...it appears that lots of those who chose not to innovate are now trying to feed off of what's left of Limewire's carcass.
And here, Mike, you have provided a very accurate picture of what the MPAA truly is: a scavenger. A vulture, in other words. Such birds do not typically bring down their prey themselves but instead feed only on the wounded and the dead. Interestingly, one of the terms for a group of vultures is, in fact, committee. Like vultures, the MPAA and other gatekeepers do not do anything productive themselves, but merely subsist off of the efforts of others. Ironic given that that is the very accusation which they level at anyone who questions their behavior.
Another example of a work saved by unauthorized copying is the film Nosferatu. An entire post was done about it here at Techdirt some time ago, though I do not have the link to it at present. But this classic of horror cinema would not have survived had its creator and others not acted in defiance of copyright law in order to preserve it.
It is as I have always believed, political parties must be dissolved. They serve more harm than good, as George Washington correctly foresaw in his farewell address. He warned against having them, but his countrymen did not heed his counsel. And every generation since then has suffered for it.
Is it possible for the right of appeal to be denied? If it is, Universal should be barred from any further pursuit of this case. Ideally, they should also be forced to pay for the original Veoh's resurrection so that it might occur.
Thank you, Senator, for everything you have done in support of a free and open internet and for knowing whom you really serve. It is unfortunate that so few of your contemporaries do. Your post was logical and honest, and the very fact that you took the time to make it speaks more of you than those words ever could. Live long, Senator, and prosper.
Proof, AC 42 - non-entertainment industry-backed, empirical data. Or an admission that you are incorrect. Insults only harm what little credibility you may still possess.
Perhaps, AC 22, you could quote the relevant sections for us, that we might know that you know what they are. You also fail to provide any evidence for how Article 1, Section 8 Clause 8 matters have been shown false. Mike has never claimed to be a lawyer, yet you desire to imply that we think he is. We know he is not. But he consults with many legal experts quite often, as you should know if you have read this site before. So his statements about the legality of certain things are not without merit.
Your link merely goes to a site for the State Department, and no particular statute, and therefore proves nothing. Any kind of agreement that limits our fundamental rights, as ACTA does, must be opposed, and its constitutionality is indeed suspect. Otherwise, the President would not have attempted to circumvent Congress as he did. And by your opposition to us revealing the true nature of ACTA, you confirm your support of censorship and the suppression of human rights.
An argument without evidence, AC 71, and with irrational, biased assumptions that ignore the very real and valid concerns of those involved, which involve opposition to this latest form of government/corporate oppression of the larger populace. It is not logical. Rather, it merely illustrates that you provide less intelligent discourse than a tribble.
This does put Congress in a somewhat difficult position, so that can only be good for the populace. On one hand, if they do as they have been requested to, it brings them respect from the people and proves even more clearly the truth of Hollywood's corruption whilst angering Hollywood even further and possibly leading them into further irrational, desperate acts which could undermine their stability more than their current actions already have. If Congress ignores this request, it only proves the depth of their own corruption clearly enough that even the average citizen can see it and makes their ties to Hollywood transparent for all to see.
Understand, Micheal, that file sharing and replication is part of the very nature of what computers do. You cannot steal that which cannot be reduced. Sharing is addition, and it is multiplication. There is no subtraction. You cannot deprive someone of that which they are incapable of ever losing.
Empirical evidence, please, AC 146. Not backed by the entertainment industry or the government. Or an admission that you are incorrect. Not responding will be taken as such an admission.
Again, Memyself, you have not provided any evidence for your claims, nor have you described how SOPA/PIPA will not affect your business model, or even what that business model is. You have merely responded with additional unsubstantiated denials. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Lashing out merely diminishes your own credibility and accomplishes nothing aside from making you appear as though you are throwing a virtual temper tantrum. You also failed to reconcile the statement of yours which I highlighted with your claim that you understand digital distribution. If you did, you would have no problem with the free sharing of digital files, as you would understand that attempting to monetize them directly in most cases is neither feasible nor sustainable.
It is quite well-known, AC 134, that the overall quality of content from the major studios and labels has been less than stellar for many years now, and it is the independent creators more often than not whose content is of higher quality. You also fail to understand that when something is a creative passion to someone, they naturally seek to hone their skill whether formally or not as best they can, and to make their work of the best quality that they can because it is an expression of who they are.
As Stephen King once wrote, thinking of money "constipates the whole process." When financial return is not the primary motivator, quality is more likely to be better. And it is the very companies you admire who are responsible for the lack of quality in mainstream works due to their virtual monopoly and and their paranoia regarding anyone producing any content outside of their system.
None of the claims you have made, Memyself, have been substantiated by any empirical evidence whatsoever. You can research the very well-known history of artist abuse by major record labels very easily, if you care to do so, and it has been detailed here at Techdirt many times also. The vitriolic nature of your response indicates that a nerve has been touched, and that there is more truth in what I said than what you are willing to admit. Else why would you lack concern over SOPA/PIPA and their effects? Many of your other responses were simply denials but with no evidence to back them up, so they do not stand.
What you describe as "grand conversation" sounds like "people want stuff for free".
That statement is why I mentioned the distinction between price and value. If you truly understood that distinction, you would not have made that statement. Also, you say you were supporting free distribution before the internet existed, yet if that were true, you would not have made the statement that you did above. Rather, you would understand that the monetization of copies is no longer feasible in most cases and would agree with what Greevar is saying rather than oppose it.
Unfortunately, Memyself, the actual data does not correspond to your view of things. It has been proven, time and time again, that the major labels routinely take advantage of those who sign with them by any means possible, and the movie studios commit similar unethical acts through such things as Hollywood accounting. They attempt to purchase laws favorable to their industry, despite that being, by definition, bribery, as Chris Dodd's recent speech has demonstrated.
Your blindness appears to be so willfull that you cannot fathom any faults with the old system. Why do you fear change? Why do you fear the loss of control? Why do you fear the inevitable advance of technology which makes middlemen and labels obsolete? It is clear your livelihood is tied to the old ways, which is why you defend them so much. Technophobia is, I believe, not an unusual condition, but one which can be treated if you allow it.
And you continually ignore the reality that price is not equivalent to value. Again, price is not the same thing as value. How many times must it be repeated to you before you understand? What once could be monetized no longer can be, not as it once was. But there are other things that can be monetized, which often more than compensates for the absence of sales of copies, if done correctly.
Are you even aware, Memyself, that the very nature of a computer involves copying on every level? It is inescapable and thus, illogical to charge for digital copies which can be infinitely reproduced. You can never account for every copy because more can and are easily created all the time. The content creator never loses his or her copy of the work and can always continue to use it to bring revenue via related goods that are truly scarce.
You will never earn the goodwill of your customers by placing restrictions on them of any kind. People instinctively resent any attempts at control placed upon them by others. The entertainment industry will, in time, face that which it has sought to delay for so long—its own collapse—sooner than you may think. And it will have been entirely because of their own shortsightedness. As long as they are putting themselves first, before their customers, they will not endure.
His statement, perhaps, Reid, however that does not negate the illegality of the actions he has all but confessed to. For those, he can and should still be prosecuted.
For those advocating a boycott of major studio/label content, it is a viable strategy, yet I do not believe it can be effective unless it is both organized and extremely widespread, such that the participants number in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions.
I believe that an official boycott month should perhaps be declared and promoted all around the internet—Worldwide Media Boycott Month. It would be best for this organized boycott to take place during the summer, as it is during Hollywood's blockbuster season and it would hit them hardest at that point. Get major consumer rights organizations such as the EFF involved, as well as high-profile websites like reddit, Wikipedia, and Google, so that as many people as possible across the world can be made aware of the boycott and participate in it.
These sites and organizations could provide information about the reasons behind the boycott and links to alternative content, much as many did about SOPA/PIPA during the recent blackouts, as well as statements of intent in regards to beginning a widespread, full-scale investigation of Hollywood and the major labels' business and financial practices as well as those of the top level executives including Chris Dodd, with petitions and information for contacting congresspeople to promote and sustain such an investigation.
As for the matter of our voting the current officials out of office, it would be a sound strategy were it not for the fact that our votes have little direct effect on election results. The process has long been rigged against us, and I have come to wonder if it should not be done away with entirely, and political service reformed to be more akin to jury duty, where one is randomly chosen and serves for a period of one year, no more, with a modest stipend and no multiple terms.
One difference from jury duty would be that entry into the selection pool would be voluntary. A congress of teachers, office workers, waiters, artists, writers, actors, cab drivers, delivery people, doctors, and people of every other profession would, I think, have a far better sense of loyalty to the populace than the group of wealthy bureaucrats who currently infest our government.
The difficulty with organizing such a widespread boycott is that there would have to be a significant amount of the population involved in order for it to truly be effective. How will you get that many people educated and organized at at once? What methods will you use? How will you guarantee that such a widespread boycott will occur? I believe participation would have to be in the hundreds of millions before it could truly affect these companies. How do you plan to organize a boycott that large?
On the post: Movie Studios Jump In Late: Sue LimeWire And Demand Cash From Dead Site
And here, Mike, you have provided a very accurate picture of what the MPAA truly is: a scavenger. A vulture, in other words. Such birds do not typically bring down their prey themselves but instead feed only on the wounded and the dead. Interestingly, one of the terms for a group of vultures is, in fact, committee. Like vultures, the MPAA and other gatekeepers do not do anything productive themselves, but merely subsist off of the efforts of others. Ironic given that that is the very accusation which they level at anyone who questions their behavior.
On the post: Why Piracy Is Indispensable For The Survival Of Our Culture
On the post: Senator Wyden Attacked For Actually Trying To Get Stuff Done, Rather Than Playing Partisan Politics
On the post: Apparently Veoh Isn't Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks For Rehearing Of Its Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: Senator Ron Wyden's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
On the post: MPAA Exec Admits: 'We're Not Comfortable With The Internet'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion
Re: Re: Re:
Your link merely goes to a site for the State Department, and no particular statute, and therefore proves nothing. Any kind of agreement that limits our fundamental rights, as ACTA does, must be opposed, and its constitutionality is indeed suspect. Otherwise, the President would not have attempted to circumvent Congress as he did. And by your opposition to us revealing the true nature of ACTA, you confirm your support of censorship and the suppression of human rights.
On the post: People In Poland Come Out To Protest ACTA In Large Numbers; Polish Gov't Calls It 'Blackmail'
Re:
On the post: Elected Officials Asked To Return Hollywood Money Following Dodd's Threats
On the post: Wil Wheaton Says Chris Dodd Is Lying About Lost Jobs; Says MPAA Accounting Creates More Losses Than Piracy
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
Re:
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
Re: Re:
On the post: Chinese Lessons For SOPA/PIPA: The Great Firewall Of China Was Once A Way To Stop Infringement Too
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
Re: Re: Next Steps
As Stephen King once wrote, thinking of money "constipates the whole process." When financial return is not the primary motivator, quality is more likely to be better. And it is the very companies you admire who are responsible for the lack of quality in mainstream works due to their virtual monopoly and and their paranoia regarding anyone producing any content outside of their system.
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
What you describe as "grand conversation" sounds like "people want stuff for free".
That statement is why I mentioned the distinction between price and value. If you truly understood that distinction, you would not have made that statement. Also, you say you were supporting free distribution before the internet existed, yet if that were true, you would not have made the statement that you did above. Rather, you would understand that the monetization of copies is no longer feasible in most cases and would agree with what Greevar is saying rather than oppose it.
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your blindness appears to be so willfull that you cannot fathom any faults with the old system. Why do you fear change? Why do you fear the loss of control? Why do you fear the inevitable advance of technology which makes middlemen and labels obsolete? It is clear your livelihood is tied to the old ways, which is why you defend them so much. Technophobia is, I believe, not an unusual condition, but one which can be treated if you allow it.
And you continually ignore the reality that price is not equivalent to value. Again, price is not the same thing as value. How many times must it be repeated to you before you understand? What once could be monetized no longer can be, not as it once was. But there are other things that can be monetized, which often more than compensates for the absence of sales of copies, if done correctly.
Are you even aware, Memyself, that the very nature of a computer involves copying on every level? It is inescapable and thus, illogical to charge for digital copies which can be infinitely reproduced. You can never account for every copy because more can and are easily created all the time. The content creator never loses his or her copy of the work and can always continue to use it to bring revenue via related goods that are truly scarce.
You will never earn the goodwill of your customers by placing restrictions on them of any kind. People instinctively resent any attempts at control placed upon them by others. The entertainment industry will, in time, face that which it has sought to delay for so long—its own collapse—sooner than you may think. And it will have been entirely because of their own shortsightedness. As long as they are putting themselves first, before their customers, they will not endure.
On the post: MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought
Re: Re: Disgusting
For those advocating a boycott of major studio/label content, it is a viable strategy, yet I do not believe it can be effective unless it is both organized and extremely widespread, such that the participants number in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions.
I believe that an official boycott month should perhaps be declared and promoted all around the internet—Worldwide Media Boycott Month. It would be best for this organized boycott to take place during the summer, as it is during Hollywood's blockbuster season and it would hit them hardest at that point. Get major consumer rights organizations such as the EFF involved, as well as high-profile websites like reddit, Wikipedia, and Google, so that as many people as possible across the world can be made aware of the boycott and participate in it.
These sites and organizations could provide information about the reasons behind the boycott and links to alternative content, much as many did about SOPA/PIPA during the recent blackouts, as well as statements of intent in regards to beginning a widespread, full-scale investigation of Hollywood and the major labels' business and financial practices as well as those of the top level executives including Chris Dodd, with petitions and information for contacting congresspeople to promote and sustain such an investigation.
As for the matter of our voting the current officials out of office, it would be a sound strategy were it not for the fact that our votes have little direct effect on election results. The process has long been rigged against us, and I have come to wonder if it should not be done away with entirely, and political service reformed to be more akin to jury duty, where one is randomly chosen and serves for a period of one year, no more, with a modest stipend and no multiple terms.
One difference from jury duty would be that entry into the selection pool would be voluntary. A congress of teachers, office workers, waiters, artists, writers, actors, cab drivers, delivery people, doctors, and people of every other profession would, I think, have a far better sense of loyalty to the populace than the group of wealthy bureaucrats who currently infest our government.
On the post: Did DOJ Provoke Anonymous On Purpose?
Next >>