the difference between this and the prenda circus is that prenda pissed off the court. the dmca takedown system is extrajudicial, meaning no court ever has to see it. and they have (honestly, sincerely) more important things to deal with than a bunch of entitled ostriches throwing a hissy over imaginary property rights.
therefore it seems that the solution must also be extrajudicial. there should be some way we, the people, should be able to call out and publicly shame those that abuse the dmca takedown provision.
but real leadership requires courage. courage to take risks on new unproven technology. courage to change the company drastically in a short period of time, because while the new tech might be profitable after a period of time, it will almost certainly eat into their current revenue stream on day 0. and implementing the new thing, even the internal changes needed to accommodate the new thing, will also drain their profits on day 0. and it also takes courage, when their initiatives fail, to admit that they have failed. that they, the leaders, failed. to admit that the investment on the future they made was a bad investment, or that they failed to leverage it properly. and then to pick themselves back up and try again. it takes courage.
blaming piracy and stopping new innovations, while doomed to fail, is a *safe* strategy. presumably safe. safe for their jobs. safe for their profits. safe for their companies. it is a strategy that can be presented to "the board", and when it fails, it is not their fault, but the fault of "all these damn pirates". by controlling the conversation, by framing it as "us against the pirates" and "the pirates just want to steal our money", they keep the board thinking that the problem is not that the current business model is outdated, but that the foes they face are harder to defeat than previously thought, and therefore more is needed; more laws, more object lessons, more extra-judicial means of redress. not because, as they would say, the battle is unwinnable; but because they have already invested so much into they existing system, that to discard it now would be tantamount to financial suicide. catch-up is a very hard game to win with regards to recent technology.
while i understand this, i do not pity them. they had their chance. 20 years ago they could have crushed online piracy today. and that innovation might not have been successful the first time around. it might have taken several attempts. it might have destroyed the business that tried it first. but it would have been a chance. by following this route for decades, for playing it "safe" for decades, for trying to maintain the status quo in a universe driven by entropy, change, and evolution, they have sealed their own fate of eventual obsolescence. it is too late for them. to those businesses I say, "please, just go away and die. we don't need you anymore."
regarding the use of the loopback IP (127.0.0.1); yes. that should have been in one of the "documentation IP ranges": http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5737
3. Documentation Address Blocks
The blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3) are provided for use in documentation.
Shame the addresses aren't as recognizable as 127.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/16, 172.16.0.0/20, or 10.0.0.0/8.
yes, but MIT (iirc) smacked that down pretty hard since they (along with CMU iirc) have been using "The Big Game" for their competition for over a hundred years.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by beltorak.
Re: Turnabout is fair play
wait, it gets better; after they prove to me that their content is not infringing on anything and it's reinstated, my neighbor will take it down....
wash, rinse, repeat.
do as i say, not as i do (?)
they can't do that; they might actually have to start acting like adults. from what i hear they don't take too kindly to criticism.
Re:
And copyright violations become "thought trespasses".
And copyright enforcement becomes "thought control".
I like where this is going; thanks :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: one for the lawyers
the difference between this and the prenda circus is that prenda pissed off the court. the dmca takedown system is extrajudicial, meaning no court ever has to see it. and they have (honestly, sincerely) more important things to deal with than a bunch of entitled ostriches throwing a hissy over imaginary property rights.
therefore it seems that the solution must also be extrajudicial. there should be some way we, the people, should be able to call out and publicly shame those that abuse the dmca takedown provision.
Re: Re: Re: They are amazingly blind
but real leadership requires courage. courage to take risks on new unproven technology. courage to change the company drastically in a short period of time, because while the new tech might be profitable after a period of time, it will almost certainly eat into their current revenue stream on day 0. and implementing the new thing, even the internal changes needed to accommodate the new thing, will also drain their profits on day 0. and it also takes courage, when their initiatives fail, to admit that they have failed. that they, the leaders, failed. to admit that the investment on the future they made was a bad investment, or that they failed to leverage it properly. and then to pick themselves back up and try again. it takes courage.
blaming piracy and stopping new innovations, while doomed to fail, is a *safe* strategy. presumably safe. safe for their jobs. safe for their profits. safe for their companies. it is a strategy that can be presented to "the board", and when it fails, it is not their fault, but the fault of "all these damn pirates". by controlling the conversation, by framing it as "us against the pirates" and "the pirates just want to steal our money", they keep the board thinking that the problem is not that the current business model is outdated, but that the foes they face are harder to defeat than previously thought, and therefore more is needed; more laws, more object lessons, more extra-judicial means of redress. not because, as they would say, the battle is unwinnable; but because they have already invested so much into they existing system, that to discard it now would be tantamount to financial suicide. catch-up is a very hard game to win with regards to recent technology.
while i understand this, i do not pity them. they had their chance. 20 years ago they could have crushed online piracy today. and that innovation might not have been successful the first time around. it might have taken several attempts. it might have destroyed the business that tried it first. but it would have been a chance. by following this route for decades, for playing it "safe" for decades, for trying to maintain the status quo in a universe driven by entropy, change, and evolution, they have sealed their own fate of eventual obsolescence. it is too late for them. to those businesses I say, "please, just go away and die. we don't need you anymore."
Re: Re: Re: Re:
regarding the use of the loopback IP (127.0.0.1); yes. that should have been in one of the "documentation IP ranges": http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5737
Shame the addresses aren't as recognizable as 127.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/16, 172.16.0.0/20, or 10.0.0.0/8.
Re:
actually it's much more likely that amazon just doesn't want to deal with the refunds. as far as i know they have not taken a stand against DRM.
Re:
actually it would be quite simple; do what the pirates do and bundle a local server into the game for "offline mode".
Re: Re: Re: Re: To any Frustrated Aussies
No, fuck that, the problem is not the servers going offline, but that the software is defective. Repair it by removing the bug~~~ I mean DRM.
Re:
To be fair, unless the congress critter is the very same one acting in both ways, you cannot make that accusation of hypocrisy.
Re: Re: is 'euphamism'...
;)
Re:
yes, but MIT (iirc) smacked that down pretty hard since they (along with CMU iirc) have been using "The Big Game" for their competition for over a hundred years.