'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
from the inconvenient-facts dept
Last week we learned the UK government has precisely no evidence to support its plans for stricter copyright enforcement, which include disconnection upon repeated accusation. Instead, the best it could come up with was:
The creative industries are an important part of the UK?s economy, and they regularly report copyright infringement as a serious problem.
They certainly do, and their periodic cries of woe are dutifully and uncritically echoed by the mainstream press. The problem is that the industry-funded studies that are supposed to back up these claims are, almost without exception, lacking in credibility. As the UK government’s own team of experts put it in their “independent review of how the Intellectual Property framework supports growth and innovation“:
we have not found either a figure for the prevalence and impact of piracy worldwide or for the UK in which we can place our confidence.
For such a “serious problem”, the harm caused by copyright infringement is proving remarkably hard to demonstrate. For example, a couple of years ago, Techdirt reported on the fact that the UK music industry is actually growing, not shrinking; and now the Guardian’s film editor has surveyed the UK film industry, and concluded “British cinema’s golden age is now“:
History will decide whether we really are living through a golden age, but in terms of ferment, excitement and dazzling variety, there has been nothing like it in Britain for decades.
The article concentrates on the health of the artistic side of film production, not of the bottom lines. But the capital-intensive nature of cinema means that you can’t have one without the other, or at least, not for very long: if films fail to pay their way, investment will soon dry up.
As the Guardian piece makes clear, investment isn’t a problem, which suggests that payback isn’t either. That’s hard to square with an industry on its last legs, ravaged by piracy.
In the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, and against a background of broad growth in the creative industries, the simplest explanation for this situation is that copyright infringement isn’t a “serious problem” in the UK – which means there is no justification whatsoever for rolling out measures that will weaken civil liberties yet further.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Filed Under: copyright, culture, golden age, movies, uk
Comments on “'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?”
So Mike is saying piracy isn’t really a problem.
But then he’ll turn around and say that “legacy” industries have to “adapt” to it.
I’m sure no one notices that you constantly talk out of different sides of your mouth, Masnick.
That’s why your propaganda is weak and people snicker and mock you.
Re: Re:
* Snickers at comment, then mocks it for blaming Mike for a post which was not made by him *
Re: Re: Re:
It’s on Mike’s blog and squares 100% with his propaganda.
Is that all you’ve got?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lern2Reed, troll!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That water is wet is a situation. That people are drowning is a problem.
That Legacy industries have to learn to adapt to piracy is a situation.
That you think you are winning is just funny.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yes, thank god PIPA isn’t going to pass.
oh wait…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
but will it solve anithin ? 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, the reality that the industry figures lack credibly is totally propaganda. Propaganda produced by independent government studies on more than just this occasion. Reality must have a bias toward producing such propaganda I guess.
Re: Re:
OR
Because piracy isn’t a problem, these industries shouldn’t spend capital fighting it when they could be producing more content. Rather, they should use the infrastructure that the non-problematic pirates use as a tool for distribution, advertising, entrance into new markets, development of consumer-friendly access to their content, etc and so on.
Piracy is a permanent feature of the market. Ignore that and…well…don’t say we didn’t warn you.
Re: Re:
“So Mike is saying piracy isn’t really a problem.”
Mike’s not saying anything. Seriously, you guys criticise me for calling you stupid, then go out of your way to prove it…
Re: Re: Re:
Mike’s not saying anything. Seriously, you guys criticise me for calling you stupid, then go out of your way to prove it…
Please. It’s Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy
Re: Re: Re: Re:
ROFLMAO Where are the vote buttons? Seriously, this is the funniest thing I have read here in years. +++++Amusing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
wut? Who’s that? Is that the guy who wanted to kill the commies?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
wut? Who’s that? Is that the guy who wanted to kill the commies?
Nah, it’s Murphy Brown’s dad and little brother.
(No, seriously, it’s Candace Bergen’s father and she hated the fact that he referred to his ventriloquist dummy as her brother. You can all close your browsers now since I have given you your one useless factoid for the day)
Re: Re:
In order for adapting to work for a legacy industry infringement must not be the real problem. Seems like the two points you claim are contradictory are actually steps 1 and 2 of the same flow.
Re: Re:
“But then he’ll turn around and say that “legacy” industries have to “adapt” to it.”
The bug and whip industry had to adapt to cars, so I suppose that means cars are now a problem.
Re: Re: Re:
buggy & whip *
Re: Re: Re:
People stopped needing and consuming buggy whips.
You’re still needing and consuming music and movies.
Now go stand in the corner for repeating the most classic moronic freetard “analogy”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“You’re still needing and consuming music and movies.”
When all you point to is DVD’s and CD’s and say that’s what you sell and thats how money was made, then your lying is raveled. You have no clue how the business side works, since you don’t work in it. So you never talk about it. If you ever wish to know, call me and we’ll talk
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You’re an idiot. I didn’t point to CDs and DVDs.
It says right there: “music and movies”. You’re all addicted to recorded music, movies and TV shows. And everyone knows it. You’re not fooling one single person.
I’ve made my living in the music business for over 20 years.
You have no rebuttal, no excuse, rationalization, no justification, nothing for the stupid lies that are posted here by piracy supporters. And you never have.
That’s why it’s so easy to take you people out.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“I’ve made my living in the music business for over 20 years.”
I’ve managed bands for about 11 years now too. So tell you what. You post your linked-in, and I’ll post mine. We can continue this conversation elsewhere about the reasons why we think differently about the issue.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I think the reason why we feel differently is, maybe because you do sell cd’s? I don’t know(I have no problem with that btw). But we haven’t seen shit from those sales.
We owe them money for the production costs. Fuck, even the few views we get on YouTube pay out more. And the ones we leak on the scene, they get far better market penetration then we get form the labels.
Now I will admit, the market may be different in the US, but it shouldn’t be to that degree.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“It says right there: “music and movies”. You’re all addicted to recorded music, movies and TV shows. And everyone knows it. You’re not fooling one single person.”
The fact that gaming has potential to make more than Movies and music combined is obviously lost on you…
Fact is, with more games coming out, there is more demand for people to play them and review them. There’s older games to build material from. And yet, in this incredible need to feel that people are “addicted to recorded music and movies” you ignore this phenomenon that could explain the lost sales…
Competition for people’s time.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I still can’t understand why the trolls don’t get that this isn’t a pro-piracy blog. Acknowledging a market factor and attempting to find ways to deal with it without destroying culture and citizen’s rights are not the same as being in favor of it.
If it’s so easy, why haven’t you done it yet? All you’ve done is made false assertions and slung insults.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So then cars were a problem during the transitional period, right?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“You’re still needing and consuming music and movies.”
if you get your head out of the corporate ass for just one moment, you’ll find that nobody *needs* either music or movies, and there’s lots of legal ways to get them without paying directly.
But, that kind of subtlety’s beyond you, huh?
Re: Re:
So Mike is saying piracy isn’t really a problem.
But then he’ll turn around and say that “legacy” industries have to “adapt” to it.
1. I didn’t write this.
2. I’ve always said — quite clearly and directly to you in the past — that piracy isn’t a problem IF YOU ADAPT.
So, the two things are consistent. I agree, if you are a complete bubbling idiot and choose not to adapt, then piracy may be a problem for you. Are you just such an idiot?
Re: Re: Re:
“……if you are a complete bubbling[sic] idiot and choose not to adapt, then piracy may be a problem for you. “
bubbling???
“Are you just such an idiot?”
No, but it certainly appears that you are. Herp a derp.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Bubbling” – to talk lots of shit, to talk hot air, to lie.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
no Einstein, Masnick used the colloquialism incorrectly; it’s *babbling* idiot. He has a degree from Cornell, so we expect him to know better.
You, obviously, not so much.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No, it’s BUMBLING.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Bubbling” – to talk lots of shit, to talk hot air, to lie.
Are you such an unctuous, smarmy, cheese-eater that you actually make shit up to cover Masnick’s stumbles? I mean it’s bad enough the way you fawningly fellate him over the internet on his blog. But this kneejerk excuse-making and covering up makes you look like an even bigger jerk. If that’s possible.
Re: Re: Re:
The government is going to take down websites that break the law.
Better learn to adapt to that, Mike.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which laws is Mike breaking? Evidence, please, not idiotic assumptions.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Where does it say this website is going to be taken down?
Oh wait, it doesn’t.
You’re about as sharp as a bowling ball, aren’t you?
And also apparently unemployed, as all you do is post here all day. What a shocker…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Where does it say this website is going to be taken down?”
Oh, sorry. I assumed that since you tried turning the comment into yet another attack on Mike that you were implying something about his website. My mistake.
“And also apparently unemployed, as all you do is post here all day.”
I have a job that requires either long periods of downtime, or waiting around for things to install, scripts to run, etc. I also live in the GMT+1 time zone, so I might be at home late at night commenting while bored/browsing/whatever, so it’s possibly not daytime for me at the same time as you.
What’s your excuse?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The evidence is secret.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He’s already adapted to it since his non-law breaking blog is the perfect place to report on the matter. If anything, it’ll get his blog even more attention, what a perfect adaptation.
You, OTOH, better learn to adapt to the fact that nobody wants our bad IP laws and people are more aggressively opposing them (ie: look at the fact that the pirate party keeps on growing). This will make it more difficult for politicians to pass such laws.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You, OTOH, better learn to adapt to the fact that nobody wants our bad IP laws and people are more aggressively opposing them (ie: look at the fact that the pirate party keeps on growing).
Ooooooo…. we’re scared. Not the Pirate Party!!! Oh please, anything but that. The national organization is so pathetic that the even more pathetic and laughable FL state Pirate Party is running their website.
This will make it more difficult for politicians to pass such laws.
Yessir. Those politicians are shivering their timbers alright.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Those politicians are shivering their timbers alright.”
Doubtful, they’ll merely change their stance to accommodate a public that wants less restrictive IP laws and they’ll start voting for less restrictive IP laws. Hardly anything for them to be afraid of. IP maximists will simply find that politicians are harder to influence. Heck, it’s already the case, look how many times ACTA was delayed only to have many of those who were supposed to participate end up not signing. Compare how fast the DMCA passed to how fast the government is now able to pass Protect IP. This problem for IP maximists will only get worse, not better. The return on lobbying and campaign dollar investment will continue to shrink, as it has been shrinking lately.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
and, compared to the DMCA, look how much more effort lobbyists are putting into getting these laws passed. and despite this, these proposals have been lingering for much longer, thanks to increased public pressure. This problem for lobbyists will only get worse.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“The national organization is so pathetic that the even more pathetic and laughable FL state Pirate Party is running their website.”
How is this a measure of patheticness?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Besides, where is the pirate party’s website supposed to be hosted, Mars?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The government is going to take down websites that break the law.
Which won’t stop piracy. Better learn to adapt to that, shilltard.
Re: Re: Re:
“quite clearly and directly to you in the past — that piracy isn’t a problem IF YOU ADAPT.”
Piracy has ALWAYS been a problem, even before the internet existed. People have been copying things for years without it. In fact a great deal of effort and resources have been devoted to circumvent piracy.
You have been looking at this backwards, Mike, putting the horse in front of the cart so to speak. I’m sure you are younger than I am but I remember seeing black market video tapes at flea markets alongside bootlegged cassettes. Then the movie producers implemented Macrovision to thwart the piracy on VHS.
The internet presented a problem for the industry, now instead of a physcial media content was being pirated on a much larger scale. Why would they think that this time woudl be any different? In fact the piracy problem for the movie industry has never been worse.
Piracy will continue to always be a problem no matter how you adapt, there are people who will refuse to pay no matter what, and then there are people who would pay but since they have free and easy access to the content they wont, and then there are those that carry the load for the freeloaders. The Good guys, who are forced to pay higher prices and deal with the DRM crap that was put in place in an attempt to stop the pirates. You see Piracy is the cause of the DRM nightmware it isn’t the other way around. People aren’t pirating because of DRM, the DRM exists because of pirates. Cause leads to effect not the other way around.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“and then there are those that carry the load for the freeloaders.”
IP laws are not intended to prevent some from ‘carrying the load for the freeloaders’. They’re intended to promote the progress. If their intent is anything different then that’s just more reason to abolish them.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
someone *
Re: Re: Re: Macrovision
The interesting thing about that is that the industry got special treatment on the issue. Strictly speaking, Macrovision was a form of sabotage. The closest equivalent to todays terminology would be a denial of service attack. The process took advantage of a design flaw in most VHS decks to disrupt the intended function of the device. Early Beta decks were not affected by this, and the flaw had to be deliberately designed into later generations for it to have the same effect as on VHS. Beta decks could copy the tapes, Macrovision and all.
In just about any other industry, the equivalent of Macrovision would have had a number of corporations on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Outside of the copyright industry, the law takes a very dim view of sabotage.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Piracy has ALWAYS been a problem, even before the internet existed. People have been copying things for years without it. In fact a great deal of effort and resources have been devoted to circumvent piracy.
How is copying, itself, a problem?
You have been looking at this backwards, Mike, putting the horse in front of the cart so to speak. I’m sure you are younger than I am but I remember seeing black market video tapes at flea markets alongside bootlegged cassettes. Then the movie producers implemented Macrovision to thwart the piracy on VHS.
I remember that too. I still don’t see how that represents “a problem”?
The internet presented a problem for the industry, now instead of a physcial media content was being pirated on a much larger scale. Why would they think that this time woudl be any different? In fact the piracy problem for the movie industry has never been worse.
Piracy is happening at a large scale, but you still haven’t explained *the problem*.
Piracy will continue to always be a problem no matter how you adapt, there are people who will refuse to pay no matter what, and then there are people who would pay but since they have free and easy access to the content they wont, and then there are those that carry the load for the freeloaders. The Good guys, who are forced to pay higher prices and deal with the DRM crap that was put in place in an attempt to stop the pirates. You see Piracy is the cause of the DRM nightmware it isn’t the other way around. People aren’t pirating because of DRM, the DRM exists because of pirates. Cause leads to effect not the other way around.
The people who refuse to pay no matter what are not a problem, because they refuse to pay no matter what. They have no impact one way or the other. People who would pay but don’t because there’s free and easy access are, certainly, the challenge. But, again, it’s easy to adapt to that challenge. As we’ve shown over and over again, creators who embrace what the technology allows finds the other side is true: by freeing up some content, by embracing fans, by connecting with those fans, they build significantly LARGER audiences, many of whom are willing to PAY MORE for various things, because of their loyalty and support.
Those artists are better off.
So, again, piracy is no problem for those who adapt.
Your failure to adapt just means that you screwed up. It doesn’t mean piracy is a problem. If my competitor beats me, I don’t say that they were a problem, I say that I failed to keep up. You failed to keep up. You lose.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
But, again, it’s easy to adapt to that challenge.
Sell more t shirts!
You’re a fucking idiot, Masnick.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You make a valid argument. Solid points.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Why are you morons always so obsessed with t-shirts?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
it’s the only thing Mike’s said anything about for years that they’ve got the brainpower to get their heads around the concept of, i suspect.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“You see Piracy is the cause of the DRM nightmware it isn’t the other way around. People aren’t pirating because of DRM, the DRM exists because of pirates. Cause leads to effect not the other way around.”
And yet DRM further perpetuates piracy because people who bought software legitimately get pissed off with the restrictions and download a copy with DRM removed, or people who read about the terrible DRM on software they want download it instead of paying to avoid the grief in the first place.
DRM may have been a response to piracy, but it has been a complete failure at reducing piracy and instead gives people another reason to not pay.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Then the movie producers implemented Macrovision to thwart the piracy on VHS.”
Which, IIRC, had absolutely no effect on actual piracy. Unless you have figures that prove otherwise? It sure as hell didn’t stop it.
“In fact the piracy problem for the movie industry has never been worse.”
Because they, again, refused to adapt. The things that drove the higher sales of VHS were not the DRM attempts, it was the closing of windows between theatrical and home releases, the releasing of long sought-after back catalogue titles that weren’t available legally, the reduction of price from $100+ for a new cassette to something affordable, the rise of retailers offering larger selections and better choice.
We would have hoped that they would have learned from their previous mistakes, but no. Region coding, trying to enforce format and regional windowing, high prices and low availability on digital titles, even time restrictions on the “digital copies” you buy with DVDs for God’s sake! They’re making the same mistakes as before, on a grander scale, then wondering why money isn’t appearing in their laps.
“People aren’t pirating because of DRM, the DRM exists because of pirates.”
Yes and no. But, the fact remains that so long as pirates are able to strip the DRM (and they always will be), the DRM *only* affects paying customers. This is a major problem, and a reason why many turn to piracy in the first place. It’s a catch 22 in many ways, but the last thing that will do any good is more DRM.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Back in the vhs days a macrovision filter box cost about $20 and one could dub tapes through it easily. I still have one of those black box filter gadgets stashed somewhere.
Strawman Alert!
You are drawing the following conclusion:
From This:
So because they cannot determine an exact figure for the impact of piracy you have implied that here is no impact. How does one determine an exact figure for something which cannot be fully tracked?
Hyperbole Alert!
Then you procede to exaggerate your foe’s claims to an absurd level.
There is no doubt that piracy is affecting the movie industry to argue against that fact is assinine, the impact of that piracy is difficult to gauge but that does not mean that it has no impact whatsoever.
You consistently side with pirates; how do you expect anyone in the industry to take you seriously? Even if you have good ideas your pro-pirate bias will ensure that your pitches will fall on deaf ears.
Re: Re:
The fact that I can’t back up my facts really just proves that the facts are difficult to back up, not that I just made them up! I mean the difficulty I have proving my point with real, credible figures just proves it!
Re: Re: Re:
The only way that they can provide full comprehensive and conclusive evidence is to allow them to spy on everyting that anyone is doing online and I don’t think anyone wants that. You are demanding conclusive evidence without providing access to that evidence – that’s a convenient ploy.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
” You are demanding conclusive evidence without providing access to that evidence – that’s a convenient ploy”
This is the same AC that linked to the GAO piracy report above.
Also, there are the Hargreaves Report for the UK as well as the “Media Piracy in Emerging Economies” book that are even better at showing this inaccuracy.
The fact is, there IS evidence. People are ignoring it to say that piracy is the problem. It’s not.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
GAO report was debunked long ago.
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/gao-still-stonewalling-on-sources-for-stealing-is-good-report/
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
How does that link debunk anything? From your link
“What the GAO failed to observe and report is that at least in the view of the AFL-CIO, there are thousands of American jobs being lost due to the negative effects of piracy.”
This is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacious argument.
According to patent lawyers, there will be jobs lost if patents are abolished. Yes, their jobs. Big deal.
and job creation is not, or at least should not be, the purpose of IP laws. It should be to promote the progress. A system of government where a government tries to provide for job security is a system destined to fail. This isn’t communism.
“This is also very clear to the Obama Administration and has been clearly enunciated by Vice President Biden, Attorney General Holder, Director Morton, IPEC Espinel and many others in law
enforcement.”
Another appeal to authority.
“to the ?positive effects? of criminal activity.”
First of all, its usually a tort and not a crime. Secondly, it really ought not be a crime, if anything it should be a tort (these laws ought not exist, really). Thirdly, when the law itself is what’s being questioned, criticizing something merely because it’s ‘criminal’ doesn’t pose a valid criticism.
“I?m not the only one who finds it astounding that our government would offer ?observations? regarding the ?positive effects? of crime.”
Again, this is not a refutation of anything.
and the rest of your link goes on to refute nothing as well. It’s more like a poorly thought out rant and not a serious discussion.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aren’t they wanting to do that already? Monitor everything and anything we do online. Isn’t that what they’re trying to get ISPs to go along with? That or the whole “we say they did something wrong, so you disconnect them on our accusation alone” thing. Both of which are pretty bad.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
That is exactly my point. I was responding to another AC post which included, “I mean the difficulty I have proving my point with real, credible figures just proves it!
“
My point was that “real, credible figures” are imposssible to provide without providing the industry access to the data, and no one wants that.
Keep arguing for real figures and you will get your wish, the government will set up snooping for the industry and they will be able to see EVERYTHING, even encrypted torrent traffic.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Can they even see Sneakernet?!?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
If the government mandates operating system level spying, YES.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Confirmed: You don’t even know what sneakernet is…
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Oh no it is worse than that,
he doesn’t even know what Google is.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
lets see you take a DVD or memory stick or any other physcial media and you put it into WHAT? a computer, connected BluRay player, connected PS3, etc… And if the government mandates operating system level spying – guess what the signature of that conent just got blasted to the spooks. Just because you aren’t transporting it across a network doesn’t mean that it’s signature isn’t being recorded everytime you put it into a player.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
In such a situation, the obvious solution is to run any media obtained from a sneakernet on a machine not connected to the internet in any form.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
… You say you work for a software company?
Obviously, you’ve never thought about the idea of having one computer offline for watermarks…
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You’re beyond dumb.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“you put it into WHAT? a computer, connected BluRay player, connected PS3, etc..”
Erm, yeah? Is there some kind of law to have your media centre online now, or something? Am I operating my equipment illegally because I don’t currently have ADSL at home but run my playback equipment offline while using 3G on my laptop? Do my consoles break the law because they don’t call back to the manufacturers every 2 seconds while performing their legal functions?
“if the government mandates operating system level spying”
Yes, because nobody will ever be able to run a non-protected OS. Or strip out whatever “protections” are on the files before sharing them.
Wow, you are dense.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
If the government mandates operating system level spying, YES.
Hate to burst your bubble here, but Open Source operating systems (like Debian) will never include something like that no matter what any government mandates.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Hate to burst your bubble, but the govt can stop you from downloading Debian or anyting else they want, just ask the people in China about their internet access. At some point it becomes so ridiculously difficult to transport, store and view the material that it would no longer be worth it for the potential pirate and they will either do without or actually purchase it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Hate to burst your bubble, but the govt can stop you from downloading Debian or anything else they want, just ask the people in China about their internet access.
Well, the government could try, but workarounds will always appear. And even if they did successfully stop downloads of “rogue” OS’s I could always order the distro CD’s and have them sent USPS, FedEx or UPS.
There will always be ways to route around these types of things, haven’t you been paying attention?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“Hate to burst your bubble, but the govt can stop you from downloading Debian or anyting else they want, just ask the people in China about their internet access.”
The government can’t stop people from downloading a song. Nor can it stop filesharing. But you think it can stop internet access?
You’re a riot a minute.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“encrypted torrent traffic.”
And? All you’ll see is bits indistinguishable from normal traffic. That the whole point of encrypting something. We’ve been able to catch government radio frequencies for years, but good luck finding out what they’re saying.
Maybe you need to learn what those words mean before you post them
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
If you have access at the operating system level it doesn’t matter if it was encrypted in transit or not.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
But that won’t happen.
As other commenters has said, here’s how you’d do it:
1) Download the encrypted data using a machine connected to the net. Do not decrypt this on that machine.
2) Put the encrypted file onto a CD.
3) Walk it over to your media machine, which is not connected to the network and never will be.
4) Decrypt and play.
OS level surveillance would accomplish nothing other than stomping all over the rights of innocent people. The pirates would not be touched by it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
could i use linux for a faster way ?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
LiveCD. Save to USB stick. Shut down. What session?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
And that’s when you tax the media machine. It’s an endless battle, and you will never legalize piracy ever. The industry knows it will never stop piracy either but they are going to make it cost prohibitive and very inconvenient for pirates.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
The you must be guilty tax?
I wonder what kind of light that will shine on the copyright issues? Might actually make the majority aware.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Who’s talking about legalizing piracy?
And how are they going to do that? There’s no way to put a tax just on “media machines,” as the media machine is a computer no different than any other. A computer tax that makes things cost prohibitive for pirates also makes things cost prohibitive for everybody else.
There is no practical way to single pirates out at this level. The computers pirates use are the same as you or I use.
but we all know exactly what will be ignored and exactly what will happen. Cameron has been brainwashed, just as Hunt has. after Hunt saying there will be no web site blocking in the UK by the government, he is now doing his best to insist that it is still brought in but by the ISPs. all this shows is that typically, governments cant be trusted, are paid for by corporations and will get what they want in one way or another!
“There is no doubt that piracy is affecting the movie industry to argue against that fact is assinine, the impact of that piracy is difficult to gauge but that does not mean that it has no impact whatsoever.”
There is doubt about their being impact, so much so that we are not sure if there is on balance any impact or if perhaps there is a boost in sales associated with piracy.
Certainly if we look at correlation, the most successful films in terms of box office takings (avatar : to name but one) have been those with the highest levels of piracy.
But it would be hard to say that piracy was necessary for films to do very well financially, correlation not being causation and all that.
Against this, some people claim that there is harm, but the basis for the claim seems to be entirely based on the existence of piracy rather than any evidence whatsoever.
People who claim harm, assume that piracy equals lost sales and then work out some figure based on some percentage of piracy equating to some figure of lost sales. Unfortunately there is nothing to back this up at all.
To assert that there is a negative effect on the movie industry from file despite the death of evidence to support that assertion is coming close to the very definition of asinine, being extremely stupid or at best foolish.
Re: Re:
“To assert that there is a negative effect on the movie industry from file despite the death of evidence to support that assertion”
“file” should have read file sharing
“death of evidence” is not a new and somewhat glorious phrase, coined for the event, but unfortunately a typo *sigh*
Re: Re:
Everyone knows if you don’t agree that infringement causes harm a priori you’re a propagandist though, doubly so if you ask for evidence or point out flaws in ‘evidence’ provided.
Re: Re: Re:
Everyone knows if you do agree that infringement causes harm a priori you’re a propagandist though, doubly so if you ask for evidence or point out flaws in ‘evidence’ provided.
Anyone can play this simple game, care to try again?
Re: Re:
“..so much so that we are not sure if there is on balance any impact or if perhaps there is a boost in sales associated with piracy.”
A BOOST? Seriously, are you trying to argue that thousands of people are illegally watching a movie for free and that is somehow driving more of them into the theaters or to purchase a DVD? I know there are people who stream movies from the internet who never go to a theater, never buy a legitimate copy, and never pay a dime. Those are the people that are negatively impacting sales. You cannot argue that those people exist, we all know they do. Some of these pirates were previously movie theater patrons but why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.
The delusional opinion that piracy has a positive impact on sales is most likely driven by humans need to validate their shortcomings, i.e., “He may pirate movies, but he did purchase a DVD once after watching a crappy phone-cammed bootleg”.
I will absolutely concede defeat in this argument, if all piracy is stopped (piracy is ILLEGAL afterall) and sales go down. You know as well as I do that is not the case you just want to try to justify the actions of pirates because it serves your goals and makes you feel better about streaming bootlegged movies.
Re: Re: Re:
“I will absolutely concede defeat in this argument, if all piracy is stopped (piracy is ILLEGAL afterall) and sales go down.”
Will you concede defeat if, despite massive increase in piracy, sales also increase?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wonder how many people today entertain themselves through things like Facebook then going to movies and such?
Because what was will always be? Anyone remember vaudeville? It was huge, I mean huge, and then it wasn’t.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yes, because movies and music aren’t popular anymore.
Oh wait, they’re actually just as popular as ever.
See your dilemma?
You people are in a lose-lose argument, and always have been.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Wait? Then what’s the problem?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Movies and music aren’t popular now, except they are…
Can you PLEASE clean up your logic there? It’s not making any sense.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yes, because movies and music aren’t popular anymore.
And music and movies are making more money than they have in their entire history.
What is not making money are CD’s and DVD’s.
Physical media are the buggy whips, not “music and movies.”
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Leave it be Karl, he’s not right in the head. He’s been trolling many copyright related blogs and websites for years. You can tell by his boilerplate response.
Seriously, leave him be.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Recorded music isn’t “making more money than they have in their entire history.”
Yet it is still the #1 manner in which people experience music.
Unlike buggy whips.
You’re a fucking idiot, Karl.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
U smart.
Like stump.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Recorded music isn’t “making more money than they have in their entire history.”
But you didn’t say “recorded music.” You said “music.” The music industry, as a whole, is making more money now than it was ten years ago.
And as far as “recorded music” goes, there hasn’t been any drop in purchases. In fact, there are more purchases now than there were in history. There has, however, been a drop in profits from those purchases.
This is because people purchase their copies of music through places like Amazon and iTunes, and they buy songs rather than full albums.
None of this has to do with piracy, of course, and the trend wouldn’t reverse even if piracy was somehow eliminated entirely.
Yet it is still the #1 manner in which people experience music.
“Recorded music” means a lot of things. They “experience music” primarily through iTunes or Amazon .mp3 purchases, streaming services like Spotify or Last.fm, or subscription models like eMusic. All of which are growing.
They do not experience music through the CD format, and that’s the only way the music industry made its money. That is why the recording industry is suffering.
You’re a fucking idiot, Karl.
I’ve been told I’m very smart about my fucking. Just ask yer mom.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sales have increased because of increased marketing, theater expansion, and ever increasing production quality.
You will never convince me that illegal downloads are increasing sales, in fact, I know that there are former theater patrons who now illegally download first run movies at home and never spend a dime.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And I know quite a few who refused to go see a specific movie, but change their minds after seeing the pirated copy (me with the new Star Trek movie for example).
Piracy has both positive and negative effects. The best any study seems to be able to come up with is that the positive and negative effects of piracy cancel each other out. Piracy has no appreciable effect on anything.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
From my previous post, “He may pirate movies, but he did purchase a DVD once after watching a crappy phone-cammed bootleg”.
That would be like going into a grocery store and stealing all your groceries for a month and then saying, but it’s ok because I bought a box of cereal from there yesterday.
If you don’t create the content you have no right to determine how it is distributed or marketed. If you don’t like the way a product is packaged you still don’t have the right to steal the product.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“That would be like going into a grocery store and stealing all your groceries for a month and then saying, but it’s ok because I bought a box of cereal from there yesterday.”
Are you done using that false analogy? Because clearly it’s not working out for you.
Not that you care, but maybe if you did you wouldn’t look like a moron every single time you post.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You spelled copyright infringement wrong.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Actually no, it’s not. The analogies to real property theft don’t work simply because the law makes a distinction between theft and infringement. If the law saw them as the same you would have a point, but you guys need to stop lying about the “theft” thing. Even the constitution saw copyright as distinct from regular property rights, and that won’t change no matter how much you try to conflate them.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
See, here’s the problem with having any kind of discussion with you. You will absolutely refuse to acknowledge any evidence that does not support your viewpoint. Honestly, how do you ever expect to adapt to the real world when you close your eyes to it?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Piracy hasn’t increased movie sales because movie sales are down.
Learn the difference between sales and revenue, k? thx
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
But you said movies are “as popular as ever”. How do sales go down if they’re as popular as they’ve ever been?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Sales are down; they’re popular in the sense they’re being consumed by pirated content addicts like yourself.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Troll logic is epic.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You are the one that has closed your eyes, you are trying to validate your theft of services by reasoning some value to the industry into it. Why do you think they make trailers? These are synopses of the movie for promotional uses that are available for free all over the place.
How many movies to you pirate a month? How many of those do you actually spend money on? What is the percentage, this is a personal question, you can provide a real world example. If you have guts to be honest I’m sure it would be interesting to hear.
If you do not create a product (movie, music, book, etc…) you do not have any right to determine it’s cost or the distribution method used. If you don’t like the method the producer chooses don’t watch/listen to/read it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Ahem, even those who do create the product and have all these rights seem to be the ones at the “heart” of the very problem they claim to be fighting!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/technology/15MOVI.html?ei=5062&en=96592adcbf1f69e0&ex=1064203200&partner=TECHDIRT&pagewanted=all&position=
If you want to point out people who talk out both sides of their mouth then look no further than the entertainment industry!
See, here’s the difference between trolls who provide only their personal feelings as the facts and the rest of us who follow the studies – both the debunked ones and the factual ones.
Open your mind to the possibilities that not everyone who pirates content is a thief – lest you start with the studios who seem to do this frequently, but then a pirate calling another a pirate really does seem as childish as it is.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Ron, saying that because they use an image, it’s OK to illegally download their movie/song/book? Is that what we have come to?
“Open your mind to the possibilities that not everyone who pirates content is a thief”
Pirating is by definition illegal copying, if you are downloading legally you are not pirating. Your must have mistaken the term pirating for downloading because that is the only way I can make sense of your statement.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“You are the one that has closed your eyes, you are trying to validate your theft of services—“
“theft of services”
How do you steal a service provided? If it’s not to your liking, you go to a competitor, whether authorized or not. That could be a video game, another movie, or even listening to music free of charge.
” These are synopses of the movie for promotional uses that are available for free all over the place.”
And here’s a speedrun of a game in under 2 hours: Link. You’re competiting against games, and music for people’s time. And you’re losing.
“If you do not create a product (movie, music, book, etc…) you do not have any right to determine it’s cost or the distribution method used.”
So no one has the rights to products they legally bought? Great argument…
” If you don’t like the method the producer chooses don’t watch/listen to/read it.”
Sure, I’ll just post a scathing criticism of useless laws prohibiting people from finding a more efficient method than CDs and DVDs.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“How do you steal a service provided?”
If someone gets in a taxi and rides to his/her destination and then jump out and run off, they would have just stolen a service. If someone watches a movie through illegal means they just illegally obtained the service of that performance without paying for it.
“If it’s not to your liking, you go to a competitor, whether authorized or not. “
If someone buys stolen goods are they not liable for knowingly purchasing stolen goods? Why sould someone not be liable when knowingly downloading content from someone I know does not have rights to the song/movie?
“You’re competiting against games, and music for people’s time. And you’re losing.”
I’m not competing against anyting, I know a lot of the TechDirt community seem to want to label everyone an industry hired shill, but I work for a business software company not in any way releated to the entertainment industry. The reason I voice my concern is because I don’t want the pirates to push the industries hands any further. I enjoy movies and music but I pay for them, but the pirates have made my life harder because of the reactions of the industry to fight against piracy.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I believe you have confused rivalrous and non-rivalrous goods…
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I believe you have confused rivalrous and non-rivalrous goods…
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Love it! “Don’t call me an industry shill – but you’re all pirates!”
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“How many movies to you pirate a month?”
You’ve already shown yourself to be immune to the truth of many of the people who criticise you (zero), so why ask?
“If you do not create a product (movie, music, book, etc…) you do not have any right to determine it’s cost or the distribution method used. “
OK, so since you;’re criticising the opinions of others, which content do you produce? You, by your own logic, are in no position to assess the distribution of movies if you are not a movie maker yourself for example…
God forbid a paying customer should have some say in how products are offered to them and suggest improvements!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“You will never convince me that illegal downloads are increasing sales”
So who gives a shit? Who the fuck are you anyway? Please, post your resume so we know why we should care.
The only reason you seem to come here for, is to shill for your lobby group and insult people, and then pretend to be a victim.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I work for a software company not in any way related to the movie industry ,the music industry, lawyers, a lobbyist group, etc…
I am a concerned consumer of media. I pay for what I watch, listen to, and read. I don’t steal from people.
I am concerned that your stealing is causing more restrictions upon MY rights. If people didn’t steal there would be no reason for DRM. There would be no reason for DMCA. Those things came about BECAUSE of piracy, they are industry reactions to the problem.
The fact that you feel inclined to steal and then try to convince others that you are actually doing the world a favor is delusional. You may have convinced yourself of that but the rest of us who are suffering because of your actions are sure that you’re just tying to freeload off of society.
If you want movies and music to be free, create the content, then you can give it away. If you don’t create it you don’t have any right to determine how it is marketed or how it is distributed.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Your concerns are misplaced and we can only show you a few thousand reasons why. I pay for what I watch and listen to as well. Never even used a torrent file nor do I watch movies on my computer. There are legitimate sites that offer free content – YouTube is a HUGE one. I use it daily for entertainment purposes, give it a shot – it’s fun!
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“I am a concerned consumer of media. I pay for what I watch, listen to, and read. I don’t steal from people.”
So am I. Oh and guess what, I work in the field of music. So clearly you have a problem with the differences of the business.
“I am concerned that your stealing is causing more restrictions upon MY rights. If people didn’t steal there would be no reason for DRM. There would be no reason for DMCA. Those things came about BECAUSE of piracy, they are industry reactions to the problem.”
I have never stolen a thing in my life, but as a convicted child rapist you shouldn’t be so quick with the accusations.
See, we all like to assume! You keep assuming, then I keep assuming, all the while the conversation starts to look like a sailor night at the bar.
“If you don’t create it you don’t have any right to determine how it is marketed or how it is distributed.”
Guess we better lock away all those economists then.
For the record, I do know how music is distributed. So next time, you stick to talking about your crapware, I’ll stick to my mine. Deal?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“If you want movies and music to be free, create the content, then you can give it away.”
We’ve always done that. That is how it always worked, and continues to work. Like Radio, we pay to be on radio. The more a single gets listened too, the more jobs the band gets. Its a simple formula really
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“There would be no reason for DMCA.”
That is false, that was not the original point of the DMCA. It was supposed to be about fair dealings in the market place. But in the end it only made it worse when the big boys started abusing it. Those of us that didn’t have 10,000 for a retainer started getting falsely accused and buried.The only ones that benefited from the DMCA were the lawyers who started setting up shop
I sure as hell won’t let them shove down more paperwork on us yet again.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
” I don’t steal from people.”
Neither does anyone else since infringement and stealing, have very distinct legal and economic points:
If you are seeking to understand what is happening and how to respond to it, calling it “theft” immediately shuts the door on a variety of important points. It closes off a path to understanding both what’s happening and how one might best deal with it. I find that incredibly dangerous from the perspective of a content creator. Calling infringement theft or not isn’t just a semantic argument from people who like to argue. It’s about actually understanding what’s going on, and that’s simply not possible when you put up a wall to understanding.
And here’s my post about infringement and theft in the last month.
“I am concerned that your stealing is causing more restrictions upon MY rights.”
And why are you so concerned for someone else now, when it’s obvious their behavior isn’t taking money from your wallet?
” If people didn’t steal there would be no reason for DRM. “
Which is broken and punishes legal customers of a product…
“There would be no reason for DMCA.”
Which was the RIAA’s response to Napster and their wet dream…
” Those things came about BECAUSE of piracy, they are industry reactions to the problem.“
It’s not hard to figure out that the industry’s response isn’t how reality is determined. Particularly, more artists have cropped up, the RIAA is now irrelevant, and piracy is going to increase, not decrease thanks to high prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Sourcing TechDirt as a reference for IP concerns is like asking a heroine addict about federal drug policy.
And it was created because of piracy. no piracy = no DRM
Blame the pirates for your annoyance.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I like how Steam uses DRM. Does Gabe Newell complain bitterly about piracy? Does Gabe Newell blame the pirates?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
im not so sure about no piracy = no drm
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I’m beginning to think that you don’t work for a software company…
Anyway this:
” no piracy = no DRM”
is dumb.
Even when piracy carried a death penalty, it didn’t stop people from copying. So now you’re trying to stop people from actually discussing media because it hurts someone’s feelings. Yeah, good luck buddy.
“Sourcing TechDirt as a reference for IP concerns is like asking a heroine addict about federal drug policy”
Funny, there were two links up there where I’ve shown the difference of infringement and theft. Or maybe you’re closing your mind to the fact that plenty of people can tell that distinction.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“I am a concerned consumer of media. I pay for what I watch, listen to, and read. I don’t steal from people.”
Well done, you just described me as well. Funny how we have such different viewpoints, though. I wonder why?
Maybe I listen to people and take on board their opinions rather than scream at them for stealing and using half-assed physical analogies that are completely misleading? Who knows…
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“I am a concerned consumer of media. I pay for what I watch, listen to, and read. I don’t steal from people.”
You’ve never read a book from the library? Borrowed a book, movie or CD from a friend?
I don’t believe you.
“Those things came about BECAUSE of piracy, they are industry reactions to the problem.”
The reaction to problems with the industry is piracy.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“You will never convince me that illegal downloads are increasing sales, in fact, I know that there are former theater patrons who now illegally download first run movies at home and never spend a dime.”
So you are protecting your freetarded friends from prosecution by failing to turn them in?
Who is the Pirate lover now? If you really cared about stopping piracy and the feeding the poor starving artists you wouldn’t spend your days spamming up forums you would take action and swear out affidavits to make examples of the freetards.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I might be your neighbor, are you sure you want that to happen?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So you are protecting your freetarded friends from prosecution by failing to turn them in?
Who is the Pirate lover now? If you really cared about stopping piracy and the feeding the poor starving artists you wouldn’t spend your days spamming up forums you would take action and swear out affidavits to make examples of the freetards.
I’d be happy to start with you, Itshay. Just post your info and I’ll get right on it.
Re: Re: Re:
” Seriously, are you trying to argue that thousands of people are illegally watching a movie for free and that is somehow driving more of them into the theaters or to purchase a DVD? I know there are people who stream movies from the internet who never go to a theater, never buy a legitimate copy, and never pay a dime. Those are the people that are negatively impacting sales. “
Wrong. I’ll use two examples:
The UFC has gained a massive following. More so than boxing or even wrestling. The PPV costs $50. Not everyone is going to afford the PPV, but there are plenty of people that afford the DVDs ($20), T-shirts, and other ancillary products that come with marketing the UFC fights. And yes, if you look hard enough, people stream the event at ZERO cost to the marketers. However, through some twisted logic, the UFC doesn’t realize that the streams aren’t costing them money, they think about the lost money that the high cost of the PPV is losing to these people “freeloading”. Hence, the excuse that “you need their permission”, rather than their own poor marketing plan being at fault.
“The delusional opinion that piracy has a positive impact on sales is most likely driven by humans need to validate their shortcomings, i.e., “He may pirate movies, but he did purchase a DVD once after watching a crappy phone-cammed bootleg”. “
It’s not a delusion. When you give people a reason to invest into a game, movie or other form of entertainment, they won’t go to alternatives that offer a better product. That’s why TF2 went free. That’s why it’s been updating for the last 4 years. It’s why they Valve lowered prices in Russia. Higher price = less money to you. So piracy can work for you, if you know how to work it. It’s called word of mouth.
“The delusional opinion that piracy has a positive impact on sales is most likely driven by humans need to validate their shortcomings, i.e., “He may pirate movies, but he did purchase a DVD once after watching a crappy phone-cammed bootleg”. “
It’s not delusional, there’s more studies saying that it increases sales than there are naysayers trying to blur that image with no proof. Oh wait…
” You know as well as I do that is not the case you just want to try to justify the actions of pirates because it serves your goals and makes you feel better about streaming bootlegged movies.”
Try this on for size: “I don’t want to lose my civil rights because some business guy in a suit can’t figure out how to make money on the internet”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try this on for size: “I don’t want to lose my civil rights because some business guy in a suit can’t figure out how to make money on the internet”.
Infringing is not protected speech. Nor is having a discussion board ancillary to an infringing site immunize it from being seized or inoculate it with First Amendment protections.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Infringing is not protected speech. Nor is having a discussion board ancillary to an infringing site immunize it from being seized or inoculate it with First Amendment protections.”
You’re right, infringing is not protected speech. But protected speech is, the right to privacy is, etc. These are all things that are about to be trampled on by things like Protect IP, by deals made in back rooms with ISPs (to monitor what I do or do not do online), etc.
You ignore points made like the ones I just did to instead focus on just piracy. Then when someone brings it up, you again, revert to only focusing on piracy. In complete disregard to everything else I just said, heck, if you look you’ll even see that I partially agreed with you and in no way mentioned anything about file sharing (minus the “infringing is not protected speech” bit).
Now, focus on JUST what I DID say. Those are my civil rights about to be walked all over by YOUR side in the pursuit of profits. How is that acceptable? Or in any way morally justified? Profits take precedence over the civil rights of the innocent? WTF.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The law quite clearly spells out the difference, despite the lies Masnick has indoctrinated you with.
The AC above you is 100% correct.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“The AC above you is 100% correct.”
Yes, your trusted status as a member of….wait…who are you again?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Infringing is not protected speech. Nor is having a discussion board ancillary to an infringing site immunize it from being seized or inoculate it with First Amendment protections.”
You’re right, infringing is not protected speech. But protected speech is, the right to privacy is, etc. These are all things that are about to be trampled on by things like Protect IP, by deals made in back rooms with ISPs (to monitor what I do or do not do online), etc.
What protected speech do you fear losing? I already explained why a discussion board that is part of an infringing site doesn’t prevent the site from being seized. Is there another intrusion into free speech you’re concerned about?
You ignore points made like the ones I just did to instead focus on just piracy. Then when someone brings it up, you again, revert to only focusing on piracy. In complete disregard to everything else I just said, heck, if you look you’ll even see that I partially agreed with you and in no way mentioned anything about file sharing (minus the “infringing is not protected speech” bit).
I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about.
Now, focus on JUST what I DID say. Those are my civil rights about to be walked all over by YOUR side in the pursuit of profits. How is that acceptable? Or in any way morally justified? Profits take precedence over the civil rights of the innocent? WTF.
So I need more of an explanation or an example of what you mean. As far as monitoring by the ISP, you’ll have to take that up with them. It’s in their terms of service. If you don’t like the TOS don’t use them.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“What protected speech do you fear losing? I already explained why a discussion board that is part of an infringing site doesn’t prevent the site from being seized. Is there another intrusion into free speech you’re concerned about?”
So those 50 some thousand sites that were seized and unreachable by users, because only a small percentage (I’d be surprised if even 10% was this percentage) had infringing content, is not free speech being violated? They were essentially censored/not viewable by many. That’s an example I’m referring. Ignore specific speech. Sites were seized and not able to be viewed by many when they did nothing wrong.
“I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about.”
Obviously you don’t. You’re ignoring what I said. Again. Look. in very simple terms. Someone says something about free speech, censorship, privacy invasions, etc. You. Ignore. That. And. Just. Focus. On. Piracy. (I literally cannot make that any clearer/simpler for you. If you’re an idiot, and I’m not saying you are, you won’t understand any of that.)
“So I need more of an explanation or an example of what you mean. As far as monitoring by the ISP, you’ll have to take that up with them. It’s in their terms of service. If you don’t like the TOS don’t use them.”
I gave one example up above about sites being censored, that’s free speech being violated right there. Another example, the monitoring being done by ISPs. That’s not done by them alone. That’s being done by them, on the behalf of the studios/labels. So they’re short circuiting the courts to make deals with ISPs to monitor my internet usage. How are they doing that? By either intimidating the ISPs and saying they’ll be held accountable for any copyright violations or by not making deals with them in regards to content some ISPs want to offer to their customers. That’s invading my privacy. I can’t be clearer in regards to that example either.
And “don’t use them”. Oh okay. I’ll just switch to the… oh wait… that’s right, my ISP is the only one who services the area I live in. In fact, it’s part of an agreement they have with the city, which others have with other cities. You can only get phone/internet access from specific companies in quite a few places in the region of the country I live in.
Hmm. So I can keep my internet or not have it at all (which kind of f*cks up my day because I need it to work). What do I do?
You’re not that bright are you?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“What protected speech do you fear losing? I already explained why a discussion board that is part of an infringing site doesn’t prevent the site from being seized. Is there another intrusion into free speech you’re concerned about?”
So those 50 some thousand sites that were seized and unreachable by users, because only a small percentage (I’d be surprised if even 10% was this percentage) had infringing content, is not free speech being violated? They were essentially censored/not viewable by many. That’s an example I’m referring. Ignore specific speech. Sites were seized and not able to be viewed by many when they did nothing wrong.
The subdomains that went down for a couple of days because they were part of another seizure? They all were put back up fairly quickly, weren’t they? Why are you still crying about it?
“I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about.”
Obviously you don’t. You’re ignoring what I said. Again. Look. in very simple terms. Someone says something about free speech, censorship, privacy invasions, etc. You. Ignore. That. And. Just. Focus. On. Piracy. (I literally cannot make that any clearer/simpler for you. If you’re an idiot, and I’m not saying you are, you won’t understand any of that.)
“I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about.” I was trying to be nice. What I was actually thinking was that you are a gibbering idiot who can’t articulate specific complaints so just relies on a general ax to grind. Happy now?
“So I need more of an explanation or an example of what you mean. As far as monitoring by the ISP, you’ll have to take that up with them. It’s in their terms of service. If you don’t like the TOS don’t use them.”
I gave one example up above about sites being censored, that’s free speech being violated right there. Another example, the monitoring being done by ISPs. That’s not done by them alone. That’s being done by them, on the behalf of the studios/labels. So they’re short circuiting the courts to make deals with ISPs to monitor my internet usage. How are they doing that? By either intimidating the ISPs and saying they’ll be held accountable for any copyright violations or by not making deals with them in regards to content some ISPs want to offer to their customers. That’s invading my privacy. I can’t be clearer in regards to that example either.
Tough titty. Banks, credit card processors and a host of other businesses monitor their systems to assure that they’re not being used for unlawful purposes. As far as intimidating…. you should learn more about the corporate Darth Vaders like ATT and Verizon. They don’t get pushed around by anyone.
And “don’t use them”. Oh okay. I’ll just switch to the… oh wait… that’s right, my ISP is the only one who services the area I live in. In fact, it’s part of an agreement they have with the city, which others have with other cities. You can only get phone/internet access from specific companies in quite a few places in the region of the country I live in. Too bad. Then suck it up and play by the rules.
Hmm. So I can keep my internet or not have it at all (which kind of f*cks up my day because I need it to work). What do I do?
Get satellite internet. But whatever you do, the sniveling isn’t helping.
You’re not that bright are you?
Whatever you say
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
So your response is basically, “it’s okay to take away people’s right to free speech, as long as they get it back eventually” and “there’s nothing wrong with invading people’s privacy, even if they’re innocent/guilty of no wrong doing, as long as there’s a few bad apples in the bunch”. That about sum it up?
So what it really comes down to, in your eyes, is profits trump civil rights any day. How f*cking retarded.
And people like you wonder why so many on this site are against things like Protect IP and all the other things being tried and asked for.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
How odd. You act as though you’re somehow entitled to internet access as some sort of unalienable human right. It’s not. If you have a problem with ISP’s monitoring their networks for spam, child porn, malware, infringing content, etc. then your idea of the internet should be is vastly different that what exists and what will ever exist. The rights that continue to boo-hoo over are rights to speech free from government repression And rights to privacy from the government. Masnick is free to ban anyone from his site for anyting at all, and frequently discussion boards do ban people for a variety of reasons that would generally constitute protected speech. The ISP’s have the right to manage their networks. If they choose to filter for infringing content, so be it.
Sorry but it doesn’t appear that the world is going to conform itself to your wishes. Goood news is Costco is having a big sale on Kleenex this week. Suggest you stock up.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Access to a global communications network is an unalienable human right. Or are you anti-freedom?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Really? So that’s what you’re going to go with? That I’m “crying”. Come on, you can do better than that.
I’m not b*tching or crying about what the government wants to do. I’m a bit annoyed WHY they’re doing it. And it isn’t for EVERYONE’S benefit. That’s my problem. When something is done with everyone’s benefit in mind, I have no problem with that. When they’re doing something, that affects us all (and possibly in a negative manner) so that a select and minor few will benefit (and still get to hang onto their old ways instead of changing with the times), that I have a problem with. And I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in that sentiment.
Sorry, I think we’re done here. You keep ignoring what I’m saying and trying to put words in my mouth. If you can’t actually discuss things in a rational and reasonable way without having to resort to what are childish and petty insults (kleenex, lol, wtf are you 5?) then there’s no point continuing the discussion.
Like I said, from what you say, I’m led to believe that to you civil rights matter less than profits of a select few. That is, as I said, not for everyone’s benefit, which is what I have a problem with. I can’t be any clearer than that, yet again.
Let’s just agree that you think I’m a cry baby and I think you’re an idiot shill and part ways here.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Infringing is not protected speech.”
Has a court of law decided that? Are they following the Constitution in their proceedings? I didn’t know that there was an amendment that says you can’t talk nor discuss the newest movie, nor give an opinion. I didn’t know that the Fair Use doctrine doesn’t help to protect users from various ways to produce content without needing permission of the companies that seem to think the use is wrong.
“Nor is having a discussion board ancillary to an infringing site immunize it from being seized or inoculate it with First Amendment protections”
Funny, If it was seized due to prior restraint, then there’s a reason to create a stink about it. It was seized unlawfully.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Funny, If it was seized due to prior restraint…..
This passage makes no sense. Reload.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Prior restraint = ICE takedowns.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Funny, If it was seized due to prior restraint, then there’s a reason to create a stink about it. It was seized unlawfully.
It wasn’t “seized due to prior restraint”. It was seized due to allegations of infringing. Claims of prior restraint are the arguments made by the party whose property was seized to get it back. Yet another mile marker for you as you cruise down the Herp Derp Highway.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
It wasn’t “seized due to prior restraint”. It was seized due to allegations of infringing.
And therein lies the flaw in your logic, AC 155. They were seized upon accusation, not upon conviction. Yet our legal system is supposed to be based upon the principle of “innocent before proven guilty.” It appears, however, that you do not care for that approach.
Given how integrated the internet has become into our lives in this time, and how much more so it is likely to become in the future, it is not unreasonable that access to it should be deemed a human right. Many people, myself included, require it for our work, and many systems that once worked solely offline now function largely online. GPS systems require online access, and most smartphones come preconfigured with such access.
Those are just a few examples. Technology has changed, quite radically, how we live our lives, and companies must change with it in order to survive. If they do not, like the entertainment industries, they will fall into obscurity and irrelevance and be bypassed by those who do adapt. Those who are inaccurately termed “pirates” are merely underserved customers. Address their concerns, connect with them, and you may succeed. Do not do this, and in all likelihood you will fail.
Keith, I do not disagree with you, but there is always the possibility that some glimmer of understanding may get through to them, even if they will not admit it here. It is admittedly unlikely, but not impossible. Trolls are also somewhat fascinating in their single-mindedness. Their irrational and illogical behavior is remarkably consistent in its application.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“It wasn’t “seized due to prior restraint”. It was seized due to allegations of infringing.”
And therein lies the flaw in your logic, AC 155.
You know this whole pseudo-intellectual, pompous bullshit is really tiresome. You are a dope, a poseur and a fraud.
They were seized upon accusation, not upon conviction. Yet our legal system is supposed to be based upon the principle of “innocent before proven guilty.” It appears, however, that you do not care for that approach.
Do you actually read and understand English? I said, ” It was seized due to allegations of infringing.” And you counter with this shit? Do you not own a dictionary or a thesaurus?
Given how integrated the internet has become into our lives in this time, and how much more so it is likely to become in the future, it is not unreasonable that access to it should be deemed a human right.
Deemed? By who? So far, I haven’t heard any competent governing body declare internet access to be a human right. At lest not one with any particular gravitas.
Many people, myself included, require it for our work, and many systems that once worked solely offline now function largely online.
Fine. Then respect the rules of the road.
GPS systems require online access, and most smartphones come preconfigured with such access.
The GPS in my car needs the internet?
Those are just a few examples. Technology has changed, quite radically, how we live our lives, and companies must change with it in order to survive. If they do not, like the entertainment industries, they will fall into obscurity and irrelevance and be bypassed by those who do adapt. Those who are inaccurately termed “pirates” are merely underserved customers.
Underserved customers who don’t want to pay.
Address their concerns, connect with them, and you may succeed. Do not do this, and in all likelihood you will fail.
We’ll see.
Keith, I do not disagree with you, but there is always the possibility that some glimmer of understanding may get through to them, even if they will not admit it here. It is admittedly unlikely, but not impossible. Trolls are also somewhat fascinating in their single-mindedness. Their irrational and illogical behavior is remarkably consistent in its application.
Again with the “look at me I’m pretending to be a Star Trek character”. I know Halloween is right around the corner, and hope that you’re warming up for the occasion and you’re not really such a pathetic loser in real life.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Awww look, he’s losing his temper. It’s kinda cute.
So far, I haven’t heard any competent governing body declare internet access to be a human right. At lest[sic] not one with any particular gravitas.
Of course now, I’m sure the loophole is that they have no actual power of the US, correct?
So I guess when they put up a report about how the drug policy has failed globally, you won’t acknowledge that either. *sigh*
The GPS in my car needs the internet?
Ever heard of Google Maps?
Underserved customers who don’t want to pay.
So why not focus on the ones that do?
I know Halloween is right around the corner, and hope that you’re warming up for the occasion and you’re not really such a pathetic loser in real life.
Wow, you can’t go two seconds without trying to be insulting. If your position really isn’t that secure, sit down, relax, take a deep breath. Then think about ways to make it better. Say… figuring out that there is more evidence by the day proving you’re wrong? But attacking others is really just weakening your position. Just sayin.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Awww look, he’s losing his temper. It’s kinda cute.
Swing and a miss. Strike three. Next batter up.
“So far, I haven’t heard any competent governing body declare internet access to be a human right. At lest[sic] not one with any particular gravitas.”
Of course now, I’m sure the loophole is that they have no actual power of the US, correct?
Oh please. The feckless social engineers of the UN. And it’s not even anything more than some drivel from a “Special Rapporteur” like these:
Adequate Housing – Raquel Rolnik (2008? )
Contemporary Forms of Slavery Gulnara Shahinian (2007? )
Cultural Rights Farida Shaheed (2009-)
Education – Kishore Singh (2008? )
Effects of Economic Reform Policies and Foreign Debt on Human Rights – Cephas Lumina (2008? )
Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary executions – Christof Heyns (2008? )
Right to Food – Olivier De Schutter (2008? )
Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association – Maina Kiai (2011? )
Freedom of Opinion and Expression – Frank William La Rue (2008? )
Freedom of Religion or Belief – Heiner Bielefeldt (2010? )
Human Rights Defenders – Margaret Sekaggya (2008? )
Independence of Judges and Lawyers – Gabriela Carina Knaul de Albuquerque e Silva (2008? )
Minority Issues – Gay McDougall (2008? )
Physical and Mental Health – Anand Grover (2007? )
Protecting Human Rights while Countering Terrorism – Martin Scheinin (2005? )
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance – Githu Muigai (2008? )
Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography – Najat M?jid Maala (2008? )
Torture – Juan E. M?ndez (2008? )
Trafficking in Persons – Joy Ngozi Ezeilo (2008? )
Violence against Women – Rashida Manjoo (2009? )
Human Rights and Access to Safe Drinking water and Sanitation – Catarina de Albuquerque (2008- )
Human Rights and International Solidarity – Rudi Muhammad Rizki (2005? )
Human Rights and the Illicit Movement of Toxic Waste – Calin Georgescu (2008? )
Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises – John Ruggie (2005? )
Human Rights of Indigenous People – James Anaya (2008? )
Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons – Chaloka Beyani (2010? )
Human Rights of Migrants – Fran?ois Cr?peau (2011? )
“So I guess when they put up a report about how the drug policy has failed globally, you won’t acknowledge that either. *sigh*”
I’ve told you I feel drugs should be legal and taxed to support public health programs in general and addiction recovery in particular. Drugs are for losers but unfortunately there seem to be a lot of them around.
“The GPS in my car needs the internet?”
Ever heard of Google Maps?
That is an answer? The question was whether the GPS in my car required the internet to function. I’m pretty sure it only needs satellite reception.
“Underserved customers who don’t want to pay.”
So why not focus on the ones that do?
I’m sure nothing would make you happier than to take the spotlight off of freeloaders.
“I know Halloween is right around the corner, and hope that you’re warming up for the occasion and you’re not really such a pathetic loser in real life.”
Wow, you can’t go two seconds without trying to be insulting. If your position really isn’t that secure, sit down, relax, take a deep breath. Then think about ways to make it better. Say… figuring out that there is more evidence by the day proving you’re wrong? But attacking others is really just weakening your position. Just sayin.
I can’t imagine why you’d defend such a preposterous, self-important douchebag. Unless he’s in your LARP league or something. He poses as some sort of self-styled intellectual with a Mr. Spock-like affectation that is laughable and creepy at the same time. Perhaps this attracts you. I find it creepy.
Don’t worry about my position, because reading the political winds, I’d say your position (bent over grasping ankles) is far more tenuous. Just sayin.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
“I’m sure nothing would make you happier than to take the spotlight off of freeloaders.”
It’s called marketing. I’m sure that you’ve come to realize through all this that people pay for various ways to access content. The Newzbin case shows that people pay for more convenience, more selection and fewer restrictions. Then there’s the fact that fair use does more for the economy than copyright. But I guess data showing that piracy is the industry’s fault is also lost on you, judging by how you continuously go right back to the same talking points.
“The feckless social engineers of the UN. And it’s not even anything more than some drivel from a “Special Rapporteur” like these:”
So no context for these issues? They’re merely dismissed because…?
“That is an answer? The question was whether the GPS in my car required the internet to function. I’m pretty sure it only needs satellite reception.”
Not entirely sure on numbers, but most smartphones have GPS capabilities. While not all GPS have internet capabilities, some actually have the capability to surf the web. So it would depend on exactly your type model, but chances are, you already have one. Just need an app.
“I can’t imagine why you’d defend such a preposterous, self-important douchebag. Unless he’s in your LARP league or something.”
He’s more than capable of defending himself. You, however, always go through the same routine. Present “piracy is killing industries” argument, ad hom attacks, rebuttal, slink into shadows when proven wrong or move on to next thread to repeat the pattern. And seriously, the insults aren’t even that good. As I said, it’s just funny to watch you not back up your argument.
“Don’t worry about my position, because reading the political winds, I’d say your position is far more tenuous.”
Nah, While PIPA is passed, and you get that added bonus, I’m secure that it won’t cause a massive influx of money to the ones that paid you to propagate your position. I’m pretty sure that people will figure out ways around the legal system, because that’s already occurring. Meanwhile, people like Chris Dodd or Mitch Glazier don’t realize that the younger artists are doing without them. They’re making their own distribution channels, keeping the copyrights, and the trade industries are losing money to newer innovations. Kind of sad when you think about it, but hey, not my battle. Mine is all about making sure I don’t buy one thing from them and give my money to those that make it worth my time.
Now if you’ll excuse me, Valve is having another sale.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
You begin, AC 162, with an insult. Not an intelligent way to counter an argument.
Do you actually read and understand English? I said, ” It was seized due to allegations of infringing.” And you counter with this shit? Do you not own a dictionary or a thesaurus?
Allegations are accusations. Not convictions. Therefore, my statement stands.
Deemed? By who? So far, I haven’t heard any competent governing body declare internet access to be a human right. At lest not one with any particular gravitas.
Your opinion does not dictate policy. You choose to ignore how deeply ingrained technology is becoming into our lives, and how it will become even more so in the future. The term for your behavior is, I believe, referred to as willful blindness.
The GPS in my car needs the internet?
In a manner of speaking. GPS functions by connecting to a satellite. To do so, the device seeking the connection must be online, otherwise the data cannot be transmitted.
Underserved customers who don’t want to pay.
It has been proven numerous times over that people are very willing to pay reasonable prices if they are treated fairly and honestly and provided a quality product. The industries you represent and support, however, do not have a good history of doing this, or of adapting to change. This, therefore, is why you see infringement occur. It is easier to blame others for your own mistakes and irrational decisions, yet doing so changes nothing.
We’ll see.
It has already occurred in the marketplace many times over, and will continue to do so.
Again with the “look at me I’m pretending to be a Star Trek character”. I know Halloween is right around the corner, and hope that you’re warming up for the occasion and you’re not really such a pathetic loser in real life.
Again, insults only reduce your credibility. They do nothing to add to it. So do not use them. And if I choose to post in the fashion that I do, that is my decision and my business. I use this persona because I believe that logic is an effective counter to irrational, fear-laden arguments such as yours. Do not attempt to argue logic with a Vulcan, sir. It is most unwise.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
It’s like arguing with a comic book character:
Jay said: “If it was seized due to prior restraint”.
I said: “It was seized due to allegations of infringing.”
You said: “And therein lies the flaw in your logic, AC 155. They were seized upon accusation, not upon conviction.”
Where the fuck did that come from? What Jay said was utter gibberish and I pointed out that the reason it was seized was DUE TO ALLEGATIONS OF INFRINGING- not “due to prior restraint”.
And then you chime in telling me that there’s a flaw in my logic because, “They were seized upon accusation, not upon conviction.” What the fuck are you talking about? All I said was that they were seized due to an allegation which you later agreed with. I don’t know who you think that you’re smarter or more logical than; but you have shit all over your face on this one.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Let’s address this.
They were seized due to prior restraint. As Karl put it, they are the “very definition of prior restraint”. There was a one sided distinction that these sites could be seized, without any site being able to face the government in court and show their side of the story. As has been explained to you multiple times, prior restraint is unconstitutional, except in extreme circumstances.
NY Times v United States was allowed a court date to find the validity of the government censure. None of the sites to date were able to get a court date because our US government was stalling. Of course, for most of the sites, I’ve shown the timeline, which you never responded to.
So, were the seizures a prior restraint on speech? Yes, that’s confirmed based on the evidence presented. Could this have been handled differently? By following the 5th amendment and making procedures that allow the courts to hear both sides.
But we already know you’re twirling your mustache as you show us your Card of Evil. No need to get your knickers in a twist as well.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
So far, I haven’t heard any competent governing body declare internet access to be a human right.
Well, other than The United Nations.
And four in five people around the world.
And I guess countries like France, Spain, Greece, Finland, and Estonia aren’t really “competent ruling bodies.”
Okay, then.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“You know this whole pseudo-intellectual, pompous bullshit is really tiresome. You are a dope, a poseur and a fraud.”
It’s working Spock, keep it up!
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Ah, Ad Hom attacks… The sign of a losing argument.
Funny how you can never look at links and see why it was the very definition of prior restraint, but continues ad hom attacks when you can’t argue with someone.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Honestly Jay, you get stupider every fucking day. Think back to the high school composition class you probably failed:
Funny, If it was seized due to prior restraint
“Due to”, in the context used here means “because of” or “caused by”. So your pitifully mangled sentence means that prior restraint was the cause of the website being seized. That makes no sense, at least to people with IQ’s above room temperature. It was seized due to allegations (or accusations) of infringement wasn’t it? The seizure may (tbd) have been an act of prior restraint, but the seizure was not caused by, because of or otherwise due to prior restraint. Got it pinhead?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“It was seized due to allegations of infringing.”
Again, you miss the points and objections being made, even though you repeat them. yes – ALLEGATIONS or infringement. CLAIMS. No evidence. No due process. No justice. Your position is a dangerous one – anyone can have their freedom of speech removed so long as an unfounded allegation is made by the “right” people. yet, you’d be the first one to bitch if your access here were removed to spread this fascist line of thought…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I torrented a highly marketed game soon after its release. I liked it so much that when an expansion pack came out for it, I bought it and the expansion…then was locked out of my legally purchased DLC for two weeks.
I wouldn’t have bought the game if I hadn’t torrented it first. Too many times I’ve gone with the advertisements alone and realised I’ve been tricked to buy a game I don’t like.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I torrented a highly marketed game soon after its release. I liked it so much that when an expansion pack came out for it, I bought it and the expansion…then was locked out of my legally purchased DLC for two weeks.
I wouldn’t have bought the game if I hadn’t torrented it first. Too many times I’ve gone with the advertisements alone and realised I’ve been tricked to buy a game I don’t like.
Try reading reviews.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Try reading reviews.”
Which are based on an opinion, and inflated to give better scores so that they can pad the numbers. And the reviews still don’t explain how Rikuo might like the game or not based on her preferences.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Try reading reviews? I did that for several years. Only the game makers started playing games with those writing the reviews.
If a magazine gave a game a rating other than stellar, the game makers put them on a list that meant they would not be getting another new game to review.
It reached the point that now reviews are worthless to determine the quality of a game.
Pirating is the only answer to find out if a game is worth the money. I’ve a bunch of games I’ve purchased along with the expansions for them after finding out they were indeed worth the money.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
How sad that you dont have any friends that invite you over to play new games with them. That’s how I try out new games, let someone else buy it, or find a demo somewhere. I don’t pirate a copy!
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
But, but sharing is theft! /s
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
could i scream you filthy pirate i mean you are playing for FREE!!!1
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Ok, you just admitted to be a thief, stealing the license to play games in your friend houses.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
So how is anyone ‘harmed’ any less if people pirate a game to try it out?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
any more *
Re: Re: Re:
That’s only half the argument–that those who copied will buy something else. Sure, some won’t buy anything, and they wouldn’t pay anything if piracy wasn’t an option either. To say you lost anything to them is delusional. However, others do buy scarcities they value. Even in the digital era where information can be duplicated and distributed nearly to infinity for nearly no cost, pubic shows are still a scarcity with value. Poorly manged theaters with sticky floors, screaming kids, maladjusted projectors and over-driven speakers are hard to consider a value–especially when the prices just keep climbing without ANY improvement in service. That’s a shame really, because a GOOD theater experience has value, but it’s just easier to blame “piracy” than to clean up their business. You can try to argue that a copied movie competes with that, but public venues such as concerts and even restaurants are competition too. In the home, TV and video games compete for couch time as well. With the economy the way it is, with LEGAL competition that’s cheaper, and with theaters doing little to improve their value to draw patrons, people are going to send what money they have elsewhere. Hell, even sex is competition for “entertainment”, and spouses give that out for FREE! What’s next, are they going to fear-monger video games and sex? Sorry, but there’s other right-wingers with a monopoly on that.
The other half of the argument is that those who’d copied can be free PR–telling their friends, coworkers, internet followers, etc. about the movie–which generates a lot of attention and can drive sales. This definitely has been working for the R&B scene. Of course, this kind of PR is uncontrollable and only works when the movie is actually good; they can’t create their own spin to bring in a few sales for a crap movie before the word gets out.
Re: Re: Re:
“A BOOST? Seriously, are you trying to argue that thousands of people are illegally watching a movie for free and that is somehow driving more of them into the theaters or to purchase a DVD?”
I am saying it is certainly possible, given that avatar was the most downloaded movie of all time and broke not only box office records but dvd and bluray sales.
There are lots of individual circumstances where piracy or filesharing as it is known to many, definitively helped sales as with “Go the F&*ck to Sleep” but as of yet there are no studies to show whether this effect can be seen generally or not.
So while it may not make any sense to you that certain products are boosted by people downloading copies for free; that is a personal problem for you to puzzle out given that the evidence that it does happen on at least some individual occasions is a certainty.
The general studies that have been carried out show neither a positive nor negative effect on sales from file sharing or occasionally marginal effects one way or the other.
So, what we are left with as that all 3 possible outcomes have potential validity with what appears the least likely being that file sharing actively harms any industry.
Re: Re: Re:
Some of them are, but some are people who would never have paid a dime anyway. Those people are not negatively impacting sales.
Because people who go to theaters do so for reasons that are not related to the movie itself. If it were all jsut about the movie, nobody would go to a theater. Theaters are expensive! Everyone would just rent it instead.
People go to theaters for the experience of going to a theater. The movie itself is important, but not the prime motivation.
Kindof like with what the milk analogy is usually used for. Why would you get married when you can go out and get laid without any commitment whatsoever? Oh yeah, because the sex isn’t the only — or even the primary — good thing about marriage.
...
i left my front door open, you closed it and alerted me that it may not latch correctly…i then call the police and have you arrested for trespass and then charge you to fix my door…seems fair…
Re: ...
Apples <> Oranges.
If you create/provide something (a widget, a service, a performance, a movie, a song, etc..) you have the right to sell that product. If someone chooses to steal that product regardless of their reason for doing so, it is violating your rights to market that product.
This site can harp on and on about “infinite goods” but the type of goods does not change the fact that theft is theft. If you take that which you are not entitled it is defined as theft (theft, theft of service, IP infringement, etc..).
If you want to change the world of movie distribution start your own movie studio, if you want to give away free music, start your own recording studio. Then you can give everything away for free and try to figure out how to make money some other way. Until that time, you are legally required to purchase the material you watch, listen to, etc…
Re: Re: ...
Your logic, AC 62, is flawed. The type of good does, in fact, determine the nature of the action. You continue to use the rules of physical goods to define those of infinite goods, yet provide no explanation for why that should be so. Basic economic fact clearly dictates that as supply goes up and the cost of distribution becomes zero or virtually so, price naturally gravitates to zero. It is an economic and mathematical fact.
When you create a copy of a digital file, it is effortless and expends virtually no resources. And it can be done again, again, and again, ad infitum. Copying, despite your assertions, is not subtraction. It is addition. And it is multiplication, exponentially so. When the nature of a good dictates an infinite supply, then for the most part it can no longer be directly monetized in any effective way. You must rely on the related scarcities instead, both tangible and intangible.
Creative culture belongs to all of mankind, not merely to the rich middlemen and lawyers. Copyright no longer serves the function it was originally designed for, and so ignoring it is not wrong, just as ignoring an unjust law is not wrong. Because that is precisely what must be done for change to begin. The kind of control you desire is impossible. Today’s technology will not allow it. You can either adapt or accept your own obsolescence. The choice is yours.
Re: Re: Re: Utterly off topic, but...
Because of your avatar image, I mentally hear Leonard Nimoy as Spock when reading your posts. The truly weird thing is, it works. I can actually imagine Spock saying those things just that way.
Re: Re: Re:2 Utterly off topic, but...
Sadly logic doesn’t work on trolls. In this case we need Kirk, he’ll just Kirk them to death.
Re: Re: ...
But that’s what more and more artists are doing, giving away their products.
Re: Re: ...
“If you create/provide something (a widget, a service, a performance, a movie, a song, etc..) you have the right to sell that product. If someone chooses to steal that product regardless of their reason for doing so, it is violating your rights to market that product.”
I guess it is impossible to understand the arguments unless terms are understood.
What exactly is your understanding of “steal” or theft or any of the similar types of words that some people assign to the unauthorised duplication of files.
Re: ...
I think you’re on the wrong post. You must be thinking of the one about the guy who emailed an investment company about a security problem on their website.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111015/20563516374/company-thanks-guy-who-alerted-them-to-big-security-flaw-sending-cops-bill.shtml
But movies almost never make a profit
Take Forest Gump for example. that movie lost so much money that the studio couldn’t afford to pay the author!
Pirates are to blame I say.
That they just all happen to work inside of the accounting department is beside the point…
I knew when I read the article the trolls would be out in force on this one. After all, their creditability, their integrity, their business model.
There have been far far too many examples of studies bought and paid for by big entertainment that say just what they were seeking when they paid for them. The issue is the facts don’t back it up.
Then there are the admissions that when counting up the costs the industry is stretching the and padding the numbers to not only include what they think is their due but even going so far as to add the cost of the farmer making the popcorn as a loss in that figure. Sorry the farmer is in another business.
The issue is that laws are being made as if these fake figured claims were golden and they are anything but.
So yes, creditability or the lack of such has a lot to do with it.
How come Mike never addresses the issue that ages could be even more golden without piracy?
Re: Re:
F&*k Golden if it wasn’t for piracy the UK movie industry would be in a Platinum age.
Re: Re: Re:
“How come Mike never addresses the issue that ages could be even more golden without piracy?”
“… if it wasn’t for piracy the UK movie industry would be in a Platinum age.”
[citation needed]