I'll never understand that mentality, AT ALL. You can't see the profits for the copyright...even though the whiners would be no better off if nobody consumes their content than if individuals consume it without paying, you still insist on the former.
Personally, I believe in granting you your wish. Don't pirate, don't purchase. If a few more people jumped on that train, you fuckers would be BEGGING for the pirates to come back. Where there's relevance, there's always an opportunity for monetization, but where there's irrelevance, there's only irrelevance.
Thanks for the level-headed response. And sure, Southern politicians are a weird breed, but then again so are most politicians in general. They tend to be flamboyant, grandstanding types to begin with, but you combine that with "home spun" charm and you end up with something...weird.
Tempted to hit the "Report" button, but I won't. Just lay off the anti-South bullshit. It's not funny, it's not enlightening, and far too many people end up believing it, which reflects poorly on those of us who live there.
I doubt you'll see anymore Prenda articles until the 29th. That's when the fireworks are scheduled, anyway.
Personally, I never tire of the delicious egg on EA's face. I've had a bone to pick with them for about 13 years, ever since they turned the very-promising "Need for Speed: Motor City" into "Motor City Online" and made it online-only when a large percentage of internet users only had unreliable dial-up connections.
1. Eliminate "copyright on creation." If you want it, you register for it, period.
2. Copyrights must be renewed every ten years, for a maximum of 50. No exceptions. That maximum window allows a generous amount of time for exclusivity, and the ten year expiration windows helps to prevent the phenomenon of "orphan works."
3. Perhaps most importantly, open up "copyfraud" to civil liability. Any entity that commits copyfraud, through the false claim of copyright, the overstating of copyright privileges (e.g., ignoring fair use), or blatant misuse of copyright takedown notices, can be made by law to compensate any effected parties.
If those three criteria are met, they can "enforce" to their hearts content. Until then, any ideas they have on the subject are simply unacceptable.
Some people that pirate are going to get caught and punished. End of story.
Absolutely NOTHING compared to the punishment your crowd is about to start receiving. It won't be long and virtually everyone with an internet connection will be inundated with these stupid things. Do you think people will tolerate that?
Re: Re: Re: Why does this blocking concern anyone here?
You'll presumably be able to continue "perfectly legal activity" of torrenting Linux and so on.
Unless the slimeballs in the "entertainment" industry shut down all the torrent programs and trackers, of course.
They'll surely actually check the first ones they make examples of to be copyrighted content.
Considering the industry has labeled public domain material and even official releases of copyrighted material to be "infringing," then I think it's safe to say they won't check a damn thing. This is the primary problem.
And how, precisely, does your ISP know which files are copyrighted? Do they look at a torrent called "Sherlock Holmes," and know automatically whether it's a movie with Robert Downey Jr., or a Creative Commons published student film of the same public domain character?
This is precisely why many here, including myself, are dubious of this plan...it's going to be rife with false flags. I plunged head first into Creative Commons and public domain media back in 2008 and haven't looked back...but if the retail media industries can label public domain repository "The Internet Archive" as a "rogue site," then they can just as easily cut off my means for appreciating said material altogether.
Agreed. I rank Dalton second to Connery as the best Bond. Worst is probably goofy-ass Roger Moore, though I'm not really a fan of the overly serious, unsophisticated (beer-drinking, Texas Hold 'Em playing) Daniel Craig.