this is the simple convenience that file-sharers contribute to the overall 'experience'. also, it states in copyright law that if you modify a significant piece of copyrighted material, that you are in fact authorized to apply new copyright to the result. just like the music studios 'remaster' albums, they get a new copyright.
so if file sharing 'pirates' redact 20min of commercials from a 60min show, that is a 30% modification, and should have a new copyright applied. the **AAs do this all the time, so why is this infringing for others to do the same thing?
true, I was simply using the idiots own statements to make him look like a fool, even if 1% purchased a translated version, that is still 7 million he would never have seen BECAUSE of his Publisher.
it's simple, file-sharing is here to stay, period, adapt your business model or gtfo.
or all the despicable Russians learning English as a second language, how dare they take legitimate work from the Russian-English Book Publishing Translation Industry by supplying a service that is needed, at a cost NOT inflated beyond logic, depraving Book Publishers their 3rd or 4th Mercedes!
it's amazing how you gloss over the fact of 'anything NOT distributed by the legacy dinosaurs' is bad, mmmkay.
let's just look at the figures.
1) his own publisher won't make a Russian version available.
2) only 90% of eBooks are file-shared.
So, out of 141,930,000 russians whom would NEVER even have access to the eBook, potentially 14,193,000 (10%) would buy it. At 4.99$/eBook, that's almost 71 million in revenue he never would have seen.
so, now that I have blown your stupid comment out of the water, what other idiocy are you going to fall back on?
one point no one is considering here. Mega is on trial, not this guy's files. to legally review his accounts contents, there would have to be probable cause, and a warrant to search thru his content.
**AA scrutiny of his content is so far outside juristiction, justice itself, constitutional rights, and serious privacy violations; irrespective of what is contained in the account, that it just baffles the mind.
its no longer, do as i say, not as i do, its more like;
fuck you, and i will do whatever the fuck i want.
then fair is fair, $150,000 fine for the first offense, and each and every subsequent offense. Throttle DMCA notices from 10,000 a week, to 10. Should the behaviour continue, no DMCA notices for a year and possible jail time for the CEO of the company, after all, corporations are people too.
This is a great idea. Lockstep punishments on both sides. 3 strikes for false take downs, and you get your ability banned, repeat infringements should get a graduated system where if you are, not convicted, but alleged to employ a DMCA take down more than 3 times, the punishment increases. And the end-users are allowed to do the alleging, no proof needed. If found allegedly infringing on the DMCA system more than 9 times, there will be a $150,000 fine for each additional erroneous take down request. Eventually removing your ability to send DMCA take downs at all, period.
now if this doesn't confirm the fact that you are a corporate troll, just loitering around Techdirt to slant and confuse every single story dealing with copyright nothing does.
You are a narrow minded, self centered, copyright maximalist that does nothing but 'la la la' I can't hear you. 'I have rights!! dammit' verbal diarrhea is falling on deaf and tired ears here.
Have you not realized that you have not changed a single informed opinion here with your diatribe? I got news for you, the continued maximalist position of your troll masters will, in fact, only change more fence sitters to the side of change, SPECIFICALLY because of your inane stupidity and increasing irrelevancy.
any near semblance to the original fairy tale as depicted by Disney would be sued out of existence as a derivative work of the Disney version. This is how they steal from the public domain to copyright it. Just like Robin Hood, Cinderella, Snow White, Hansel $ Gretel, all remakes from the public domain. One could make the argument that Disney has nary a creative bone in their respective 'corporate' body.
Why not make original movies from original stories? Oh, because they can't, hence the 'theft' from the public domain.
A wise man once said, 'Judge not by words, but by deeds', and on that note, I will continue to file share the remakes how I see fit, because they were mine to begin with.
yes, I periodically have to buy new ones. I get G-Drives now that are much more reliable, and I mirror over 10Tb on them, so if one dies, I can swap it out for another.
absolutely agreed, I think this is what the MAFIAA fears most, is ppl that simply stop buying their offerings due to the fact you can easily accumulate a massive library that will occupy your time for years to come.
I myself have taken to the habit of simply buying hard drives instead of burning digital content to media that degrades.
if we could simply go with an opt-in copyright, and severe fines for mis-representing copyright (think bogus DMCA takedowns), copyright would fix itself.
make the cost of opt-in, say $10USD, and misrepresenting copyright fines beginning at $500USD, the system would fix itself.
the big content cartels have to pay for their copyrights, with that comes self-policing, no more 'do my dirty work for me to prop up a broken business model'
infringement notices must come with a copy of the registered copyright, and misrepresentations are immediately fined. and fines are matched by ContentID, file a claim, don't own the copyright, your response would be a fine, which could go towards paying for ContentID system.
proof of infringement beyond a doubt, fines related would kill alot of bullshit surrounding copyright already.
Re: Commercials
this is the simple convenience that file-sharers contribute to the overall 'experience'. also, it states in copyright law that if you modify a significant piece of copyrighted material, that you are in fact authorized to apply new copyright to the result. just like the music studios 'remaster' albums, they get a new copyright.
so if file sharing 'pirates' redact 20min of commercials from a 60min show, that is a 30% modification, and should have a new copyright applied. the **AAs do this all the time, so why is this infringing for others to do the same thing?
Re: Re: Re: "In the U.S., book piracy is a growing problem."
true, I was simply using the idiots own statements to make him look like a fool, even if 1% purchased a translated version, that is still 7 million he would never have seen BECAUSE of his Publisher.
it's simple, file-sharing is here to stay, period, adapt your business model or gtfo.
Re: Re:
or all the despicable Russians learning English as a second language, how dare they take legitimate work from the Russian-English Book Publishing Translation Industry by supplying a service that is needed, at a cost NOT inflated beyond logic, depraving Book Publishers their 3rd or 4th Mercedes!
Re: "In the U.S., book piracy is a growing problem."
it's amazing how you gloss over the fact of 'anything NOT distributed by the legacy dinosaurs' is bad, mmmkay.
let's just look at the figures.
1) his own publisher won't make a Russian version available.
2) only 90% of eBooks are file-shared.
So, out of 141,930,000 russians whom would NEVER even have access to the eBook, potentially 14,193,000 (10%) would buy it. At 4.99$/eBook, that's almost 71 million in revenue he never would have seen.
so, now that I have blown your stupid comment out of the water, what other idiocy are you going to fall back on?
but, but, but piracy!
You sir, should not be allowed to breed.
speaking of probability..
one point no one is considering here. Mega is on trial, not this guy's files. to legally review his accounts contents, there would have to be probable cause, and a warrant to search thru his content.
**AA scrutiny of his content is so far outside juristiction, justice itself, constitutional rights, and serious privacy violations; irrespective of what is contained in the account, that it just baffles the mind.
its no longer, do as i say, not as i do, its more like;
fuck you, and i will do whatever the fuck i want.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
YOU need the shock therapy.. everyone else on the planet sees the bullshit that is copyright today, wtf is blinding you?
pay from the MPAA? thought so..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
+1, marked funny =]
Re: Re: Re:
if only Mike would give me this guyz IP address, he would never bother Techdirt again.
Re: Re: absoutely
then fair is fair, $150,000 fine for the first offense, and each and every subsequent offense. Throttle DMCA notices from 10,000 a week, to 10. Should the behaviour continue, no DMCA notices for a year and possible jail time for the CEO of the company, after all, corporations are people too.
absoutely
This is a great idea. Lockstep punishments on both sides. 3 strikes for false take downs, and you get your ability banned, repeat infringements should get a graduated system where if you are, not convicted, but alleged to employ a DMCA take down more than 3 times, the punishment increases. And the end-users are allowed to do the alleging, no proof needed. If found allegedly infringing on the DMCA system more than 9 times, there will be a $150,000 fine for each additional erroneous take down request. Eventually removing your ability to send DMCA take downs at all, period.
Re:
6 whole minutes?!?!
now if this doesn't confirm the fact that you are a corporate troll, just loitering around Techdirt to slant and confuse every single story dealing with copyright nothing does.
You are a narrow minded, self centered, copyright maximalist that does nothing but 'la la la' I can't hear you. 'I have rights!! dammit' verbal diarrhea is falling on deaf and tired ears here.
Have you not realized that you have not changed a single informed opinion here with your diatribe? I got news for you, the continued maximalist position of your troll masters will, in fact, only change more fence sitters to the side of change, SPECIFICALLY because of your inane stupidity and increasing irrelevancy.
Re: Re: Re:
any near semblance to the original fairy tale as depicted by Disney would be sued out of existence as a derivative work of the Disney version. This is how they steal from the public domain to copyright it. Just like Robin Hood, Cinderella, Snow White, Hansel $ Gretel, all remakes from the public domain. One could make the argument that Disney has nary a creative bone in their respective 'corporate' body.
Why not make original movies from original stories? Oh, because they can't, hence the 'theft' from the public domain.
A wise man once said, 'Judge not by words, but by deeds', and on that note, I will continue to file share the remakes how I see fit, because they were mine to begin with.
Re: Re: Re: agreed
yes, I periodically have to buy new ones. I get G-Drives now that are much more reliable, and I mirror over 10Tb on them, so if one dies, I can swap it out for another.
Re: agreed
absolutely agreed, I think this is what the MAFIAA fears most, is ppl that simply stop buying their offerings due to the fact you can easily accumulate a massive library that will occupy your time for years to come.
I myself have taken to the habit of simply buying hard drives instead of burning digital content to media that degrades.
Re:
Sure they would, once an entertainment tax is law, like sales tax, or income tax, and of course the Internet must be banned.
Re:
always within the 5th post, i'll give you one for tenacity.
well
if your not outraged, your not paying attention.
Re: Re: opt-in copyright
I don't like the idea of 100 years copyright, even if its opt-in.
opt-in copyright
if we could simply go with an opt-in copyright, and severe fines for mis-representing copyright (think bogus DMCA takedowns), copyright would fix itself.
make the cost of opt-in, say $10USD, and misrepresenting copyright fines beginning at $500USD, the system would fix itself.
the big content cartels have to pay for their copyrights, with that comes self-policing, no more 'do my dirty work for me to prop up a broken business model'
infringement notices must come with a copy of the registered copyright, and misrepresentations are immediately fined. and fines are matched by ContentID, file a claim, don't own the copyright, your response would be a fine, which could go towards paying for ContentID system.
proof of infringement beyond a doubt, fines related would kill alot of bullshit surrounding copyright already.
see, right there!
see, right there, that. you just described the ball of yarn chaos that is copyright.
attempting to support your outdated, useless copyright maximal-ism with the first amendment is just mind blowing.
"ive got rights, IVE GOT RIGHT!!", keep chanting..