” From here on out, there shall be no battle between “good” and “evil” on this site.”

Do you promise? Can we hold you to this one?

Why?

Why not ignore them, and their obviously flawed business models, and only buy from people who have the business models you like?

No piracy to backfill your entertainment catalog though – just deal with the people you like.

Stop trying to change them – start trying to beat them.

Additionally, I want their government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies abolished. I also want laws increasing the punishment for those who threaten restaurants and other venues who want to host independent performers without paying them a licensing fee (and who threaten bakeries who want to allow children to draw custom pictures on their birthday cakes).

These government established monopoly subsidies are the only reason these losers can continue, their continued control over these communication channels is a burden to the rest of us, and in a free market these meritless media giants would have died a long time ago.

Hey when your head is stuck up your ass the whole world looks like shit.

The ‘entitled’ entertainer line is so deeply misguided.
I can’t think of anything that better describes entitlement than some college kid, still living with ma and pa, downloading the latest Keane album against the band’s wishes.
Because why? They deserve free music, or they are fighting copyright?
Fight copyright democratically by changing laws.
Deserve free music by making it yourself, create a vibrant, humming market place where great music is shared freely and with the agreement of the creative people involved.
Anything is else is just plain wrong, and no amount of fake negativity you can project on your opposers changes that.
There IS NO law that says you can’t make movies, music and books and share it free of charge with each other. It’s pure BS to claim the established entertainment industry can stop you, or are TRYING to stop you.

They don?t believe that human history goes back a lot further than the beginnings of copyright law.

Bollox.
Everyone understands history.
The question is are you for living in the past (pre-copyright), or for evolution?
Artists don’t want to go back to amateur status, or to have to rely on patronage and charity to be creative. We’ve moved forward from that darker age.
If you want to evolve artists rights, you have to do it democratically, and that probably means persuading ordinary artists you are in their corner, pushing for a better future. By asking us to look back at culture before copyright, you are acting like a fundamentalist, asking us to look at society before women had a vote, or gay people could associate without breaking the law.
Bringing creative people along with your vision is the positive way forward, not mocking creative people and suggesting they travel back in time.

They can try.
If piracy was air combat pirates would be using F-22 Raptors against the MAFIAA radars.

Blow a gasket is the best they can hope for today.

People don’t need to convince anybody the mere fact that people can ignore laws just make the point.

Artists can come along or be left behind that is your choice.

You don’t have any powers, you are not that special and you don’t deserve special privileges that nobody else gets.

Lets see how you feel when resources you need to do something are locked away beyond your reach.

I make my movie. I upload it to Youtube and Vimeo. Lots of people are doing it.
I record my album.
I offer it as a free download from Soundcloud, or from my own website.
Lots of people are doing it.
What is this ‘barrier to entry’?

It’s pure BS to claim the established entertainment industry can stop you, or are TRYING to stop you.

DMCA take down abuse.
MPAA rating schemes have been called into question.
Numerous services killed or impeded by predatory tactics (current: Spotify, netflix).
Collection rackets.
Absurdities of the Megaupload case.
Broad over-reaching censoring the Pirate Bay in Sweden.
Attack on an internet protocol and attacks on basic principles of the internet under the excuse of fighting piracy.

There is no hard evidence, but the idea can not be so simply dismissed.

Those being mocked are those who have repeatedly claimed that there is no way for them to make money without copyright,

Is not what most are saying. Most artists are saying their ability to sustain their business is materially harmed by unauthorized downloading. It isn’t an argument solely about copyright, It’s about people consuming without paying back.

Partners: Labels, studios, publishers.
Important distinction.
In the age of patronage, you struggled to find someone to fund your projects.
In the modern age you have multiple choices for funding, including self funding, crowdfunding and partners, such as labels.
I’m against reducing the choices to charity and patronage.

Megaupload got taken down for no good reason, increasing the costs to those who want to upload their content, for one thing. Other services are now altering how they offer service, Scribd and others no longer allow people to view books without registering first (for example), and all these obstacles increase the effort that people must exert to get their content distributed and that customers must exert to access permissibly licensed content.

These create barriers to entry for new service providers and increase the costs of new and existing service providers in ways that invariably harm content distributors and consumers alike.

Also see

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/20/1551255/youtube-ordered-to-remove-videos-filter-future-uploads-by-german-court

There are artificial barriers to broadcast and cableco content distribution as well as artificial legal barriers that deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers. These do make it more difficult for newcomers to enter the market.

Yes, thanks to the Internet and the efforts and merit and hard work of many (but absolutely no thanks to the worse than useless incumbents), newcomers are more able to enter the market and, as a result, they are entering. This creates unwanted competition among the worthless incumbents who’s continued existence is entirely predicated on government assistance in the form of anti-competitive laws that are nothing but a burden to everyone else. Competition is precisely why incumbents are trying to get more laws passed, not (just) to stop infringement, but to increase the burden against (potential) competitors. This is exactly what they have wrongfully done outside the Internet through self serving legislation. Likewise, it’s, no doubt, what they intent to do to the Internet as well.

(yes, they want to stop infringement, but that’s secondary. Their primary objective is to stop competition).

You guys have just GOT to stop deluding yourselves.
Newspapers and magazines are dying. Why? Quality and legal competition.
So if you want to kill the gatekeepers and mainstream content providers, all you have to do is offer something the same quality and free.
It’s absolutely clear people are copyright infringing mainstream product BECAUSE the free alternative isn’t as good and isn’t as numerous.
Ignore us out of existence. Please, go on and do it.
Don’t enjoy our product without paying for it. Bypass it!!!

Seriously? No citation needed.
You just need to browse any torrent sites, or The Pirate Bay.
Lot’s of unauthoprized mainstream content, not so much authorized free content.

Fact is, you need to stop your collective whining about copyright and the entertainment establishment, and bypass the whole thing altogether by doing it yourself, EXACTLY like news bloggers, Huffington Post etc have done.
The evidence is on the web. But I guess it’s harder to make a movie and record an album than it is to write a news blog. maybe that’s why you are whining and not just doing it?

People already fight it democratically.

Everybody agreed without help or consulting with others that the best course of action is to ignore it until it is cut to size or done away completely.

You are the one trying to fight something that it is normal to criminalize it, unfortunately you have the government on your side, but without public support that means exactly nothing.

People deserve the freedom to enjoy and share that joy without guilty trips or being prosecuted, it was, it is and will continue to be that way, legally or illegally and it doesn’t matter what you think about it.

The behavior you point to as being entitlement is just humans being human. We are all taught at an early age to share, because sharing is how we learn

Such nonsense.
We are all taught NOT to take another child’s toy without asking them.
Sharing is a two way street by definition. The downloaders are not contributing anything. So it just becomes taking, not sharing.
You can’t share something if it is taken against your wishes.
The only entitlement musicians have is set in law. They are perfectly ENTITLED to act within the law.
If you don’t like the laws change them. But don’t pretend we are ‘sharing’ when you take my work without my agreement.

By copyfraud, abuse of DMCA takedowns, copyright abuse.

It doesn’t need more than that, when you abuse an exclusionary tool what you get is a lot of angry people and you can’t see why?

Ask the people who had their videos excluded from Youtube because of false/wrong claims it happens a lot and you can’t see that as a problem?

Remember the guy who got his songbird recording taken down?
Remember the mother who got in jail because it filmed her daughters birthday in a theater?
Remember the thousands of people who were blackmailed to pay or face having to go to a court of law to explain how they could never have download a porn movie?
Lets ask mayers what they think about having to raise taxes to pay for the fee collection agencies are trying to collect because of busking.
Lets see you find a place to play without having to deal with collection agencies.
Lets see you explain why people can’t offer unmanned printing services to others because of the risks that someone will print something that he should not.

And the evidence keeps mounting.

Even for historical purposes copyBS is just that BS if it were not for pirates part of Dr. Who would be lost forever.

Explain why somebody else doing all the performing, doing the hours should pay you idiot for doing nothing?

Explain why don’t you pay royalties to the manufacturer of the tools you use to work?

So what you still don’t deserve a monopoly.

Why don’t you do it yourself too?
Why don’t you enforce your “rights” on your own?
Why the public needs to pay for enforcing your privileges?
Why don’t you go work for a change and do real work instead of trying to force others to fallow ridiculous rules that nobody on earth respects or fallow?

Grow up, be a man and work, stop whining about what others are doing, tend to what is really yours and you will get paid, try to meddle where you have no business sticking your funny nose in it and you will get bitch slapped every time.

You analogy has no basis in reality. It’s a wild fantasy.
That’s the problem here. If you can’t persuade people copyright is a negative with real examples, you make some crazy analogies up.
Simple fact, as I’ve repeated numerous times, and which hasn’t been contradicted by anyone yet, make a movie and post it on Youtube, make a record and release it freely on Soundcloud or thru your own website. Then see if anyone from the established industry tries to stop you.
They wont, because people are doing those things every day. Just not enough of them, and not enough good DIY movies and music for your liking.

Simple fact, as I’ve repeated numerous times, and which hasn’t been contradicted by anyone yet, make a movie and post it on Youtube, make a record and release it freely on Soundcloud or thru your own website. Then see if anyone from the established industry tries to stop you.

Emphasis added.

Remember the guy who got his songbird recording taken down?

That was posted on Youtube. It was not infringing and it still received a DCMA take down notice. As such, not only do we have evidence (one of many many examples) that your statement is not a solid fact, but it has already been pointed out in this thread.

At this point you are demonstrably resorting to disingenuity, suggesting that your arguments can not stand on their own merits.

By the way, I’m a programmer and fully intend to contribute to the large volume of open source software out there. I have, after all, found it to be quite useful in my educational endeavors.

Open source software, by the way, has reached a level where it can easily supplant most proprietary software. At this point, I think the biggest exception to this is drafting tools (which will change relatively soon). Large companies still make plenty of money, as most are designing for either internal use or commissioned products. Those that tried to block off the market, the way the RIAA/MPAA have, got shot down with anti-trust suits and have primarily focused on convenience ever since (Microsoft for one, not that we don’t still have to keep an eye on them).

Quote:

The only entitlement musicians have is set in law.

The funny part in that statement is trying to use the law as the supreme rule when you know it doesn’t matter at all.

If you thought for one moment that the law was just and correct and you had the upperhand in the public’s eye you would put your face everywhere and bash everybody else using your own name, but as it happens the law is unpopular and any attempts of artists to try and complain about it in public were met with severe financial consequences that is why you hide isn’t it, because even though the law say one thing you don’t have the power or the support to make it out in the open and could be punished by that crap you spout.

Yep the law is all you need, I see now.

The problem with your lobby is that many of it’s spokespeople advocate downloading without an artist’s wishes.

[Citation needed]
ipl hair removal reviews