If we were talking about 2 people meeting in a room to hash out the specifics of a business arrangement, that'd be great, but we're not. We're talking about companies that produce and sell products, which if they fail to do so in a way that satisfies customers needs, the line between consumer and provider inevitably blurs and the consumers aim at fulfilling the need/desire themselves.
A publisher failing at being good at distributing what its been tasked to distribute will only lead to competition. Piracy is that competition - people distributing certain goods that are easy and low cost to distribute because the alternatives are inadequate compared to what they can do themselves.
The only thing that would make that an "illegitimate" response would be the law and an assumed harm not based on any reputable evidence. Especially if you're prone to assuming people who pirate are separate from those who are perfectly willing to buy.
Correction: Read the dates wrong in the Ars Technica article. The real date? A year ago. An AC is claiming EFF is corrupt in Google's favour for $5,000 they got a year ago to develop a few software projects, in which they were not the only people to take part.
So are you going to argue hat all these other organisations are merely mouthpieces for Google too?
Other recipients range from advocacy and educational powerhouses like the ACLU ($1 million); Brookings Institution ($165,000); Electronic Frontier Foundation ($1 million); and Berkeley Law School (combined $700,000); to smaller groups such as “Youth Radio” ($50,000) and YMCA of Greater Long Beach ($300,000).
After all, despite the repeated evidence of criticism from the EFF on various actions by Google, the EFF are solely mouthpieces for Google. All that money and Google still can't get EFF to stop criticising them - sounds like a pretty shitty deal to me, but what would I know, I don't have people paying me to spread FUD about groups my employers don't like on forums, right?
I also guess that means every Google SoC participant - a programme used by many, many projects for many different things - are also now mouthpieces for Google. It's not like the SoC project you're referring to is 7 years old right? It's not like it only amounted to $5,000, I mean who would become Google's mouthpiece for as low a price as that?
Oh wait, that's all it was? $5,000 for development of a few projects 7 years ago, in which Google also gives to many other projects every year? Evil Google giving money freely to projects they won't directly benefit from. Evil EFF making use of it as many others have to help develop software. My world view is shaken to its very core.
You do realise the difference between demanding information on companies performing private lobbying to the FCC and the EFF characterising itself as being in the process of lobbying don't you? 'Cos if you didn't, that'd make you look stupid. Like you couldn't understand when someone is talking about lobbying, not characterising their own actions as lobbying. Evil EFF confusing silly AC's! What will they do next, criticise Google after being given $5,000 for 4 software projects 7 years ago?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
This one about Schmidt praises Google for deleting some moldy log files and calls it a "first step in the right direction."
It helps your cases if you can read, Nowhere in that link is this stated. I shouldn't be surprised that in the face of evidence, you outright lie about something that is actually linked.
The one about the new Google policy is laughable. Google is "applauded". Then the EFF explains that it's all okay because you can set up multiple accounts. Apparently disclosure is all it takes to make the EFF happy.
And yet again, bob can't understand the difference between calling transparency a positive step to actively endorsing Googles policy.
The one about the book settlement is a bit harsher but it only addresses a very narrow part of the debate. It complete ly ignores copyright.
And now this is where you really stretch things, primarily by changing the topic from privacy to copyright, making no sense in the process.
By automatically suspending allegedly pseudonymous accounts, Google was taking a bad idea one step further, with a potential for even more widespread chilling effects on freedom of expression than we’d seen on Facebook. This clash between Google and Google Plus users became known at Nymwars, which has expanded into a catch-all term for the debate over the role of pseudonymity online.
At the same time, let’s be clear: Google+’s latest changes are a good first step toward supporting pseudonyms, but they are not an acceptable end game. While some users will be satisfied, there is still no support for individuals who wish to establish new pseudonyms. For new activists, or people creating new identities with which to explore a new issue—such as gay rights or politics—Google+ is not a welcome place for them to build that identity.
You mean how they specifically argued for change in the Google reader agreement?
EFF is representing a coalition of authors and publishers — including best-sellers Michael Chabon Jonathan Lethem and technical author Bruce Schneier — in urging the Court to reject the proposed settlement unless it is amended or Google enforceably commits to ensure better reader privacy. The group of more than two dozen authors and publishers represented by EFF the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Samuelson Law Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California Berkeley School of Law (Samuelson clinic) filed an objection to the settlement in September 2009.
Re: Re: Re: That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
It's about time the EFF started calling Google on the massive surveillance going on at Google. After all of these years of being willfully silent, it has gotten plain embarrassing to watch them scold the NSA and everyone else while ignoring their benefactor. But that's how business is done.
You mean like when they criticised Eric Schmidts statements?
FF is representing a coalition of authors and publishers — including best-sellers Michael Chabon Jonathan Lethem and technical author Bruce Schneier — in urging the Court to reject the proposed settlement unless it is amended or Google enforceably commits to ensure better reader privacy. The group of more than two dozen authors and publishers represented by EFF the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Samuelson Law Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California Berkeley School of Law (Samuelson clinic) filed an objection to the settlement in September 2009.
Are you really going to keep claiming the EFF is in Googles pcokets? Because your claims are wearing even thinnger than they were before bob.
How exactly does a crap-tonne of free services like Jamendo, Bandcamp and P2P distribution not scale moreso than a major label with limited budget, reliance on selling CDs and a business that fundamentally relies on putting signed artists into some form of debt from the outset?
I can tell the word scale will no longer sound like a real word after this. Scale scale scale scale scale.
Though I find the idea of any success involving the internet not being scalable ludicrous. How much easier is it for any band and their dog to reach an audience now compared to the MTV days? How is the relative ease to reach out to people now somehow less workable for most artists than TV music channels that only play label backed music and require you to acquire rights for things like covers to be able to broadcast?
The idea isn't to create a sensoring system, it's to create a system that maintains the rule of US law for everyone who wants to do business here
Except by definition of what it is claimed SOPA/PIPA is needed for, it would affect you likely regardless of whether you *wanted* to do business in the US. You would be affected merely by proxy of being on an open web where citizens from other countries can use or view your site.
You are flying in the face of a technology where the origin doesn't matter because the reach is inherently global.
Maybe because using the word property in reference to something that cannot be exclusively owned in the same way a teapot can is misleading and an attempt at attaching ideas about how one owns a teapot to how one can forbid someone from sharing an MP3 ripped from a CD you already bought, or from watching you bought with the "wrong" device.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....
It would help your cause if the AFL-CIO didn't simply repeat statistics we know to be false, casting doubt on their support directly coming from their members and at the very least showing ignorance on the matter.
More than a few of the organisations you listed are part of the AFL-CIO as well (which is an alliance of 50+ unions I should add), likely meaning they're towing the same line because what else do you do when you're faced with unproven claims of harm and inflated employment statistics, do some fact checking?
Matthaigh: Did you encounter any problems when porting the code to iPhone/touch? Such as APIs you used?
It went very smoothly. The prBoom codebase that I based it on already compiled for OS X, so there wasn’t much grunt work, and I had all the device specific IO code that I developed for Wolfenstein Classic. Being able to take advantage of the GPL code that other people have maintained and improved over the years has been very satisfying for me. I always argued that we got worthwhile intangible benefits from my policy of releasing the source code to the older games, but with Wolfenstein Classic and DOOM Classic I can now point to significant amounts of labor that I was personally saved. In fact, the products probably never would have existed at all if my only option was to work from the original “dusty deck” source code for the games. If we were even able to find the original code at all. Hooray for open source!
It's even worse for the games industry, a medium far younger, yet encumbered by copyright in such a way that practically the only equivalent of any significant public domain is thanks to source code releases, IP infringing emulators and abandonware archive sites.
These aren't artists choosing to destroy or limit their own work. These are works being left behind precisely thanks to overbearing copyright laws and idiots such as yourself who are so focused on the short term you crap one everyone else after you.
That's pretty much one the reasons why this bill is so bad. The definitions aren't based in any sensible reality, they're based on:
1) A domain name being registered in a TLD (.co.uk for example) that isn't controlled by a U.S. entity
2) A site being accessible and usable by U.S. Citizens.
This is the point made in the article, and the point several of us made to an AC troll. If you argue it can't be used against certain "foreign sites" like google.co.uk, then what is it about them that is in any way immunised against SOPA? Because the standards in SOPA do not distinguish between sites hosted and owned in the U.S. that use a "foreign" domain name and sites outside the country that use a foreign domain name, which is also part of the reason the likes of thepiratebay.org doesn't come under SOPA.
This is how low the standard is in SOPA specifically:
(23) U.S.-DIRECTED SITE- The term `U.S.-directed site' means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States, or that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the Constitution of the United States, based on relevant evidence that may include whether--
(D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.
When pirate sites start simply listing prices in euros or pounds, does that mean we'll have to blocking currency converters? Will Google be forced to make its currency converter not list dollars any more?
After all, U.S. pirates can't buy things like the freetards they are if they can't convert from euros.
And here's why any country should be worried about the SOPA and PIPA from Michael Geist (currently taking part in the blackout, so you may have to wait to read the full article):
First, the SOPA provisions are designed to have an extra-territorial effect that manifests itself particularly strongly in Canada. As I discussed in a column last year, SOPA treats all dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org domain as domestic domain names for U.S. law purposes. Moreover, it defines "domestic Internet protocol addresses" - the numeric strings that constitute the actual address of a website or Internet connection - as "an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States." Yet IP addresses are allocated by regional organizations, not national ones. The allocation entity located in the U.S. is called ARIN, the American Registry for Internet Numbers. Its territory includes the U.S., Canada, and 20 Caribbean nations. This bill treats all IP addresses in this region as domestic for U.S. law purposes. To put this is context, every Canadian Internet provider relies on ARIN for its block of IP addresses. In fact, ARIN even allocates the block of IP addresses used by federal and provincial governments. The U.S. bill would treat them all as domestic for U.S. law purposes.
Second, Canadian businesses and websites could easily find themselves targeted by SOPA. The bill grants the U.S. "in rem" jurisdiction over any website that does not have a domestic jurisdictional connection. For those sites, the U.S. grants jurisdiction over the property of the site and opens the door to court orders requiring Internet providers to block the site and Internet search engines to stop linking to it. Should a Canadian website owner wish to challenge the court order, U.S. law asserts itself in another way, since in order for an owner to file a challenge (described as a "counter notification"), the owner must first consent to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts.