of some legal content (as has been the case with all large-scale efforts to blacklist sites or filter content to date)? In this case, support for blocking infringing materials drops sharply. Overall, 57% oppose blocking in this case; 36% support it.
Says someone who spends his time insulting people on the internet over a bunch of hippies who want things for free.
Of course, we should always trust studies from content companies explicitly asking for these laws, the same ones who are unable to identify infringing content from legitimate.
I wouldn't be surprised with the way that Warner Bros abused the tools Rapidshare gave them, filing notices for content they don't have the copyright to, and including content that clearly was not infringing.
1) You're original comment became unavailable and/or
2) Existing laws like libel and defamation can be shown to not be adequate compared to an ND clause
I don't see what problem using an ND clause solves. You can still quote him out of context, make factually incorrect claims about what he's said, etc. without having to edit the actual work in a way that would qualify to be a derivative work. Not to mention the fact that CC licenses already contain a clause that specifically states you shall not claim the author endorses your use (whether fair use or a derivative work) of the work and you don't misrepresent the origin of the work. If someone is going to disregard that, then an ND clause isn't going to solve anything.
If you want to write an opinion about some one's work, include a verbatim quote to provide a context for the reader. There is no need to modify the original work.
Who has ever presented such an argument in favour of removing the ND clause? What does an ND clause forbid that couldn't be covered by libel and defamation or similar laws?
I have to ask, what precisely are the uses that an ND clause could prohibit that would include misrepresentation unique to derivative works? I would think fair use would surely already allow someone to quote and misrepresent the writings of someone in various ways should it be held that the such a thing wasn't deliberate like outright libel and defamation, and what would the ND clause solve that those laws wouldn't?
The misrepresentation argument seems like a bit of a red herring. That certainly doesn't seem to gel with any reasonable idea I can think of for an ND clause. It's using a screwdriver to hammer a nail.
So now, claiming that Nosferatu is somehow responsible for the Vampire thing and Dracula is not is misleading, because there was no independent invention here. Nosferatu is at best a branch of Dracula, and one that grew pretty darn close to the trunk.
Who claimed otherwise? Where did anyone say Nosferatu was entirely original? What the Hell are you on about?
Why do you keep assuming pirate sites are making huge sums of money?
If you're gonna argue that free distribution of films means no one can make a profit, you're going to have to follow that logic through and realise that your own argument means there's no money in piracy anyway.
In other words, you're boasting about a bill that will do bugger all even by your own argument. Not that trolls like you are fond of logical consistency but if that's what cures your boredom keep going.
On the post: Morality, Non-Zero Sum Games, Externalities & Why Someone Profiting Off Of Your Work Isn't A Bad Thing
Re: Re:
As a publisher, it used to make sense to have a hand in the creation of content because publishing was expensive, and you as a venture wanting to make a profit want to maximise your chances of that happening, so you select which content you'd prefer to distribute (or actively bid for certain content that you thing will do well). Nowadays, Youtube and its ilk shows how those 2 aspects have now completely separated - there is little need to be selective about what you'll publish or directly influence it for the best chances of commercial success as the likes of WB, Paramount & co do.
Die Hard has been out for years. The content hasn't changed significantly, so why would I not be happy with a VHS version? Because the container changed and improved. Selling me convenience and quality is just as much of part of their business as content is, if not more so (considering most publishing businesses are typically pitched to by others who have already made the show/film/music/etc).
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111122/04254316872/definitive-post-why-sopa-protect-ip- are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml#c1371
You guys really try hard to ignore evidence that directly contradicts what you say don't you?
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And these people are mutually exclusive of being pirates because...?
P.S. Before you make snide "reality called" remarks, you should look up, y'know, the real world where evidence exists. It's called Media Piracy in Emerging Economies.
http://piracy.ssrc.org/
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re: Re: Re: Why it's right!
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-blogger-law-student-raided-by-police-for-file-sharing-articl es-111121/
Either way, your post makes no sense.
On the post: New Study Shows Majority Of Americans Against SOPA; Believe Extreme Copyright Enforcement Is Unreasonable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if it wasn't obvious already, we now know for sure that you're an outright liar. It happens when you get the government involved, it happens when you use the word censorship, and it happens when you tell them there's a chance of legitimate content being blocked. That you deliberately ignore and even outright lie about this clear finding, quoted already about 3 times, is quite funny.
Censorship was not part of the question bringing up that possibility. You even referenced the chart that clearly shows this - censorship was it's own question, separate from bringing up government involvement and separate from mentioning that legal content may be blocked.
In fact, here's the full image taken from the PDF - they even highlight the questions that imply blocking is easy and the ones that imply blocking is messy, the entire reason for colouring the graph green and blue:
http://i.imgur.com/b6J0Q.png
Which evidently no one did outside of that one question.
Fifth time?
On the post: New Study Shows Majority Of Americans Against SOPA; Believe Extreme Copyright Enforcement Is Unreasonable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And? This is news because? Nice work by the way, defying your own assertions that this has no relevance to SOPA. Like you said, people don't want the government involved in blocking or filtering content.
Ignoring of course that they don't when there's a chance of legitimate content being blocked.
Evidently not:
tl;dr - People only support blocking if they're kept ignorant of what blocking involves.
So nice work there. You undermined your own argument by saying people don't want the government blocking or filtering content, showed how you rely on ignorance to convince people things like SOPA are a good idea and generally misrepresented data as saying what it doesn't.
Also, I should add the 30-49 group you love so much emphatically do not want their internet activity monitored. As noted, you can't reconcile that with active searching and blocking of material. One entails the other.
Fourth time's the charm?
On the post: New Study Shows Majority Of Americans Against SOPA; Believe Extreme Copyright Enforcement Is Unreasonable
Re: Re: Re:
Except the part I posted had nothing to do with their use of the word censor. So once again you failed at basic reading skills.
They evidently don't when there's a chance of false positives, regardless of whether you use the word censor:
Care to try again?
On the post: New Study Shows Majority Of Americans Against SOPA; Believe Extreme Copyright Enforcement Is Unreasonable
Re:
C ongrats on finding out you can't read. Now you can go back to school and (eventually) get a job so we don't have to deal with you all day.
On the post: New Study Shows Majority Of Americans Against SOPA; Believe Extreme Copyright Enforcement Is Unreasonable
Re: Actually...
They're kind of like sand people then?
On the post: Author Puts Article Online, Insists That Due To Copyright, You Cannot Link To It
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL/LGPL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works
ht tp://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/Law/derivative.html
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/189014 8/when-is-your-code-a-derivative-work
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says someone who spends his time insulting people on the internet over a bunch of hippies who want things for free.
Of course, we should always trust studies from content companies explicitly asking for these laws, the same ones who are unable to identify infringing content from legitimate.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/warner-admits-it-issues-takedowns-for -files-it-hasnt-looked-at.ars
https://twitter.com/#!/ericgoldman/statuses/10648206062
http://w ww.mediapost.com/publications/article/119827/
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/warner-admits-it-issues-takedowns-for -files-it-hasnt-looked-at.ars
Though I'm not taking your word for anything, considering how little fact is contained in everything else you say.
On the post: Free As In Freedom: But Whose Freedom?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) You're original comment became unavailable and/or
2) Existing laws like libel and defamation can be shown to not be adequate compared to an ND clause
I don't see what problem using an ND clause solves. You can still quote him out of context, make factually incorrect claims about what he's said, etc. without having to edit the actual work in a way that would qualify to be a derivative work. Not to mention the fact that CC licenses already contain a clause that specifically states you shall not claim the author endorses your use (whether fair use or a derivative work) of the work and you don't misrepresent the origin of the work. If someone is going to disregard that, then an ND clause isn't going to solve anything.
On the post: Free As In Freedom: But Whose Freedom?
Re: Re: Re:
Sue me.
On the post: Free As In Freedom: But Whose Freedom?
Re: Re: Reasoning
Who has ever presented such an argument in favour of removing the ND clause? What does an ND clause forbid that couldn't be covered by libel and defamation or similar laws?
On the post: Free As In Freedom: But Whose Freedom?
The misrepresentation argument seems like a bit of a red herring. That certainly doesn't seem to gel with any reasonable idea I can think of for an ND clause. It's using a screwdriver to hammer a nail.
On the post: Viacom, 'Decimated By Piracy,' But Its CEO Got The Biggest Raise Of Any Exec Anywhere
Re: Re: Re: OWS
And what will we do with all those surplus lobsters?
On the post: How Copyright Infringement Turned Vampires Into Big Business
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who claimed otherwise? Where did anyone say Nosferatu was entirely original? What the Hell are you on about?
On the post: E-PARASITE Bill: 'The End Of The Internet As We Know It'
Re: Re: Irony
If you're gonna argue that free distribution of films means no one can make a profit, you're going to have to follow that logic through and realise that your own argument means there's no money in piracy anyway.
In other words, you're boasting about a bill that will do bugger all even by your own argument. Not that trolls like you are fond of logical consistency but if that's what cures your boredom keep going.
Next >>