You only had to read one more sentence to find the point you're claiming doesn't exist:
"the studios and other copyright holders seem to insist that a single IP address is proof positive of liability, doesn't it seem reasonable to question the studios about this bit of evidence as well?"
These guys are putting so much effort into going after file sharers, you'd think at the very least they'd get their own houses in order first.
Re: OKAY, at last you admit that "pirates are gonna pirate".
I'm pretty sure I've read that statement in various forms on a great many Techdirt posts. Where have you been?
The good old days of the music industry weren't that good. The brick-and-mortar record store was plagued by shoplifters, mix tape makers, DJ's, and those rat bastards who buy CD's, copy them, and then return them.
No matter what industry we're talking about, there will always be people who take things for free when they should be paying for them. All the bitching in the world will never change that, but there are lots and lots of ways to address the problem that will dramatically reduce it. Techdirt happens to be a rich source of such wisdom. The "New to Techdirt" section on the front page says it all. Go read it with an open mind.
What, this only covers the internet? If you want to protect the children, PROTECT THE CHILDREN! If you subscribe to Playboy Channel, you should be forced to use a cable box with a keyboard, so you can enter your drivers license number every time you tune to that channel. Heck, if a story on the news could potentially be disturbing, you should have to enter it then, too--but be quick about it or you'll miss the story. Oh yeah, if you get naughty magazines like Playboy or National Geographic, the mailman should have to card you before he can leave in in your mailbox. /s
Well, it's true that there are some super-paranoid privacy freaks out there (what are you hiding??!!).
But to be fair, I don't particularly like that email is about as secure as a postcard. I book travel for politicians and celebrities, and its not unusual that they email me their credit card numbers, and I email out their travel itineraries.
On that subject: this same information is passed back and forth when people book on my agency's website. It has strong encryption, and people would freak out if it didn't. Why the double standard?
Exactly. I wonder how many new pages their webcrawler digs up. Probably a lot more than the takedowns. How many hits to non-infringing content doe Google facilitate? The *AA's just want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.
Sorry, OOTB, you don't get to blame all your woes on Google for facilitating piracy. What you're seeing right now in the movie industry is the direct result of disregarding the age-old wisdom: "don't shit where you eat." Your industry has crapped all over itself in some of the most disgusting money-grabs of all time.
It is absolutely unacceptable that George Lucas became a gazillionaire off of Star Wars, yet the guy who played Darth Vader hasn't seen a dime because the movie hasn't profited yet.
THAT'S why you can't make a profit on your $100M project. It's doomed from conception because of the toxic environment you would perpetuate.
Well, that is sort of like asking "how much money did you make." Not very polite. Not that I'm not curious myself, of course.
Mike and Tim would never say this, but 51% paid nothing? For shame. Have you read this blog? Oh nevermind, I'm sure it was AJ, OOTB, and Bob, downloading tons of copies in order to skew the results in their favor.
Exactly! How many people is Google paying to sit around and watch these videos, looking for infringement? See, piracy creates jobs! /s
But seriously, I am completely shocked that they only reject 2.5%. If I thought for one second that the other 97.5% must be infringing, then I would want to invest my life savings on the company that developed the software that finds all that infringing content. Of the billions of vids on Youtube, it somehow managed to discern parody and criticism from other forms of verbal expression with 97.5% accuracy. Impressive. I know people who can't do that. many of them comment here.
Commercials that air on network TV can be both National and local. The cost for National advertizing is a heck of a lot more expensive than advertizing at the local level. Honda (for example) will be paying big bucks to advertize nationally. Joe's Pizza Shack in rural Idaho will only pay a fraction of that to advertize in their local market. If they allow some kid in Idaho to stream the Superbowl, Joe's Pizza's ad reaches people all over the globe. So in a sense, Honda and other National-level advertisers are being "hurt" because they are being charged more for the same global coverage.
How many peopl ewill watch that kid's stream? The NFL and the network don't know, and can't monetize it, so sorry kid, no stream for you.