Re: Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!
Bob, the list of people rejecting copyright enforcement is getting larger and I've not the time to comment on the number of artists in all fields who reject it.
Further, I as a consumer, do *not* care about a company's development costs. I care about value gained from a company understanding how I want content. No matter if it's a game with no drm, or music mp3 for sampling, I decide how to support an artist, not copyright. They want control? Fine, don't release it. I have plenty of other artists to look into.
So take your ad homs, your false equivalencies, and figure out how the world works. You have no idea of what artists like nor what copyright prevents. Quite frankly, copyright is not needed in the digital era so long as it induces censorship for content and takes away the value if a platform, it is not needed.
If you notice, there are 14 fallacious points that people with weak arguments use to throw out ad homs. That's not only on this site, but also in the world of politics.
It's quite aggravating when even if you don't agree, you "lose" an argument because your opponent won't answer the comments that weaken his argument.
Also aggravating when you have so many people that seem to believe that copyright promotes innovation and yet ignore all of the evidence that proves otherwise.
Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!
The public, however, has many, many cases where copyright serves its interests quite well.
Nope. They do not. In music, artists as well as the public are not served by copyright takedowns on music services that actually add music to either transaction.
In games, people are not served by DRM or imposed restrictions on people's access to their legally bought games.
In movies, artificial restrictions through windowing, regionalization and other DRM techniques are not in the public's interest. So the horse manure comes from those that feel that copyright, a 16th century phenomenon as a compromise in mercantilism will have much leeway in the 21st century.
But is that a good trade for the people? Are they willing to be the official spokesphoto for any old company even a tobacco producer?
False equivalency. People have found a good trade by not negotiating but using content as convenient. Please come back when your argument makes sense.
The fact is that almost 100% of the world creates art work protected by copyright and I'm sure that almost all of these creators are happy they keep control. Only a few percent are rabid filesharing cheapskates.
If that were true, then why do so many artists rebel against copyright and so few support it?
Now personally, I believe that plagiarism is absolutely terrible.
Why? I never quite understood this because it's the same as believing copyright enforcement actually allows for more sales in a given nation.
Let's remember that plagiarism is a 400 year old concept where people are not allowed to freely copy ideas from others unless they're attributed first. This acts as a roadblock to how people learn. Sure, it worked for Shakespeare to plagiarize ideas from Spain and Italy, but it shouldn't work now that there are better ways to shame people for no attribution? That's why I've never truly followed this notion. Now that you punish a plagiarizer, you're effectively hurting your own argument by not allowing them to find their own voice. If the only thing that certain people can do is copy, sure enough they are going to be discovered as happened between artists to students. I just don't believe plagiarism is sincerely as big of a deal as people make it out to be. Same with piracy when there are more effective ways to make money in the world.
Now that the Department of Justice has found strong resistance from a foreign court system, I'm wondering how often this sort of legal trickery has worked in the past in other countries much less than within the United States. As the story unfolds, I can't help but see this unraveling over the course of a few years. Were I to don a tin-foil hat, I would think that this action wasn't about convicting Kim Dotcom on conspiracy charges, but intended as a show of force against "internet pirates," abusing the legal system to financially break a public figure
This was a show of force that I'm sure the DoJ did not want challenged. The timeline points to the DoJ wanting to protect the business interests of the RIAA and MPAA essentially using the argument that what Dajaz1, Megaupload, and others did was felony interference with a business model which is a broad interpretation of copyright law.
What's entirely sad here is how no one has yet to connect the dots in how this is one of the most fascist endeavors of the DoJ. Go after the small fries with disproportionate force, make a scary showing of the rules and threaten all other innovation into moving to places like Germany where they at least appreciate innovation (although they do have patent issues...).
It's not a bad business model, it's just horrible for those caught in the crossfire.
Copyright math is more difficult than nuclear physics. In order to underarms it, you have to have a ten year college dehree, four accounting degrees, and a background in fascist economics.
The riches are easy to explain. How you can screw over the artists so badly is what is reprehensible.
I read that story... It's odd. He's gone missing, his wife is making public statements, and it seems to be a witch hunt, not a rescue... What did the guy stumble onto, I wonder, that made him disappear?
Two cases disagree with your premise: Tarek Mehanna, given 17 years for just translating what others are saying.
Also, another person was captured by the FBI even though he did not want to be a part of the entrapment scheme put forth for him. The irony? He found out about the informant through a google search.
In order to keep the DMCA Safe Harbor status, they have to take down content. There's no way currently to have the DMCA allow people to take down content after paying a processing fee.
Although, it's incredibly ironic that Google isn't charging this fee while the ISPs are trying to pass on a fee to other claims of infringement.
Hmmm. America's laws don't reflect that procedural fairness right now. That has to do with the prosecutors having so much power they are near immune to poorly thought out prosecutions.
On the post: Yet Another Of The FBI's Own Terrorist Plots... Involves A Group Of Senior Citizens
Re:
FBI entrapment has far more likely odds given that is their mandate almost since inception.
Terrorist act occur less frequently than lightning strikes.
Point here is the FBI looks to subvert people it believes are threats, irregardless of if they actually are.
On the post: Yet Another Of The FBI's Own Terrorist Plots... Involves A Group Of Senior Citizens
Re:
FBI entrapment has far more likely odds given that is their mandate almost since inception.
Terrorist act occur less frequently than lightning strikes.
Point here is the FBI looks to subvert people it believes are threats, irregardless of if they actually are.
On the post: Fan-Made Movie Edits: Another Cultural Loss At The Hands Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Duh: The TV Business Is On The Verge Of Collapse
Re: Re: Re: Business is the key word
On the post: This Is Reporting? Fox News Ties Flame Malware To Angry Birds Because Both Use Lua
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Re: Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!
Further, I as a consumer, do *not* care about a company's development costs. I care about value gained from a company understanding how I want content. No matter if it's a game with no drm, or music mp3 for sampling, I decide how to support an artist, not copyright. They want control? Fine, don't release it. I have plenty of other artists to look into.
So take your ad homs, your false equivalencies, and figure out how the world works. You have no idea of what artists like nor what copyright prevents. Quite frankly, copyright is not needed in the digital era so long as it induces censorship for content and takes away the value if a platform, it is not needed.
On the post: In Which I Debate The UK Publisher's Association Boss Who Attacked The British Library
Re:
It's quite aggravating when even if you don't agree, you "lose" an argument because your opponent won't answer the comments that weaken his argument.
Also aggravating when you have so many people that seem to believe that copyright promotes innovation and yet ignore all of the evidence that proves otherwise.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!
Nope. They do not. In music, artists as well as the public are not served by copyright takedowns on music services that actually add music to either transaction.
In games, people are not served by DRM or imposed restrictions on people's access to their legally bought games.
In movies, artificial restrictions through windowing, regionalization and other DRM techniques are not in the public's interest. So the horse manure comes from those that feel that copyright, a 16th century phenomenon as a compromise in mercantilism will have much leeway in the 21st century.
But is that a good trade for the people? Are they willing to be the official spokesphoto for any old company even a tobacco producer?
False equivalency. People have found a good trade by not negotiating but using content as convenient. Please come back when your argument makes sense.
The fact is that almost 100% of the world creates art work protected by copyright and I'm sure that almost all of these creators are happy they keep control. Only a few percent are rabid filesharing cheapskates.
If that were true, then why do so many artists rebel against copyright and so few support it?
Try again bob.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Sorry Hollywood
but the stakeholders are in another castle!
On the post: Liz's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re:
On the post: Liz's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Why? I never quite understood this because it's the same as believing copyright enforcement actually allows for more sales in a given nation.
Let's remember that plagiarism is a 400 year old concept where people are not allowed to freely copy ideas from others unless they're attributed first. This acts as a roadblock to how people learn. Sure, it worked for Shakespeare to plagiarize ideas from Spain and Italy, but it shouldn't work now that there are better ways to shame people for no attribution? That's why I've never truly followed this notion. Now that you punish a plagiarizer, you're effectively hurting your own argument by not allowing them to find their own voice. If the only thing that certain people can do is copy, sure enough they are going to be discovered as happened between artists to students. I just don't believe plagiarism is sincerely as big of a deal as people make it out to be. Same with piracy when there are more effective ways to make money in the world.
Now that the Department of Justice has found strong resistance from a foreign court system, I'm wondering how often this sort of legal trickery has worked in the past in other countries much less than within the United States. As the story unfolds, I can't help but see this unraveling over the course of a few years. Were I to don a tin-foil hat, I would think that this action wasn't about convicting Kim Dotcom on conspiracy charges, but intended as a show of force against "internet pirates," abusing the legal system to financially break a public figure
This was a show of force that I'm sure the DoJ did not want challenged. The timeline points to the DoJ wanting to protect the business interests of the RIAA and MPAA essentially using the argument that what Dajaz1, Megaupload, and others did was felony interference with a business model which is a broad interpretation of copyright law.
What's entirely sad here is how no one has yet to connect the dots in how this is one of the most fascist endeavors of the DoJ. Go after the small fries with disproportionate force, make a scary showing of the rules and threaten all other innovation into moving to places like Germany where they at least appreciate innovation (although they do have patent issues...).
It's not a bad business model, it's just horrible for those caught in the crossfire.
On the post: Darth Vader Is The Most Successful Star Wars Character Ever, But Still No Return Of The Jedi Residuals For Actor
Re: Re: Re:
*understand
On the post: Darth Vader Is The Most Successful Star Wars Character Ever, But Still No Return Of The Jedi Residuals For Actor
Re:
On the post: Darth Vader Is The Most Successful Star Wars Character Ever, But Still No Return Of The Jedi Residuals For Actor
Re:
The riches are easy to explain. How you can screw over the artists so badly is what is reprehensible.
On the post: Rolling Stone Highlights FBI's Fascination With Staging Its Own Terrorist Plots... While Ignoring Real Threats
Re:
On the post: Rolling Stone Highlights FBI's Fascination With Staging Its Own Terrorist Plots... While Ignoring Real Threats
Re: It's not that simple
Also, another person was captured by the FBI even though he did not want to be a part of the entrapment scheme put forth for him. The irony? He found out about the informant through a google search.
On the post: Megaupload Filings Show Massive Flaws In US Case, Ask Court To Dismiss
Re: Second one is a must-read
On the post: DMCA Notices So Stupid It Hurts
Re: Processing Fee
Although, it's incredibly ironic that Google isn't charging this fee while the ISPs are trying to pass on a fee to other claims of infringement.
On the post: UK High Court Judges Can't Agree On Twitter Joke Issue, Require Rehearing Of The Case
You have taken that dirty terrorist off the streets. He had the bomb, he had the chemicals...
Wait, he blew up his Twitter account with words?
He did nothing but vent frustration?
Well damn...
On the post: New Zealand Judge Won't Rubberstamp Kim Dotcom Extradition; Orders US To Share Evidence
Re: Re:
Next >>