Re: Wrong from start: Copyright Isn't A Business Model
Techdirt: the only forum where "give away and pray" is taken seriously.
OotB, you have been here long enough to see the articles Mike has written where he expresses serious doubts about the Give away and Pray model.
Why spout such outright lies? They discredit anything else you are trying to say.
The legacy middlemen know that there are plenty of ways to make money without copyright. This is what scares them. The more ways there are, the harder it is for them to sit in the middle and collect money they didn't work for.
So, what they do work for, is to oppress and hide as many artists and creators as possible by using copyright. They use it as a blunt tool to attempt to maintain control over the entire ecosystem.
With secondary liability, their lives will be made so much better. Who will large tech and internet companies have an easier time listening to, the large middlemen currently in place, or tons of individual content creators pointing out where their content is wrongfully blocked?
We have seen plenty of stories in the past here on TechDirt about artists who have been wrongfully blocked under the current system, be it on YouTube, on review sites (dajazi anyone?), or through other avenues they used to distribute THEIR content. This private distribution and direct to fan is their absolute Worst enemy. It cuts them out. They cannot collect money for doing minor paperwork anymore once the new systems flourish.
As such, copyright is all about one thing, control. They built up tons of money under this old system from back when it actually was more efficient. Now they will use that to try to maintain their seat of power.
Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
I rarely even click to show them anymore, but the topic in the replies made me show the comment. It has an insightful flag even though it was reported. I added an insightful because I completely agree. Doesn't happen often with OotB, if its the same one.
I have tried to get that d-bag out of office every chance I have had since I was old enough to vote. I honestly want to send him a simple email that just asks "How do you fit so much d-bag into such a small minded meat suit?". I at least feel a little better that Amash is also from Michigan to make up for some of Roger's asshattery.
C'mon Apple, just stand up, and tell them No. Stand up for the users. I know you generally don't view them with the highest regard but please do the right thing. I will reconsider my low opinion of you if you do.
Kind of reminds me of all the stories I was reading back when about the textbook publishers for schools in Texas sort of rewriting history to change the founding fathers views ever so slightly and to leave out a bunch of the people who fought for freedom throughout our history.
I saw somebody mention somewhere on the interwebs, this could all be a sort of marketing research for microsoft.
They sit there and spew absolutely crazy ideas and see how badly the public will react to them. Since they are all software restrictions of stupidity, they can gauge how well the public will receive any absolutely horrible money grabbing policy they may want to push at the behest of the greedy EA types.
By being vague and letting the public discuss, they are trying to figure out exactly how anti-consumer and anti-freedom / right of first sale they can be before the public will actually say no en-masse.
Something to think about. Hopefully I am not too late in responding to this for some people to read this comment.
Have a great holiday weekend my fellow TDians.
OZV was the first answer that came to my mind when I read through the clues initially. Like you said though, doesn't fit 4D.
I also ended up searching the wikipedia list of collection groups. In the end I went with assuming it was OZT, and then just wikipedia-ed(?) OZT where I found what they are today. Figure it fits well enough (as Leigh just covered some of the thoughts behind it as well).
Partially right about those who are "wronged". However, quite wrong about the government needing to do anything about it.
If the government wants to view it as they have the right to take a domain, then they could be just a tad less hypocritical and still afford the websites the protections of section 230. A website is not liable for the actions of their users.
The whole thing is so obviously corrupt. The government just rushes to seize anything, no matter how legal it is in the country of its operations. The US is not the king of the internet and the gov should stay the heck away from trying to police the entire thing.
Ok, so it was OZT. For some reason I had thought of that, but was thinking of them in just the terms of the old "buy 1 cd get 10 free and order some in the future" type deal music sellers. Didn't realize they were a larger group these days (they may have been separate and just have same acronym).
I am going to admit that I used the above ROT13 to check my answers as I went along once I was confident. Not too bad though for my first cryptic. Again, thank you.