Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:11am
Re:
You forget, she probably doesn't really own her albums. She (It?) seems to know that digital albums are priced too high from her comments. But you can blame that on her label.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:50pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no economic benefit in the U.S., as a nation, to fight piracy either. It is a battle that can't be won. A lot more money has been put into stopping piracy than the rewards reaped for the overall U.S. economy. Plus, we are losing our freedoms and privacy for an irrelevant, legacy business to make comparably measly amounts of money.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:47pm
Re: Re: Re:
But industry wants "the internet" to come up with solutions to policing content. Since current law doesn't make Google or whoever liable, industry is trying to lobby government to make Google liable or to run enforcement raids for them. My point was that the money used for Google to create a magic infringing content wand or for local, state, and federal enforcement agencies to arrest all the pirates for, arguably, a recuperation of 'lost' sales would be better spent stopping, you know, murderers, rapists, and such. The damage to society and the economy from 'piracy' is miniscule compared to the damage industry is causing with the terrible laws they are trying to get pushed through the government and the cost to everyone else to keep them relevant.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:20pm
Re:
I know many of us that frequent this blog think we know quite a bit about infringement and what not but I would go to say that, for the most part, the average joe citizen uploader doesn't have much of a clue.
Likely scenario: Trevor is shooting some video with his smartphone of his buddies at a ragin' party playing beer pong. Somebody makes an awesome shot. Trevor uploads the video to YouTube or Facebook. Three weeks later, a jackbooted SWAT kick down the door, shoot his dog, handcuff the guy, and say he is under arrest for criminal copyright infringement by public performance because Lady Gaga was playing in the background of his party video. Five years in prison! Is this reasonable at all! Under this proposal, this can and will happen, as we have seen authorities willing to go to extremes to help the content industries criminalize everyone.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 7:43am
Re:
Or we can force others to spend a billion dollars to "fix" the problems to gain $300k in profit!? At a national level, leaders need to look at the overall economic impact of the whole not just the ones who are failing because they can't figure out how to make money except by lobbying the government. Money would be better spent elsewhere. If the recording industry had to use their own money to enforce/protect their (well, they didn't really create it) content, they would have long ago either economically collapsed or gave up.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 11:28am
Re:
You said "perhaps" in that sentence, there. Again, industry numbers out of nowhere. Why is it Google's problem that the industry can't bring a possible 7 billion dollars to the recording industry? The labels certainly aren't coming up with any ideas.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 7:17am
Re: Defamation
You don't need a government document to give you the right to say anything you want. Now the right to not be subject to the consequences of said speech...that is another thing.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 27 May 2011 @ 12:01pm
Re: This reminds me of the time the GOP denied climate change
They rejected that global warming is man made. Greenies changed global warming to climate change so no matter if the climate warms or cools, as it seems to do all the time, the phrase makes them look correct.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 27 May 2011 @ 9:37am
The real question
What is happening to the other $22 million? Not to admin, not to authors...must be publishers and middle men who are becoming less and less relevant by the day. So again, who does Access Copyright really represent?
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 26 May 2011 @ 2:29pm
Re: Re: Re:
Its a guy's opinion, and one guy's opinion apparently proves FACT that SONY is EVIL.
Umm...Sony is evil...not only for this single transgression mentioned in this post but for the myriad of other times Sony has faltered. A short list off the top of my head:
Playstation Network easily hacked - user privacy compromised = EVIL
Sues Geohot for replacing functionality on PS3 that was removed from machines sold using said functionality as a selling point. = EVIL
Removing functionality as mentioned in 2. = EVIL
Sony rootkit exploit installed on customers machines w/o permission = EVIL.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 26 May 2011 @ 8:02am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you anti-choice? Can't we (the market) choose not to pay for music we don't want? Can't we choose to pay for music services that benefit us without being accused of being a copying criminal? Can't we choose not to pay more in data transfer services through "you must be a criminal" taxes?
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 26 May 2011 @ 7:44am
Re: Re: Re:
So you believe an artist should be paid because he says he is an artist?
And the Tenenbaum case has nothing to do with my statement. Did the court rule that the above statement is not true? Silly troll...strawmen are for kids.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 26 May 2011 @ 7:30am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I bet his joke could probably be more entertaining than some of these expensive films.
Also, the people employed to make the movie are all paid for the work they did except those that invest in the success of the film...which is a risk (like any investment). Reap the rewards or eat the losses. If there are losses then somehow it is the fault of somebody else...not the dope who took the risk?
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 26 May 2011 @ 7:19am
Re:
So if an artist chooses to attach themselves to a money losing scheme then they should not bitch when they lose money. But instead, they are lobbying government to subsidize their failing business model and making everybody a criminal.
On the post: Lady Gaga Says $0.99 Albums Make Sense, Especially For Digital
Re:
On the post: IFPI/BPI: Picking Off The Weak In The Herd
Re: Re:
You got herd right in your comment but you should go fix the post. I heard you spelled herd wrong.=] "He spots the heard"
On the post: Russian President Skeptical Of Today's Copyright Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Russian President Skeptical Of Today's Copyright Laws
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re:
Likely scenario: Trevor is shooting some video with his smartphone of his buddies at a ragin' party playing beer pong. Somebody makes an awesome shot. Trevor uploads the video to YouTube or Facebook. Three weeks later, a jackbooted SWAT kick down the door, shoot his dog, handcuff the guy, and say he is under arrest for criminal copyright infringement by public performance because Lady Gaga was playing in the background of his party video. Five years in prison! Is this reasonable at all! Under this proposal, this can and will happen, as we have seen authorities willing to go to extremes to help the content industries criminalize everyone.
On the post: Russian President Skeptical Of Today's Copyright Laws
Re:
On the post: With A Choice Between $100 Million In Cash & Fantasyland, The Labels Choose Fantasyland
Re:
On the post: Waiting 100+ Years For Version 2.0
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Courtney Love Sued Yet Again For Twitter-Based Defamation
Re: Defamation
On the post: Dow Jones Sues Texas; Says Taxing The Wall Street Journal Is A First Amendment Violation
Re: This reminds me of the time the GOP denied climate change
On the post: Did Less Than 10% Of Access Copyright's Income Go To Authors Last Year?
The real question
On the post: Sony's Insane Fear Of 'Piracy' Means Many Movies Now Suck In Digital Theaters
Re: Re: Re:
Umm...Sony is evil...not only for this single transgression mentioned in this post but for the myriad of other times Sony has faltered. A short list off the top of my head:
Playstation Network easily hacked - user privacy compromised = EVIL
Sues Geohot for replacing functionality on PS3 that was removed from machines sold using said functionality as a selling point. = EVIL
Removing functionality as mentioned in 2. = EVIL
Sony rootkit exploit installed on customers machines w/o permission = EVIL.
On the post: John Perry Barlow Tells Copyright Maximalists That They've Got The Fundamentals Wrong
Re: Re: Also
On the post: John Perry Barlow Tells Copyright Maximalists That They've Got The Fundamentals Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: John Perry Barlow Tells Copyright Maximalists That They've Got The Fundamentals Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: John Perry Barlow Tells Copyright Maximalists That They've Got The Fundamentals Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
And the Tenenbaum case has nothing to do with my statement. Did the court rule that the above statement is not true? Silly troll...strawmen are for kids.
On the post: John Perry Barlow Tells Copyright Maximalists That They've Got The Fundamentals Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, the people employed to make the movie are all paid for the work they did except those that invest in the success of the film...which is a risk (like any investment). Reap the rewards or eat the losses. If there are losses then somehow it is the fault of somebody else...not the dope who took the risk?
On the post: John Perry Barlow Tells Copyright Maximalists That They've Got The Fundamentals Wrong
Re:
On the post: Jake Gyllenhaal Threatening Websites For 'Defamation By Photoshop'?
Back done broke!
On the post: Dentist Has To Pay Legal Fees For Suing Yelp & Reviewer Over Bad Review
Re: Unfortunately...
Next >>