Nobody said it was completely stopping innovation. We have said several times that they are slowing/hindering innovation. How much faster would it grow if they spent more money on innovating than on lawsuits? How many more startups would be successful if they didn't have to worry about being sued out of existence because of the cost, not because of a valid claim.
Yeah, cause the patents that Apple is using to sue people over are brand new and innovative, and not overly broad at all. I mean slide to unlock?! holy crap, where do they come up with this. Bouncing screen animations, Open as, those guys are brilliant
Universal's employee who sent the DMCA "had no idea what to look for," that still might not be enough to show subjective bad faith
How is having someone look for something, when they don't know what to look for, not bad faith? The only way it could be worse I'd think is if they didn't have anyone look at it (which they automated takedowns do).
Sorry I sold you this fake painting, but I asked someone on the street if it was legit and they said they thought so...
Also, where is it that they are giving away free copies? The only free copies Google gives away are of books in the public domain. Being able to see a couple pages does not constitute giving away the book.
Pretty much every day if you look at the 'Ending Soon' Section, there are always multiple music kickstarters (I just looked and counted 6 successfully ending in the next 10 hours) that will shortly be successfully funded. And kickstarters main focus isn't on music as with some of the other crowdfunding sites.
that MOST of the content on those sites is copyrighted, and it's their only actual draw
And you are full of shit, but that's not new. There are plenty of artists who would like to argue with you about that. There was plenty of draw to MU other than piracy, that's not to say there wasn't a lot of it on there, but it was not the only reason to go there. And as others said, how is making money theft?
If you replace publisher with IEEE the AC reply to my comment on the Google scanning article seems to apply here as well.
The thing is that publishers don't care if something is good for them - they care if it's good for someone else. If someone else makes money, then that someone should have to pay the publishers.
I wish I were making this up, but that's essentially what a publisher told me at a copyright hearing - they didn't care if a technological innovation made them more money - if the company responsible for that innovation is making money, they should have to pay the publishers whatever the publishers want.
But, but, Piracy, Big Search, stealing, blargg...Google isn't doing this out of the goodness of there heart, blah blah blah...Oh, the AAP is ok with it, well then, there's probably nothing wrong with Google scanning the books then
How about the DOJ not even being able to legally serve? Seizing the money from them, trying to claim Dotcom couldn't use a good lawyer. Wanting to destroy the evidence on the servers. Saying they can't go after Mega without SOPA then taking them down 2 days after SOPA blackouts, etc fail by DOJ