The Pirate Bay does host any content. I serves directions on where to find content elsewhere. Some of that content is infringing in many jurisdiction. Though, importantly, not _all_ of the content is infringing in all jurisdictions. Some content is protected free speech. You don't get to block that stuff.
Yea, felt by raising prices on goods that are now more illicit. You're right that it works the same way as drugs, in that the endless war against them has made it that much more profitable, and thus appealing for the importers (in both goods).
The way to combat the trafficking is to break the market. Make certain forms of drugs/prostitution legal and regulated, and demand for some of the worst parts of the black market disappears. Why would somebody risk jailtime to import a sex worker forcibly if he can find willing girls and make money above board?
1. But what about the trade off in merchandising money? Don't you think if everyone were able to watch the fights, there would be more fans? And if there are more fans, there are more people to buy merch and live tickets. Surely you must at least realize there is some balance there to be looked at.
2. You seem to have trouble reading. Some fans (and yes, they are) may use free streams now, but pay later. Why do you completely discount this? Do you not want any business at all from people only willing to pay sometimes? That seems like a stupid business decision to me.
3. If that's the price the market will bear and still sell out the show, so be it. What good do lower prices do if they get snatched up within 5 minutes of sale, largely by speculators and scalpers who will charge close to market value anyways... with most money NOT going to the artists. I'd rather be able to buy tickets at the real price from a real vendor without having to camp at my computer for the on sale time hitting refresh like a maniac.
I say let all fans submit the price they are willing to pay, then in decreasing order people get to pick their seats.
The name is not the point. Creating an account and posting while logged in creates a link to your profile, including a record of your other comments. This gives the user credibility because, fake or not, his current identity can be connected to a history of posts which provides context to the current comments.
You seem to be missing the point. They have two choices:
1) Put their content on modern services at or near release for a reasonable price (my guidelines are 25c for TV episode, $3-5 for a movie, $2 for a music album). People will happily pay these price to get the content. They make money.
2) They don't put the content on these services (or at such a stupid price, or with stupid delyas, or with stupid limitations that its ignored) and people get the content anyways to enjoy, but do so without paying the publishers a red cent.
But therein lies the problem. Even if one accepts your claims of bittorrent data being 86% infringing, bittorrent represents only a small portion of total internet traffic. The overwhelming majority of total traffic is perfectly legal. But to "monitor" for that torrent part, everything has to be monitored, since trivial methods are available to disguise that traffic.
Imagine this was happening via the mail system, and you knew that a high proportion of Red enveleopes contained infringing or disallowed materials. You could maybe hope to open only Red envelopes. But the users know you know this, so they start putting their Red envelopes inside of White envelopes. And now you have a problem, because you can't peek at the Red ones without opening ALL envelopes (assuming most are White). So is it reasonable to open and inspect all mail? I sure hope youu don't think so.
Hello logic failure. He did not say he was _against_ all censorship/blocking, just that any type of content removal by the government _is_ censorship.
That is, removing child porn from a website is censorship, but it is censorship I consider acceptable.
Similarly, removing copyrighted content whcih is allegedly infringing is also infringement. However, I do not think such censorship is acceptable until after an adversarial trial where a judge can determine if the use was fair etc.
1. What does it mean to crush competition? Is not the existence of OpenStreetMaps proof that such competition exists? Must a company be penalized simply for being the most successful?
2. You seem to assume that Google pushes its Map results to the top artificially. Have you considered that this may be the natural ranking for those results based on user feedback of relevancy? If users find google maps results most useful, why should google display anything different?
I would pay 25c for a copy of last night TV episode in HD. I don't think I would pay a dollar per episode per show, but 25c could work. I probably watch 6-12 shows each week, depending on the season. So $3-5/month to pick my a la carte TV shows seems reasonable to pay.
I can get behind you on term limits and laws for public good, but forcing candidates to self-fund seems to be a good way to guarantee we only get super wealthy elected officials. You think any honest hard working mother or father is going to put the mortgage or kids college fund on the line for a bid for office?
I would love to see more non-career-politicians in office, but to do that we need to make it _easier_ for good people to run.