Same, but most people also don't realize how insane Imaginary Property laws have become, which is a big part of why they don't care.
Tell someone for example that businesses don't play the radio in public anymore due to fear of being sued/shaken, that copying a song for a friend to listen to is considered a crime worthy of thousands of dollars in fines, and various other similar things, and suddenly that 'don't care' attitude tends to turn to disgust/opposition pretty quick.
Yes, I suppose that is one possibility, though it would seem the more likely(and logical) reason for an essay like that to be gone through point-by-point, showing where it was grossly inaccurate, could be due to the fact that it is mock-worthy.
Because MU wasn't free to do with the servers as they wished, as they were considered evidence, or containing evidence, of the DoJ's investigation, and therefor could not be touched.
Add to that the DoJ seized all of Dotcom's funds and refused to allow him to pay for the servers(which would not have been a cheap thing to do), and the DoJ pretty much did everything short of ordering the servers to be wiped.
Because before they internet and all the opportunities it presented came about, it was.
Weren't signed with a label? No radio time, no presence in stores, nothing more than maybe playing local gigs, and since people had to know about you to be interested in listening to you, without a label that was pretty much as 'famous' as a musician could get, and the labels knew, and took shameless advantage of, this.
With the internet though, suddenly there are all sorts of new ways for artists to make a living, and best of all without having to sign over the rights to all to their stuff to the parasites in return for maybe getting rich and famous.
You forget, US government/corporate(not that there's much of a difference these days) thinking is that every country should do what the US tells them, with two of those 'suggestions' being 'never compete with US interests', and 'never make US law look bad by providing counter-examples', something that Bollywood is currently doing quite well.
1. Government commits crime.
2. Government classifies any data or evidence relating to said crime.
3. Government makes it illegal to leak or even talk about classified information.
4. Government finds itself in the position of being completely unaccountable for anything it does, as to expose their actions to public scrutiny and the possibility of justice one has to first break the law to do so, and even then evidence is forbidden from being presented, as it's 'classified', making any court case against the government impossible.
And the whistleblowers are supposed to be the enemies of the country?
And of course if they did adopt 'international norms' as far as copyright went, and in turn saw sales and creation take a dive, they would, without a doubt, blame piracy, rather than the stifling effects of those same IP laws they cherish so much.
Personally I'm guessing they are either trying to get rid of a competitor by bringing it down to hollywood levels, and/or get rid of a perfect example that proves that more copyright enforcement with stricter laws isn't the way to more creation and sales, and instead it's the direct opposite.
Oh it get's better, as they have no real oversight, there's nothing at all stopping them from creating any 'records' to use in that manner, because who exactly is going to be willing and able to call them out on it?
While I would agree that Steam sales would seem to suggest that people would have no problem paying for new games if they prices were dropped like that, the idea that if the competition that is used games were to go away publishers would even be willing to consider doing so strikes me as rather naive.
You're talking about people and groups that consider millions of sales to be a failure, long term planning(or even basic budgeting), or even just willing to adapt is just kinda beyond them, so charging less, so that they could sell more, would probably never even occur to them.
'I have no sympathy for gamers. Let them burn. Let them suffer. They deserve it for being so short-sighted, so lazy, so incredibly stupid.'
I wish I could argue against this more, but like you said if gamers as a whole were willing to stand up for themselves, companies like EA would have gone broke years ago, so unfortunately it comes down to individual gamers who are willing to pass on what might be great games, rather than pay companies who have shown nothing but contempt for their 'customers'.
Okay, that video was excellent, nailed the point perfectly.
Especially liked the ending there, where he compares the publishers and their actions with that of a 10-year old kid, who wants things regardless of reality, and then throws a fit when they don't get it.
That has got the be the most blunt and downright honest 'It doesn't matter what concerns people have over this trade agreement, as I plan on ignoring all of them'-type statement I've yet heard relating to TPP 'negotiations'.
If it's been said once it's been said a hundred times: if you don't want to be tracked by Google, don't use their products/services.
The fact that you claim that you are still 'being spied on' by them suggests either that you have fallen for the 'Google is everything' lie that the *AA's and several governments have been pushing, or that despite claiming to hate their 'spying' on you, you continue to use their products, like a masochist that just cannot get enough suffering and/or needs something to complain about.