We could also declare it a rouge site, since the politicians should be red-faced after a gaffe like this, except that politicians have absolutely no shame.
I gave up AT&T for Comcast. The service is better... when it works. Which I admit is most of the time, but I'm still puzzled by this regular 8:52 pm disconnection that started again this week after a 2 month hiatus. Every time I complain they send a tech to fiddle with the wires, or blame my router. Or both.
I suppose I could pay the early termination fine and quit Comcast, but I'm afraid that my only other choice in this area is AT&T, and I quit them once already because their service sucked donkey dick the entire year I had it.
I suppose I could invest in a pair of tin cans and a ball of twine but otherwise it's dial-up for me (and I'd still be buying my phone service from either AT&T or Comcast).
I realize I'm just one subscriber, but I'm sure I'm not the only one with such limited choices.
Not to mention that of the 50% of the world that has allegedly stolen your work, many of them will buy it anyway.
Mike's quoted several reports that downloaders tend to be the best customers, and we've had several people right here in the comments come out and say, yes, last week I bought a copy of such-and-such that I downloaded the week before.
For that matter I've been known to buy a second copy of a product I liked in order to use it simultaneously on a second computer, even though there was no protection forcing me to do so. I decided I wanted to support the author because I liked the product so much.
I read several dozen webcomics regularly (about 60 total, not counting some that I've stopped reading for various reasons) and hardly ever spend a dime. Well, I don't have much of a budget, so no way I can really support them. But once in a while one of them offers something special to try to drum up money for rent, or to replace a broken computer or Wacom tablet, or art lessons, or whatever. Or they just offer something I particularly like. So I have a few T-shirts and books and even some artwork that I bought to help support the webcomics. Even though I was under absolutely no obligation to do so.
One webcomic artist has recently just said he needs about 10 extra quid a month for rent, hate to ask but could you guys help? And every month he gets about 5 times that from his readers. Just like that. Straight up donations. For a free webcomic.
So stop with the bit about anybody who gets a free download -- no matter how illicit -- being a lost sale when it's just another blatant lie.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Startups do not make campaign contributions
And you're just regurgitating the MAFIAA corporate line.
If a website doesn't rely on copyright infringement today, all you have to do is redefine "copyright infringement" and tomorrow you can shut them down. That's not a bad business model.
Besides which, you're starting with the assumption that any site that gets shut down must ipso facto be guilty of copyright infringement. SOPA gives everybody the ability to shut down any site for any reason whatsoever with no oversight, no due process and no negative consequences for the accuser. All you need to do is claim they're violating copyright; it doesn't have to be true.
Your "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" defense is disingenuous at best.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Startups do not make campaign contributions
But even if they aren't, they can go down simply because somebody doesn't like them. There is no due process.
Actually the real point of the article is that SOPA targets US sites even though its supporters claim otherwise.
IFF Reddit is allowing their site to be used for blatant copyright violation, there are other means already in place to handle that legally, and some of them don't even violate the Bill of Rights.
...and because I don't like what your artists' cooperative site does, I issue a take-down notice on your ass. It costs me almost nothing. The fact that it's entirely legal and hosts no content not owned by its users is entirely beside the point; I don't actually have to prove anything. I just claim you're in violation and poof, you lose your domain name and any funding.
Now you have to go to court to prove your innocence, and pay legal fees out of your own pocket.
You win; you prove that you're legal. The courts are happy, the lawyers are smug, and you, while considerably poorer, are feeling self-righteous as you contact all the payment companies and the domain registrar to get your stuff back. One or two are reluctant but you fax all the court documents to prove your innocence, so they switch you back on.
The next day my friend George, who also doesn't like your business, issues a take-down notice....
No. You've just mentioned the only good part about the DMCA -- the safe harbors. The DMCA on the whole is a terrible piece of legislation that causes undue burdens to legitimate businesses. And the safe harbors were only added at the last minute as a gesture towards those who realized how bad the rest of the legislation was.
Reddit is not depending on a shoddy, artificial law as part of their business model. They're depending on the only good measure in that law to keep the shoddy, artificial law from killing off their company for no good reason, since they're not actually doing anything wrong, aside from offending you personally.
And now you want to take away from us the only good measure of the DMCA and claim any subsequent failure is a poor business model. Yeah, it's a poor business model that can't survive being made explicitly illegal by a competitor for the sake of killing off its competition.
Nice job twisting the facts around. You must live in an interesting world.
Re: Re: Startups do not make campaign contributions
You reference one of Mike's articles that happens to use one small company as an example, while ignoring dozens of other articles that explain that this is just going to be one of thousands of others. That's some mighty selective quoting there, young padawan. The farce is strong in this one.
The question isn't how many employees one company employs. The question is: why should this company be shut down in the first place? What is it doing wrong, exactly? How many other companies will be shut down for similar reasons? What effects will this have?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Startups do not make campaign contributions
No. We're supposed to make it legal for all existing companies to kill off thousands of their competitors, not by out-performing them, but by accusing them of massive illicit copyright violations, without requiring any evidence whatsoever.
You make it sound like the only result of this law will be that 11 employees will lose their jobs.
The hypocrisy is not that the RIAA is using the same defense as other people, it's that the RIAA insists that nobody is allowed to use the defense, and then uses it themselves.
On the post: US House Of Representatives... Is A Rogue Site?
On the post: Would Obama Veto SOPA? Extremely Doubtful
Re: Re: SOPA Support
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
On the post: Who Will Be The First Politician To Be GoDaddy'd?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: GoDaddy Desperately Reaching Out To Try To Win People Back
Re: Re:
On the post: GoDaddy Desperately Reaching Out To Try To Win People Back
Re: GoDaddy might be the only ones spooked.
I suppose I could invest in a pair of tin cans and a ball of twine but otherwise it's dial-up for me (and I'd still be buying my phone service from either AT&T or Comcast).
I realize I'm just one subscriber, but I'm sure I'm not the only one with such limited choices.
On the post: VW Will Block BlackBerry Email When People Are Off Work. Isn't That When It's Most Useful?
Re: Seriously...
Go soak your head.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
Those who agree with your old position will call that "hypocrisy."
If you are a politician, changing your stance to fit with what you have learned makes you wishy-washy.
On the post: SOPA Debate... Or High School?
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
There, FTFY. ;)
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re:
It just FEELS like ex-post-facto.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike's quoted several reports that downloaders tend to be the best customers, and we've had several people right here in the comments come out and say, yes, last week I bought a copy of such-and-such that I downloaded the week before.
For that matter I've been known to buy a second copy of a product I liked in order to use it simultaneously on a second computer, even though there was no protection forcing me to do so. I decided I wanted to support the author because I liked the product so much.
I read several dozen webcomics regularly (about 60 total, not counting some that I've stopped reading for various reasons) and hardly ever spend a dime. Well, I don't have much of a budget, so no way I can really support them. But once in a while one of them offers something special to try to drum up money for rent, or to replace a broken computer or Wacom tablet, or art lessons, or whatever. Or they just offer something I particularly like. So I have a few T-shirts and books and even some artwork that I bought to help support the webcomics. Even though I was under absolutely no obligation to do so.
One webcomic artist has recently just said he needs about 10 extra quid a month for rent, hate to ask but could you guys help? And every month he gets about 5 times that from his readers. Just like that. Straight up donations. For a free webcomic.
So stop with the bit about anybody who gets a free download -- no matter how illicit -- being a lost sale when it's just another blatant lie.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Startups do not make campaign contributions
If a website doesn't rely on copyright infringement today, all you have to do is redefine "copyright infringement" and tomorrow you can shut them down. That's not a bad business model.
Besides which, you're starting with the assumption that any site that gets shut down must ipso facto be guilty of copyright infringement. SOPA gives everybody the ability to shut down any site for any reason whatsoever with no oversight, no due process and no negative consequences for the accuser. All you need to do is claim they're violating copyright; it doesn't have to be true.
Your "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" defense is disingenuous at best.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Startups do not make campaign contributions
Go sell your FUD elsewhere.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Startups do not make campaign contributions
Actually the real point of the article is that SOPA targets US sites even though its supporters claim otherwise.
IFF Reddit is allowing their site to be used for blatant copyright violation, there are other means already in place to handle that legally, and some of them don't even violate the Bill of Rights.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re:
Now you have to go to court to prove your innocence, and pay legal fees out of your own pocket.
You win; you prove that you're legal. The courts are happy, the lawyers are smug, and you, while considerably poorer, are feeling self-righteous as you contact all the payment companies and the domain registrar to get your stuff back. One or two are reluctant but you fax all the court documents to prove your innocence, so they switch you back on.
The next day my friend George, who also doesn't like your business, issues a take-down notice....
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re:
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reddit is not depending on a shoddy, artificial law as part of their business model. They're depending on the only good measure in that law to keep the shoddy, artificial law from killing off their company for no good reason, since they're not actually doing anything wrong, aside from offending you personally.
And now you want to take away from us the only good measure of the DMCA and claim any subsequent failure is a poor business model. Yeah, it's a poor business model that can't survive being made explicitly illegal by a competitor for the sake of killing off its competition.
Nice job twisting the facts around. You must live in an interesting world.
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Startups do not make campaign contributions
The question isn't how many employees one company employs. The question is: why should this company be shut down in the first place? What is it doing wrong, exactly? How many other companies will be shut down for similar reasons? What effects will this have?
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Startups do not make campaign contributions
You make it sound like the only result of this law will be that 11 employees will lose their jobs.
On the post: RIAA's Response To Infringement Via Its IP Address... Is To Note Someone Else Did It
Re:
Pay more attention.
Next >>