Re: Re: Re: And lets have a list of how often the public borrows from Disney...
"Uh, how do you think that the public gets artistic works if the artists can't eat and get health care?"
Most artists get paid fees for their work and the film studio, record label or book publisher keeps the copyright. Those fees pay for food and healthcare. If those artists want more food and healthcare, they do more work. It’s remarkably like the system used by most of the world’s workers.
"What is sad is how uncreative and literal everyone is around here. You would think that the only way that Disney can give back is to let people make unrestricted copies of their work. But that's not how Disney borrowed from the public domain either. They didn't take some public domain video and make verbatim copies. Nope. They refilmed everything and reworked it."
You’re arguing against a complete strawman. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is arguing for the right to make unrestricted copies of Disney’s work. They are arguing for the right to do exactly what you describe Disney did, i.e. take public domain work and recreate their own version.
When Disney made their classic old films based on public domain material, they were able to do so by taking advantage of much shorter copyright lengths. Since then they have actively and continuously campaigned to change copyright laws to prevent others from doing just what they did. It’s despicable and indefensible.
"That's what parodists do and that's how people have been borrowing from Disney for years."
Parody has nothing to do with this discussion. Bringing it up is either meant to be a distraction or it just shows your lack of understanding of the subject.
I don't know about the kind of people you hand around with, but I've never had a conversation with anyone, let alone multiple people, using the sort of language quoted above. What they're saying a long way from normal angry responses. For you to not be even a bit worried about these people's attitudes say a lot about your own...
Re: Because it's MORAL for the producers to get rewarded for what THEY created.
"Not your fat pirate slobs like Kim Dotcom."
When you try to make a moral argument by insulting someone's physical appearance, you fail badly.
"I skipped reading the body, need only your headline to know where you went: the usual baseless assertions that greasy grifters must be cut in and pirates allowed to steal however much wished."
And this is why nobody here takes you seriously, and I doubt it's just us who feels this way. The article has nothing to do with your suggestion, and the fact that you're so far off base shows you're not nearly as clever as you think you are.
"SO, though I regret the coming of DRM, it's entirely reasonable and necessary."
That's sounds like something I'd expect to hear from a clueless politician! Please explain how something that has a long and sordid history of abject failure can be considered "reasonable and necessary".
Re: Goes WRONG at: "First They Came For The File Sharing Domains"
"Nor should Techdirt support a new bunch of sleazy little grifters like Spotify..."
I've spent more money buying music in the last six months than in the previous six years. Why? Spotify and Pandora, so called "grifters". Why do you hate people spending money on music? Why do you hate artists!
"its so funny you could have easily replaced the word FORD for Google and it would be exactly the same..."
That's the same claim you make in EVERY post! Just replace Ford with whoever the article is actually about, and bam, your latest zero-credibity Google attack. When are you going to get some new schtick to bore us with?
You're right, but completely missing the point, which is that this method is stupid and unfairly punishes the purchaser. It would be simple, and far better for the manufacturer's supposedly valuable customers, to have the machine freely movable within a set area, which could be a building, city or even country.
You don't necessarily need to be found guilty of such an act of conspiracy, you merely have to be threatened by these serious charges in order to make to take a plea deal. Techdirt and others have covered this tactic quite extensively. A law like this would give the DoJ the ability to make even scarier threats, and increase the chances of innocent people pleading guilty to a lesser offence to avoid the possibility, however unlikely, of being found guilty of a much more serious crime.
Security researchers do not operate in their own little bubble. If you find an exploitable weakness and discuss it with other researchers or knowledgeable people, and then later on do something to attract the DoJ's attention, their history would indicate your discussions could quite easily be turned into 'conspiring' in order to threaten you with serious charges.
Remember, we're not talking about common-sense interpretations here, but about how the laws can be and have been twisted by the DoJ for their own purposes, like making heavy-handed threats as part of a plea bargain.
"You do realize that almost every product you use on a day to day basis exists as a result of IP..."
No, he doesn't realise that, because it's demonstrably FALSE. That fact that so many (too many) things are covered by IP laws does not mean 'IP' is the reason they exist. You weaken any argument you try to make with this ridiculous claim.
"So anything that hurts piracy helps us all by letting society reward those who do the work."
Your theory seems to leap right from "stop piracy" to "people give me money", missing out the critical step in the middle where the customer decides whether the price you're asking matches how much they value your work. It doesn't matter what you think is a fair return, you're not the one paying.
Note also that there's currently nothing stopping society rewarding those who do the work.
"You have NO credibility with such egregious comparison."
And you have no credibilty because your reading comprehension is so terrible. Mike was not comparing the scale of this case to the MegaUpload one, he was comparing the DoJ's similarly incompetent actions in each case.
Is English even your first language? Coz you really struggle with understanding it sometimes.
Re: Content is only created when profits are possible.
"Content is only created when profits are possible."
To refute this claim I offer the entirety of human history as proof you're completely wrong.
""The MPAA has never been about supporting open standards or an open and free internet." -- WOW, what a revelation, Mike! Yeah, people who put MONEY in producing content want to get it back and then some. They made it, they own it, YOU DO NOT. Just pay or go without."
Definitions of 'free':
adjective 1. able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another. 2. not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
adverb 1. without cost or payment.
When you confuse the adjective with the adverb, you look like a complete moron. Again.
Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
Because someone who is clearly not the real OOTB wrongly thought it would be clever to post under that name, maybe forgetting that OOTB's reputation is so bad that his comments get reported regardless of the content.