Italy Tells Rest Of EU To Drop Articles 11 And 13 From The Copyright Directive
from the protect-web-users dept
Italy, which under its previous government had been supporters of Articles 11 and 13 in the EU Copyright Directive, has now made a pretty clear statement that if the country is going to support the latest directive, it needs to protect the users of the web, and the only way to do that is to remove Articles 11 and 13:
“The priority for Italy is the elimination of the link tax and direct or indirect filters on the content uploaded by the users of the platforms, together with an extension of the exceptions to copyright allowing the development of the data economy. Under these conditions, Italy is ready to adhere to a proposal that should come from the Romanian Presidency “.
“We are calling for change at the European level – concludes the Minister – of the famous articles 11 and article 13 of the directive. The network must be kept free and neutral because it is a fundamental infrastructure for the free expression of citizens as well as for the Italian system and for the European Union itself “.
That’s a pretty clear and direct statement. Italy is not looking for yet another round of negotiations on this. It thinks that a link tax and mandatory upload filters are clearly bad for the public. Good for them. Of course, getting other countries to agree with them would help.
Filed Under: article 11, article 13, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, italy
Comments on “Italy Tells Rest Of EU To Drop Articles 11 And 13 From The Copyright Directive”
when italy is the voice of reason within the EU, you know something is very wrong
Re: Re:
It’s not surprising.
Italy was one of the countries alongside Greece to implement harsher penalties and laws for piracy in recent years, enforcing Hollywood’s laws on their behalf.
They’ve finally got their heads out of their collective rectums and realized that this relationship of letting Hollywood fund its celebrities with the money of Italian citizens was pretty bloody dumb.
Re: Re: Re:
You are writing about a country as if it were a single entity, capable of doing this or that. But that’s ultimately a fascist argument and surely was exploited by Nazis in their time. Therefore one should clearly name the culprits: it was the former Italian governments that got their heads in their rectums (consisting of person X and Y, but the list would get rather long). Now with another government with new people who don’t have their heads in the rectum to begin with it’s very different.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, three comments in and the thread gets Godwin’d. Is that a record, dood?
Re: Re: Re:2
Nope, dood. There’s at least one article out there with a Nazi reference in the first comment, dood.
The real question is whether the comparison is apt, dood. It may well be an apt comparison, and denying the ability of anyone to refer to the Nazi regime and tactics in any argument ever is problematic, dood.
Now if you care to demonstrate how the comparison is not apt, then feel free, dood, but Godwin’s law doesn’t automatically invalidate an argument, dood.
Re: Re:
That was my first thought. I was not surprised that the French were the ones still trying to push the silliness, but I wouldn’t have guessed that the Italians would be the voice of reason.
Re: Re: Re:
Sure "the French were the ones still trying to push the silliness", they plan a secret comeback of the Minitel.
Re: Today's Double Feature: Return Of The Zombies!
Yes, no less than TWO NEARLY IDENTICAL ZOMBIE "ACCOUNTS" POPPED UP THIS STORY!
drewmerc: 84 (10), 22 month gap; 47 mo gap; 28 May 2009 https://www.techdirt.com/user/drewmerc
Natanael L: 75 (9), 25 month gap; 48 month gap; 23 Jun 2009 https://www.techdirt.com/user/natanael_l
Anyone can easily verify the above: A TWO YEAR GAP, A FOUR YEAR GAP, and started within month of each other nearly NINE years ago!
Astro-turfing, period.
New readers beware. This site is for entertainment purposes only.
Re: Re: Today's Double Feature: Return Of The Zombies!
New readers beware: this knucklehead is for entertainment purposes only. Poking him may result in amusing, illogical antics, but there may be collateral damage, including but not limited to:
your time
your sanity
your faith in humanity
your ideas
This has been a Public Service Announcement.
Re: Re: Today's Double Feature: Return Of The Zombies!
Pot meets kettle.
Re: Populist parties who actually keep faith with the people?
Italy’s left-right populist government is driving EU budget authorities crazy. (It also seems to be driving Wikipedia historians crazy, since when I checked this morning, the history-of-Italy page stopped at year 2016.) But at least on this issue (IP maximalism), populism is also good government.
Re: Re: Populist parties who actually keep faith with the people
The populists in France, unfortunately, support article 13 and 11; the populists in The Netherlands are against it. I didn’t check the remainder, but lobbying focus should also go to these MEP’s.
Re: Populist parties who actually keep faith with the people?
Italy’s left-right populist government is driving EU budget authorities crazy. (It also seems to be driving Wikipedia historians crazy, since when I checked this morning, the history-of-Italy page stopped at year 2016.) But at least on this issue (IP maximalism), populism is also good government.
To be fair, it’s the MBAs and lawyers that are funded by this abomination.
"Celebrity: Someone who is famous for having achieved high name recognition."
"MBA: A program for inducing sociopathic behavior in susceptible individuals."
Lol..
"We did this already, it doesn’t work"
I’m following Mikes call to arms and am pestering the mailboxes of MEPs daily (well, starting yesterday). Of course as constructive as possible. A friend says he wants to help pestering, I’ll have to make sure of that.
Re: Re:
That will likely get you on all kinds of red-flag lists.
Re: Re: Re:
I’ll take your word for it. Obviously you’ve got a lot of experience with red flags.
Re: Go you good thing
Good stuff.
We need all the allies we can muster.
Something has to be done to minimize piracy well beyond the level that exists now.
What is the alternative to Articles 11/13?
Re: Have a navy patrol
If you want to do something about piracy you should have the navy patrol more in the areas where pirates operate. Have ground support for cleaning out the pirate’s bases.
Stopping “unauthorized copying” is hard. The Internet works because computers and routers make copies. Determining which copies are authorized is a hard problem. Remember the analog tapes where you could copy the music from your friends’ LPs?
And lastly, can you tell me why corporations should decide which people can have access to “culture” and consequently other people should be denied access?
Re: Re:
First, article 11 has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
Secondly, there is no catch all solution that works for everyone in regards to article 13. The problem is compounded by the fact that copyright law as it is today doesn’t work as intended – it’s not about "promoting useful arts and sciences" anymore, it’s about locking down content in an effort to monetize it for as long as possible in so many ways as possible.
Also, many right holders turn a blind eye to technical copyright infringement because it’s an alternative revenue stream – which further muddies the waters.
So far I haven’t seen someone come up with an alternative where the creators can get their due that doesn’t curtail fair use and doesn’t hamstring other type of businesses on the internet.
Re: Re:
Stop selling copies, and start selling an ability to generate new works. Also, get involved on social media with fans of your works. That is an approach that is working for many creators today.
Also, sell physical goods, or electronic copies alongside the freely distributed copies. It is quite possible to give away a Podcast of a book, and sell it on Audible, minus the podcast wrappings.
Re: Re:
Making sure that the IP address matches the person and not some homeless schmuck?
Reducing statutory damages so courts aren’t as likely to call you out on your shit?
…No? Those aren’t alternatives?
Fuck you, then.
Re: Re: Re:
I see your point but – an IP Addr is not a person.
The plaintiff needs to put the defendant at that machine at that time and using that address, all this should be revealed at discovery.
Without the above, plaintiff has no case.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is correct. What is the problem?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The problem is this means they have to stop sending extortion letters with questionable claims based on flimsy facts and start giving people due process while gathering real evidence. It stops being free money they can generate with a bot at that point, so is far less attractive.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"What is the problem?"
An IP Addr is not a person and therefore the scammers can not just send a letter and expect payment for an alleged infringement.
Sorry – I thought it was obvious.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yes, that part is obvious. However, I don’t see that as a problem – I see that as a right and good thing.
Re: Re:
…did you seriously just pull a "something must be done; this is something; therefore this must be done"?
Protecting copyright by law is more important than protecting the right of internet thieves to steal, sorry.
Re: Re:
Is it even more important than a majority of businesses and people who doesn’t engage in copyright infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
No one’s going after non-infringers, only those who pirate or enable those who do.
There is no acceptable level of piracy. If a better alternative exists that accomplishes the same objective of minimalizing piracy, present it.
The pirates and ISPs have been so brazen and intransigent that governments have been left with no choice. Zero-tolerance is possible without "breaking the internet." I don’t need a "new business model" to sell more of my work, I need people to stop stealing it, and they’ve stolen many, many copies of it. As in hundreds of thousands of copies. The names of the downloaders alone are worth about $2 each on a mailing list btw. That’s how the pirates make money even if they don’t charge. Same for Hollywood or anyone.
In a corrupt world honest people will have money stolen from them by dishonest people. The result is that money and power wind up in the hands of criminals. Small wonder our world is so messed up or our politicians so corrupt. Crime pays.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Imagine being this lost…
There’s no possible way to prevent all piracy. You shouldn’t even want to!
There’s many reasons.
1: You can’t even define what a protected work is. All we have is a loose definition of creative height, with courts going by "we know it when we see it". Different jurisdictions have different rules. USA just recently did something as stupid as saying software API:s are copyrighted (final decision pending).
2: Even if you had a clear definition, ownership is murky, and even the best case scenario of following the letter of the law would lead to absolute total gridlock where every estate of authors from the early 1900’s would ban literally ALL modern works from sale due to inability to license literally everything derived from another work.
The reason for this is that everything is a remix. https://www.everythingisaremix.info/
3: There’s zero evidence that strict enforcement is beneficial whatsoever, and therefore it’s nonsensical to wish for strict enforcement. It even goes further than the equivalent rights a seller has for their sales of physical goods, which is ridiculous.
4: All business models relying on strict enforcement are trash, suboptimal, and relies on punishing people for actions that cause no harm. No other trade gets to sit on their ass and do nothing after first having made their work, getting paid forever. Everybody else gets paid once for one unit of work.
5: Even assuming you resolve the legal issues, the only way to achieve perfect enforcement is if copyright owners HONESTLY and fully cooperates by contributing ALL of their works in full to creation of filters (similar to the youtube contentID system). This would need to be paired with a global perfect digital licensing system.
This will practically speaking ban all legal use too under fair use, because filters do not understand context.
Meanwhile in the real world companies like Sony steals real sizable amounts of money by striking material they do not own and claiming profits from the works of others, while simultaneously suppressing legal competitors.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/8nta5l/sony_and_universal_filed_a_copyright_claim/
Tldr you are deranged
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
In addition, you’re FALSELY assuming a download is a lost sale.
And for punishing law abiding citizens, your system would do this by putting all of the burden on the site operators that the filters are perfect and that nobody can fool them. That practically means a total ban on encryption (because you’re liable even if a user uploaded an encrypted copy of a protected work).
And given that the filters can only look for technical similarity, and does not understand when a similar work created in parallel is NOT infringing, it would also punish legal creators.
http://www.gorodissky.com/publications/newsletters/parallel-independent-creation-is-it-possible/
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Even if it’s not a sale (and valuable works would be purchased by those who value them enough to steal them), the name of the downloader can be worth up to several dollars, depending on the book.
If my book on retirement planning is pirated, the name of each downloader is worth up to $3 a click if found by a search engine. Mesothelioma costs about $20 a click or something ridiculous.
Conde Naste built their fortune by publishing magazines on every topic, all of which are designed to break even on sales, but their 30 million person mailing list is worth a fortune when rented out. Pirates steal this value and make money from piracy even if not a single person would have purchased.
How convenient of you to ignore this.
Your side is losing for a reason. Keep whining . Won’t help.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Wait you think not being able to betray the trust of customers through selling the privacy of purchasers is theft? Boy you must be really mad about people who browse niche pornography previews because that information is worth a lot more for blackmail’s sake.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Sure, it’s likely someone wouldn’t steal something if there wasn’t any value to it.
However, we aren’t talking about theft, we are talking about copyright infringement. While you might equate them, the law certainly doesn’t.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
The concept of value is in the eye of the beholder, or possessor. What is of value to you or me may not be the same as what is a value to him. He thinks his shit has value. So much value that he offers his used toilet paper for sale.
From his rantings it appears others do not. Rather than facing that fact he screams piracy…louder and louder and louder, yet he still cannot be heard.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
And of course you are ignoring the flip side of that, such as a work that has such little value that nobody is willing to pay for it, but they’ll download it for free given the option.
This is evidenced by the fact that people don’t buy every single bit of content out there. If that was true, stores that sell DVDs/CDs/books/etc… would constantly have bare shelves because everyone went and bought every copy until there was none left. Which would also mean no more revenue for the artists since all their work was purchased by everyone and there is no one left to buy it.
But that’s not the case. People have limited budgets and can’t afford to purchase everything out there. So they prioritize. They buy the stuff they really like and don’t buy the stuff they are only mildly interested in. Now offer the stuff they are only mildly interested in to them for free and they might take you up on it.
This is what you don’t understand. There is more than one type of person who "pirates". There are the ones you are referring to that pirate whatever they can, whenever they can because they just don’t care and refuse to pay. You’ll never stop these people but that’s fine because they are an extremely small percentage of pirates.
Then there are the convenience piraters (piratees?). These people are more than willing to pay for content they think is valuable, and do so regularly. However, if their interest in the content is low, or the price is more than their valuation of the product, or legal methods of obtaining it are too difficult/cumbersome, they will either do without, or if interested in it enough, pirate it.
These people would gladly pay for the content but it doesn’t meet their cost/reward threshold so they either do without or pirate it. If something causes it to be legally obtainable for a cheaper price, or in an easier manner, or marketing increases their interest enough to invest in it, then they will gladly fork over the cash for it. Why do you think companies regularly offer sales and buy one get one free offers? It gets people to buy things that they wouldn’t ordinarily at the higher price point.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Your side is losing for a reason. Keep whining . Won’t help.”
He whined for the hundredth time.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I don’t normally discourse on techdirt outside of DRM, but I am going to ask you to tell me of the books you published so I would not buy them.
Sometimes, you have to admit that there’s more that causes lost sales than piracy, if it even does so. Your behavior is at the top of that list.
Re: Re: Re:2 Today's Double Feature: Return Of The Zombies!
Yes, no less than TWO NEARLY IDENTICAL ZOMBIE "ACCOUNTS" POPPED UP THIS STORY!
drewmerc: 84 (10), 22 month gap; 47 mo gap; 28 May 2009 https://www.techdirt.com/user/drewmerc
Natanael L: 75 (9), 25 month gap; 48 month gap; 23 Jun 2009 https://www.techdirt.com/user/natanael_l
Anyone can easily verify the above: A TWO YEAR GAP, A FOUR YEAR GAP, and started within month of each other nearly NINE years ago!
Astro-turfing, period.
New readers beware. This site is for entertainment purposes only.
Re: Re: Re:3 Today's Double Feature: Return Of The Zombie
New readers beware: this knucklehead is for entertainment purposes only. Poking him may result in amusing, illogical antics, but there may be collateral damage, including but not limited to:
Your time; Your sanity; Your faith in humanity; Your ideas.
This has been a Public Service Announcement.
Re: Re: Re:3 Today's Double Feature: Return Of The Zombie
I’m mostly active on reddit. I do read the occasional articles here, though. I logged back in here just to address arguments saw others hadn’t addressed yet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one’s going after non-infringers
Decades of anti-piracy enforcement history proves otherwise.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As Luke Skywalker put it, "that’s amazing. Every word you just said was wrong." Everybody is going after non-infringers. Every time we get relevant statistics out of organizations that receive lots of DMCA notices, such as Google, we see that the overwhelming majority of "going after" consists of bogus claims, with the stopping of actual piracy being a tiny slice of the pie.
It would be equally valid to claim "there is no acceptable level of collateral damage." Probably even more valid. Western jurisprudence, in a long, long tradition with roots stretching all the way back to the Law of Moses if not further, has always considered it more important to avoid harming the innocent than to make sure you punish the guilty.
If a better alternative exists that accomplishes the same objective of "minimalizing" collateral damage, present it.
No it’s not. We know this by simple obersvation: the current policy of non-zero tolerance leaves us with an internet that is quite broken already. Just because we’ve gotten used to it as the way things are does not mean it isn’t broken.
Primum non nocere is the best principle for law as well as for medicine, and what we currently have fails hard at that basic rule. The current European proposals would make it even worse.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
_No one’s going after non-infringers, only those who pirate or enable those who do._
You are literally advocating intercepting the electronic communications of everyone – giving up all privacy to corporate interests – to protect those corporate interests. Was to shill dude.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no acceptable level of auto-accident deaths. That’s why I support putting a 25mph speed cap on all cars. If you can think of a better alternative that accomplishes the same objective, present it.
There is no acceptable level of kidnapping. That’s why I support embedding a mandatory, police-monitored GPS under the skin of every child that’s born. If you can think of a better alternative that accomplishes the same objective, present it.
There is no acceptable level of gun violence. That’s why I support putting an AI-controlled "filter" on every consumer gun that determines when a trigger is pulled whether or not the gun is pointed at a person and refuses to fire. The technology isn’t quite there yet, but several companies have told me it will be perfect in the future. If you can think of a better alternative that accomplishes the same objective, present it.
There is no acceptable level of false copyright claims. That’s why I support making platforms liable if they take down any content as a result of a copyright claim that falls under fair use. If you can think of a better policy that accomplishes the same objective, present it.
Or possibly, laws are a series of tradeoffs that need to balance hurting bad behaviors with hurting good behaviors. Maybe copyright legislation shouldn’t be decided by black-and-white paperclip maximizers who are willing to disregard literally any public good as long as they can slightly reduce piracy.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Limiting the speed wouldn’t stop automobile accidents. You’d have to outright ban all automobiles.
The only way to stop all copyright infringement would be revoke the principle of copyright entirely.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
It’s not the automobiles; it’s the drivers, and only about 10% of them really. Take them off the road and 90% of problems would be gone overnight.
Figuring out which 10% specifically, though… that’s the hard part!
Re: Re: Re:4
I can give you a head start:
The RIAA and the MPAA.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
"It’s not the automobiles; it’s the drivers"
No, it’s neither of those. As we all know, it is the construction crews that built the road, they are responsible for all accidents, deaths, injuries, and all things that happen by chance on or near said road(s).
Re:
Re: Re:
Fine. I can agree with that. But let’s get the right law then shall we? Oh wait, it’s already illegal for internet thieves to steal. Well, there goes your argument.
Also, this is not the right law for this.
Re: Re: Re:
Why do the big media and advertising outfits think it is ok to steal other people’s creative works while at the same time making all sorts of noise about how piracy is killing their business model(s)?
at least Italy has openly admitted how bad these two proposals are and what they want done with them. other countries need to follow suit otherwise the Internet in the EU is going to be a waste of time, being turned into nothing except what the entertainment industries have been wanting and working (read bribing) towards for many years, a media distribution service only, controlled by them and one that users need to pay to access even before going after media. paying the telecoms companies a monthly fee after buying the needed equipment as we do already will be meaningless until the access fee has been paid, followed by downloading fees, if permission can be obtained. and just like now, no one will actually own what you pay for, will have limited viewing, full of drm and therefore unable to be format shifted. in other words, just like everything else over the decades, once Hollywood etc gets involved, a service that is supposed to be beneficial to everyone (but detrimental to very few!) will be turned into nothing but a crock of shit!
Re: Re:
They don’t control the whole internet, just the works they rightfully own, that millions of people want to watch or consume.
The rest of us can still use the internet, but piracy is what’s going to be "legacy."
How long is this anti-copyright temper-tantrum going to continue?
Re: Re: Re:
"They don’t control the whole internet, just the works they rightfully own, that millions of people want to watch or consume."
It does say a lot about you that you can only conceive of people wanting to watch whatever is shat out by a handful of corporations, and not the great body of other works out there. It’s not flattering, but it says a lot.
"How long is this anti-copyright temper-tantrum going to continue?"
For as long as you wish to remove our rights and lock up the entirety of human culture at the whims of big business. Sorry dude, my love for independent cinema isn’t going to go away because the head of Sony decided he wants more money to wipe his ass with, and I’m going to continue to support those and tell the major studio to do one.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no "right to steal" creative works.
If you’re suffering the consequences of pirates, you should want to end piracy to stop them from harming you.
Ad-hominem arguments are generally viewed as flawed. That "handful of corporations" draws in millions of people to their audience. The mailing list alone is worth a fortune.
How many valuable copyrights do you own? Most who are anti-copyright own zero. Maybe you’re different.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"There is no "right to steal" creative works."
Please quote where I said there was.
"If you’re suffering the consequences of pirates, you should want to end piracy to stop them from harming you."
No pirate has ever harmed me. The crap you support is very harmful to me in both my work and leisure time, though.
"That "handful of corporations" draws in millions of people to their audience"
As do independent producers, who you are trying to kill. So?
"The mailing list alone is worth a fortune."
You are really living on another planet, aren’t you? Mailing list?
"How many valuable copyrights do you own?"
More than you’ve proven that you own.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yes, mailing lists and customer lists are worth a fortune.
You talk about proof yet offer none here. Care to list YOUR works? Doubt you’d boycott the MPAA if you had a film out.
Indies won’t be killed at all by these.
I guess this venting of yours helps you deal with being on the losing side of these legislative cures to piracy.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Care to list YOUR works?
Care to list yours?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
No need. I can list other works that have been mass-pirated, however.
The mailing list from the downloaders is worth a fortune on its own.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
"No need."
Translation: you have none.
"The mailing list from the downloaders is worth a fortune on its own"
For someone who claims to be so successful with his creative works, you do have the mindset of a pushy salesman / scam artist.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
_No need. I can list other works that have been mass-pirated, however.
The mailing list from the downloaders is worth a fortune on its own._
So, you create nothing of worth, and you just want to steal people’s private data.
Your input has been heard, measured, and found wanting. Have a good day, as I will now commence to ignore you.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Everything has worth, just that some are blind.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
"Yes, mailing lists and customer lists are worth a fortune."
To scammers, spammers and bullshit artists. Nobody who creates culture worth a damn would value them.
"Care to list YOUR works? "
You first.
"Indies won’t be killed at all by these."
You’re not very aware of the industry you claim to be so successful in, are you?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
There is a right to due process. It says that you can’t be punished for stealing something until you’ve had your day in court, and that you’re innocent until proven guilty. Digital copyright has trampled all over this right for decades now, and we should all applaud the Italians for refusing to make it worse!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yes – and in addition, it seems that some folk think it is ok to steal personal information and sell it to fraudsters who then send bogus settlement letters to grandma who does not have a computer or an internet connection.
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190206/10103841542/italy-tells-rest-eu-to-drop-articles-11-13-copyright-directive.shtml#c364
Tldr you’re deranged
Re: Re: Re:
And whatever the upload filter erroneously flags as a work they rightfully own.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or they fraudulently claim as their own, an act which funnily enough doesn’t have the same(if any) penalties that those accused of posting what they don’t own face.
Possibility A) Italy cares about it’s (and the rest of the EUs) citizens
Possibility B) Italy wants more money from holywood
Time will tell…
Re: Re:
Talked to one populist MEP about this. His reasoning for voting against was different from both. Much of the favorite music of his followers is actually not made by the large labels, but by smaller bands (using national languages), who also suffer from the current take-down regime on the large platforms; similarly, a lot of the news sources favored by his followers already suffer from restrictions and thus are harder to find in the news groups — which he (rightly) considered a form of censorship.
Re: Re:
Good to hear that at least one additional MEP has their head on straight.
The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Having thought about this quite a bit over the last few months I have come to the opinion that Big Content are trying to achieve only one thing; kill the new organised independent artistic funding mechanisms (Patreon et al.).
The Link tax thing is a distraction. There is traction amongst the politicians against "unfair US giant corps" as evidenced by hitting Microsoft for IE and forcing a choice of browser, and now coming with Google embedding only Chrome on Android etc.. Whatever.
The real game is forcing artists to use the existing legacy distribution and licensing systems. Big Content are bribing/cojoling MEPs to make laws that benefit them. Nothing more, nothing less. Entrench themselves (and Google/Facebook too if they pass this stuff) and kill their competition.
Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
It won’t kill Patreon, since they know who is uploading.
An Article 11/13 that has counternotification provisions (that require the uploader identify themselves and waive service in a lawsuit) is all that is necessary. It’s not like items mistakenly taken down will stay down.
When I say I’ve lost millions to piracy, I get called a liar, even though I could easily prove it. I just don’t NEED to prove it because others have lost as much or more. Having seen what piracy did to my own work I know just how bad of a cancer it is, and people on this site don’t like stuff that doesn’t fit their narrative.
Now, instead of writing stuff that individual internet users can use, I write TV pilots and short films under that "new business model" whereby I "connected with my audience," or the few rich and famous people who are worth connecting with. Those people circulate my scripts, my name isn’t even attached to them, and I quietly make money. It’s not ideal but it’s reality. It also means that people who used to value my work no longer have access to it, the exact opposite of what people here claim to want.
Someone who needs advice — say life coaching — and is convinced I can provide answers no one else can will pay whatever they can afford for that advice. The trick is to just sell that advice to the highest bidder and tell everyone else to bug off. I guess that would be a patronage model.
Before all these independent platforms sprung up, it was actually easier to build an audience because the few hundred people on a given message board didn’t know where to look either, and a post or two would scoop them all up, leading to thousands of dollars in sales. I know this because I’ve DONE this. Most pirates are just parasitic thieves who have never created anything of value, so of course they want to devalue copyright. As the trends show, they’re losing, badly.
I’ll reveal who I am the day one of my shows debuts on television, or when one of my films hits the theaters. I don’t really need to care much about a group of people who won’t be spending a cent on my work, now do I?
Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
"It won’t kill Patreon, since they know who is uploading."
That won’t help, since the sticking point is whether the uploader actually has the rights to do so, not the identity of the uploader.
"When I say I’ve lost millions to piracy, I get called a liar, even though I could easily prove it"
You get called a liar because you refuse to do so. You get called a liar because you use that unproven claim to wave away any dissenting opinion. You get called a liar because it appears to everybody here that it is exactly what you are.
I mean, within the comment I’m replying to you claim to be successful in numerous fields in ways that sound much more like a failure in a basement living some Walter Mitty moments than someone who has achieved all of that. In my experience, it’s the failures who try to brag about everything they’ve done. The ones who have truly achieved success don’t feel the need to do what you’re doing.
Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
So to prove myself to people who mean nothing to me, when others have also lost millions, I have to decloak and open myself to harassment or worse from internet freaks. Nice trap. It’s not "bragging" when the truth is relevant to a debate. People talk about piracy and I’ve been pirated. That seems to bother you. Too bad for you.
I never said I got rich off my work. I said piracy cost me a fortune. I can prove mass theft of my work and the value of not only the work, but the mailing list of those who downloaded it.
You judge people as if money and power were the measure of success, and isn’t that how Trump got elected? Of course, the world will still be consuming my work long after I’m gone, while not a single soul will ever remember you even existed. You’re quite irrelevant, which probably explains the verbal hostility.
Once you insult someone like that you lose any reasonable expectation of civility. Since I’m a pseudonym it doesn’t matter. If I weren’t, half this site would be breaking laws.
Who I am is irrelevant to piracy costing people a fortune.
Keep throwing your tantrums as Article 11/13 become reality.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
You have no evidence that anything you’re saying is true.
That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Re: Re: Re:3 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
So then everyone needs to use their legal names because one should not have to sacrifice PRIVACY that they value so much just to prove a point that can easily be proven with other examples.
Your argument is pure ad-hominem because it does not address anyone — me or otherwise — who has lost customers (and a valuable mailing list) and sales to piracy.
The governments agree with me. Too bad for you. Your side will never win this.
Re: Re: Re:4 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
You yourself claimed that privacy was unfavorable compared to safety. Yet you cling onto safety. Now why is that?
Re: Re: Re:5 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
What I say applies to many creators, not just me.
My side is also winning this war. You’re the one who needs to whine. I’m fine with Article 11/13.
Re: Re: Re:6 The Killing of Patreon and their
"My side is also winning this war"
Not really. The destruction you wish upon everything that’s not yours will hit your bottom line harder than any pirate could ever wish to.
Re: Re: Re:6 The Killing of Patreon and their
If your side was winning this war then why do you need more laws?
If you need more laws, then how are all the other laws you demanded over the last few decades effective? How the fuck is that considered winning? Because you get to sue dead grandmothers and piss over the corpses? You’re disgusting.
Re: Re: Re:7 The Killing of Patreon and t
I dont understand why some folk always think in terms of war
Re: Re: Re:8 The Killing of Patreon a
Because their actions would be unjustifiable in peacetime.
Re: Re: Re:6 The Killing of Patreon and their
You do realize that with automatic copyright virtually EVERYONE is a creator and a copyright holder, right?
Which side would that be? If your talking about creators and/or copyright holders, than that would be all of us. The only other side I can think of would be the legacy gatekeepers. Is that the side you identify with?
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
"So to prove myself to people who mean nothing to me, when others have also lost millions, I have to decloak and open myself to harassment or worse from internet freaks"
You could also offer an argument that doesn’t come from a position of "authority" which you refuse to provide.
Lacking any other evidence, I’m more inclined to believe that you are a man living in his own fantasy world of what might have been than someone with any real success in the real world.
"You judge people as if money and power were the measure of success"
Why do you lie? Is reality so scary?
"Who I am is irrelevant to piracy costing people a fortune."
But, you claim that the only evidence you have is your personal experience. Why do you refuse to provide evidence that what you say is true, since it’s all you have to offer?
Re: Re: Re:2 Wasent Paeteon your major source of income a month ago?
Nobody even remembers who you are now Jhon boy. By the way how’s the band, movie studio, self help book, direct mail, mailing list?, FBI and state and local police investigations, investigative journalism and private investigations going?
Let’s be honest you’re a sad, pathetic, bitter, old, impotent, liar. The only thing you’re good for is seeing what outrageous horseshit you spew out next.
Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Prove it.
The existence of piracy is not evidence that you’re losing money.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem
I can bet with absolute certainty that you’re being defrauded not just through bad unfair contracts with the people you’re working with, but also through them blatantly lying about WHY AND HOW things are.
The fact that you’re begging for only centralized platforms is just another proof that you’re not qualified to say what’s best for us. The existence of multiple platforms is better for everybody who don’t like the rules of the big central platforms, made by the big corporations. It’s a good thing that a "long tail" is allowed to exist on the market, because it enables new competition and innovation. And obviously you’re here asking for your legal competition to be suppressed!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190206/10103841542/italy-tells-rest-eu-to-drop-articles-11-13-copyright-directive.shtml#c364
Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Yes, piracy costs the creators money. Each name that downloads has a clear value on a mailing list.
I wasn’t defrauded by anyone. My work was stolen by hundreds of thousands of people, each name worth quite a lot as a mailing list (that allows marketers to avoid having to pay Google etc.). The value of a mailing list is well documented. That’s in addition to the lost sales.
All I’m asking for is zero-tolerance for piracy. What you write doesn’t seem to be changing that these laws are being passed. Your side is clearly losing. So sorry.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
John Steele says hi. He’s saved a seat for you next to Paul Duffy.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
And who give out a real Email address when downloading infringing content?
Also, it is scammers that value email lists, while real businesses value customers.
Re: Re: Re:3 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
"And who give out a real Email address when downloading infringing content?"
Now, let’s be fair – it appears to be legal buyers he’s thinking of scamming / selling out, not the pirates. He’s just fantasising about how much money he’d be owed if people were forced to give it to him instead of being able to bypass his scam via piracy.
Re: Re: Re:4 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
You don’t like it, so no one else possibly could. Must be a scam!
You are jealous, bitter, quite irrelevant, and taking it out on me. It actually makes succeeding that much sweeter knowing that doing so pisses off someone like yourself. Keep ranting.
Re: Re: Re:5 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
"You don’t like it, so no one else possibly could. Must be a scam!"
You have identified yourself as a spammer who is only interested in gathering the details of potential customers to sell off to mass marketing companies. That’s the "value" you are lamenting going away. That does indeed indicate a scam.
"Keep ranting."
I’m not ranting, I’m responding to the information that you have offered us to assess the value of your comments here. The persona you have chosen is of a conman, fraud and scam artist, so I’m addressing you as you claim to be.
Re: Re: Re:6 The Killing of Patreon and their
Um, that’s not what I said at all, but feel free to keep ranting.
I pity your irrelevance and bitterness over Article 11/13. Ad-hominem isn’t a valid debate tactic anyway. You’re just talking smack you’d never have the courage to do to anyone’s face. The internet is very useful for people like you.
Re: Re: Re:7
Still waiting on the evidence that proves your assertions, bro.
Re: Re: Re:7 The Killing of Patreon and t
"Um, that’s not what I said at all"
Oh, but it is. You’re just too dumb to realise how transparent a con artist you are.
Re: Re: Re:7 The Killing of Patreon and t
Really? Then you didn’t say:
Or:
Sounds like a scam spammer to me.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Rumplestiltskin
“Your side is clearly losing. So sorry.”
Do you think if you say it enough times it will suddenly become remotely true?
Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
"The existence of piracy is not evidence that you’re losing money."
Also – the fact that you are losing money is not evidence of piracy.
Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
My name isn’t attached to them either. This proves that I could claim to have lost eleventy zillion and thirteen dollars to "piracy" on a basis every bit as solid as yours.
Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Ah, so your business model is "fleece suckers who don’t know about the existence of better alternatives to your snake oil". And now you’re butthurt because the proliferation of platforms makes it much easier for the (former) suckers to learn their options. Explains a lot….
Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Customers can make up their own minds.
My work changed the world, and the registered copyrights prove it. That’s why the work was pirated as much as almost any other that’s ever been made on the internet. Doubtful anyone will ever know you existed. Don’t need to prove shit here because I’m not selling anything to anyone.
So sorry your irrelevance angers you. I gather it would. Not my problem.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
"Customers can make up their own minds."
Yes they can. You’re just bitter because they learned to avoid your scams.
"Don’t need to prove shit here because I’m not selling anything to anyone."
If your output elsewhere is of the same quality as what you write here, I’m not surprised you can’t sell it.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
There we have it. He wrote a book called ‘My Work Changed the World, and So Can You’, and sent in a copyright registration. His book states that all you have to do is write a book that says how you can change the world by telling others how to write a book about how they can change the world with different words, and become a multi gazillionaire overnight, if there aren’t any pirates (all sales final, no refunds). If you don’t succeed, see pirates. If you do succeed, where’s my cut?
His problem is he bought a book about how he too could change the world and…
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
"My work changed the world,"
Are you that weirdo who claims to have copyright upon email?
Didn’t you lose that court case?
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
So your work changed the world… but pirates not only stole the books, they even changed all the names in the credits to make sure your name would never be known, so your identity is untraceable… but you hold onto the registered copyrights. But you decided not to pursue the millions of dollars you supposedly lost… and instead choose to complain on a website. Which has a community you have repeatedly claimed either doesn’t exist or is so small it can’t affect legal policy, because that somehow determines whether or not a site is allowed to exist? Did we get all that right?
Nice job fighting a war on a website you claimed was irrelevant, dumbass!
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Jhon Steele’s still not gonna tickle your dickle, Shiva
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
“So sorry your irrelevance angers you. I gather it would. Not my problem.”
You’re projecting so hard right now we could light up the Marianas Trench if we attached you to the bottem of a boat.
Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
That won’t happen. What will happen is that the big tech companies will become the new distribution umbrellas, such as with YouTube becoming the distribution platform for video creators to make money.
Hollywood won’t change much in that regard. They’ll just have to use Google or Facebook or Amazon as a backbone, as they’re beginning to do now. On top of that backbone, however, will be them AND the independent creators who make money, and who will make even more money once the pirates are eliminated.
Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Under article 13 how does this channel, Ben G Thomas survive.
(It is a palaeontology/nature news channel, run by 4 students).
Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
By not infringing.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Ever heard of fair use? Commercial news Sources use image and clips under fair use all of the time.
Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
All you are is naysayer. All you’ve been doing this entire time is naysaying to every single response you give. So I’ll break it down simple so even you can’t do that.
The current zero-tolerance policies they are trying to implement will cause collateral damage. Period. Legal fair use of works will get caught in the crossfire along with the illegal uses, because, as stated before filters, and bots, do not, and cannot, understand context. Context is very important when interpreting the end result of whether or not a work is infringing or a use of a work is infringing.
We’ve already seen this with things like Youtube’s Content ID system with flagging videos inappropriately or demonetizing videos making fair use of copyrighted material, like music.and the bots Tumblr recently tried and failed to use to weed out the porn and hate blogs, which instead began flagging things that were either not porn, or hate very early on.
When your collateral damage can harm the livelihoods of other people making legitimate content, then that solution is not a solution, it’s a ham-fisted attempt to hit a fly with a sledgehammer and nothing more.
Copyright has devolved into this multi-million dollar industry that it was never meant to be. We need to reform it instead of creating more laws to try to lock everything down.
Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Section 230 causes the collateral damage of reputation blackmail, but there the users are blamed, whereas when copyright does it the platforms are blamed. Very hypocritical.
No one who makes legitimate content will be harmed by Article 11/13. Perhaps they should sue the pirates if they believe they have been.
Piracy needs to stop. Governments recognize this. My side’s winning this battle which is why the other side is so "triggered." It’s almost funny to watch them whine.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Please provide evidence that supports your assertions.
Re: Re: Re:3 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Already provided a link that explicitly blamed Section 230, but it’s simple logic:
Search engines would not archive defamatory content without 230
Defamation would not ruin people without archiving
That is self-evident to anyone with an IQ over 30
Re: Re: Re:4 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
This is another assertion. Please provide evidence that backs it up.
Or is the difference between "evidence" and "assertion" one that you are incapable of understanding? Asking for a concerned party.
Re: Re: Re:5 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Already provided a link that explicitly blamed Section 230,
Just checked comment thread and … no you didn’t, not in this article, at least. Care to rectify this?
Re: Re: Re:4 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
"Search engines would not archive defamatory content without 230"
They would not be able to archive any content, and thus every industry the depend on them for traffic would lose that revenue. Which most likely exceeds the income from your email scams by quite a large factor.
"That is self-evident to anyone with an IQ over 30"
Re: Re: Re:2 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
Okay, let’s say article 13 is implemented and you sing in joy. Suddenly you get an notification that you have infringing material on your site and you have to remove it.
That’s it, it just says that. They don’t have to specify WHAT content infringes, just claim that something on your site is infringing and that means you have to close down your site to comply since you have no infringing material to remove.
Perhaps you could sue the pirates to resolve the issue though….
Re: Re: Re:3 The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
And that would apply to YouTube as well, as they cannot examine everything on the site in a reasonable time. A law like that gives the legacy industry in particular the power to shutter any site.
Maybe I'm just pessimistic and cynical as fuck, but...
More like Italy is playing along with the Great Con to make us believe democracy exists in the EU. With Germany now for the current proposal, there is no stopping this in the Council. So Italy now has the excuse to still fully oppose this, while knowing it will pass anyway. It’s no different than Democrats putting up actual progressive legislation, simply to appease us, knowing that the Republicans will oppose it. It’s all one big game where Governments fuck with us.
Democracy exists ,if enough people protest ,governments generally listen,
see what happened with sopa .
Most meps dont understand how the web works or how content filters work ,
they vote how the party leader tells them.
in the last 10 years we have seen how anyone can be a creator ,
make art,music, or express themselves on the internet and make a living as
an artist .
We cant let a small group of big corporations take control of the eu
internet and turn it into a version on cable tv.
The problem is small artists creators will have only a few websites they can use ,youtube,facebook etc most small websites cant afford
to make a multi million dollar content filter ,
they will close down or block all user uploads .
Re: Re:
Creators don’t need UGC, they create their own content.
Even the big internet companies provide fine platforms for building distribution lists, which can then move to e-mail.
What creators don’t need are a bunch of entitled thieves trying to stop anti-piracy laws.
Re: Re: Re:
What!!!!! Creators create UGC and use various sites to distribute it. What else did you thing User Generated Content meant.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Creators don’t need UGC, they create their own content.
This, and the next lines, reveal that the AC what said it has no interest in protecting creators, and is only interested in the distribution lists for the sale of personal data. They’re either deep in the wish to sell off everyone’s data for marketing purposes, or a troll.
Either way, they’ve got nothing to add that’s worth listening to.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
My point is that Article 11/13 won’t kill off indies, since indies upload their own content.
Very simple.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Please provide evidence that supports your assertions. Very simple.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
No amount of proof or evidence would change anyone’s mind. They’d just ignore it or say it’s bogus.
My side is winning with the governments. Why should I care other than to see just how intense the temper tantrum on the other side is?
Must suck to have all your cries fall on deaf ears.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Please tell me what site has a record of UGC and who has the copyright for it, because if there is no such information source no site would allow uploads due to the liabilities. This has been pointed out many times but you blithely ignore it because that would mean you are wrong.
You talk about section 230 and how it enables reputation bombing, article 13 enables copyright claim bombing as a way to knock sites off the internet. Just spam copyright claims for sites you don’t like and they have to close shop.
And saying ‘Very simple’ is easy to do when you don’t understand the ramifications.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Seems he hadn’t a good counterargument and ran off… Why am I not surprised…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Creators can market their content without uploading it, and distribute it directly to those who buy. They can also use platforms like Kindle or YouTube, which won’t be going anywhere. Competition will spring up eventually if it hasn’t already.
The key here is to stop piracy, which is the true cancer.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"Creators can market their content without uploading it, and distribute it directly to those who buy."
If they want to lower their potential sales, sure.
"They can also use platforms like Kindle or YouTube"
So… by uploading their content? You can’t even keep your bullshit straight in a single paragraph.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The big platforms can handle Article 11/13, and become the backbone for the indies, who can also market their own work.
You can whine forever, your side will never win, and no one will ever care you existed. Definitely not the case for me.
Have fun!
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Pics or GTFO.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
"The big platforms can handle Article 11/13, and become the backbone for the indies, who can also market their own work."
In other words, you want there to only be a handful of corporate distribution possibilities, while the artists get reduced to a marketing role while having no say on the way their work is actually published.
You’re getting close to just being honest about what you are, keep going….
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“You can whine forever, your side will never win, and no one will ever care you existed. Definitely not the case for me.
Have fun!”
He whined as no one knew who the fuck he was and we all made fun of him.
Re: Re: Re:
"which can then move to e-mail"
What is your obsession with email? Is it because you’ve still found a way to spam people relentlessly, while the other services that other people find far more useful for connecting with content they actually want are effective at filtering out your scams?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I weren’t an alias, you’d have just committed libel.
So sorry you’re so mad over losing this political battle. I find your anger amusing.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"If I weren’t an alias, you’d have just committed libel."
No, I’ve stated my opinion that you are a demonstrable liar and that your obsession with gathering data on customers means that you’re likely a scammer.
By all means, prove me wrong, but I only have what you present in public to go on – and the persona you have chosen is that of a failed con man.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You have no facts, just anger, jealousy, rudeness, and irrelevance.
Keep ranting. It’s funny. VERY funny. No one will ever even care you existed, while my work will live forever. You’re just a nobody and will never be anything else. Governments aren’t siding with you are they? Aww poor toddler.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You have no facts, just anger, jealousy, rudeness, and irrelevance.
An excellent self-description, AC.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I’m not the one using defamation as an argument.
You assume I’m lying because your head would explode if I proved the piracy. As I said, others have been mass-pirated as well so just substitute their names for mine. This is a discussion, not a court of law or congressional hearing.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Pics or GTFO.
Re: Re: Re:6
Ergo, you have no facts, just anger, jealously, rudeness, and irrelevance.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
"I’m not the one using defamation as an argument."
Actually, you are because you attack everybody here as a pirate even though you have zero evidence to back up your claim.
"others have been mass-pirated as well so just substitute their names for mine"
Which others? Where is the evidence for their losses?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
"while my work will live forever"
I doubt it’s worth the email list for which you attempted to sell your soul, but then got bitter because your scam fell through before you could profit.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Keep ranting. It’s funny. VERY funny. No one will ever even care you existed, while my work will live forever. You’re just a nobody and will never be anything else. Governments aren’t siding with you are they? Aww poor toddler.”
Every time I think you can’t project any harder. BAM more faster more furiouser! This shit is gourmet for gourmands of sad psychological self projection.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I think you’ve touched on a particularly sad phenomenon.
He’s here defending society’s laws when society is likely what screwed him over in the first place.
On this site and many others… I’ve found overwhelming evidence the type of people that do these kinds of things do so for one reason: they’ve actually got decent sized intelligence and don’t have an outlet for it. I’ve actually had a long and interesting conversation at one point with someone who was trolling like this guy and it became clear that he wasn’t so much trying to impress people or force a particular viewpoint, actually he said he didn’t even much agree with the point he was plugging
It was because while he had so much mental ability, socially he really sucked.
So he figured any impact was better than accepting his irrelevance.
You might ask why I devoted so much time to understanding these people and the answer is simple: I lead a similar type of life, hermit coder and author, freelance work to keep my head above water.
I was lucky enough to build a relatively small, stable social circle, find someone who accepted me and build a life together but I understand what it feels like not to even have that.
I think it’s not something to be mocked, as great as the temptation is.
Some people choose isolation, some people have it forced on them. When that happens you can accept it, and learn to live your life free of concern of others opinions, or you can do something like this.
I honestly feel bad for the guy
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
As an aside, it’s even more sad if people like this have something seriously beneficial to offer but lack the social ability to get it off the ground
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Cool insult bro!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Wait – "failed con man" – isn’t that Wendy? Tell the truth – all you posers with 10,000 or more posts are all failed con men (and women) – just admit it. I read your profile – you’re a poser and a con man.
And true to leftist style, you are the first to accuse others of your very faults.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
They don’t like me so they can’t accept that I might be telling the truth. They have to reject anything that doesn’t conform to their narrative.
Their anger and rudeness only shows what they are. No need to sink to their level. Their logic is easily refuted.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Once again, an excellent self-description.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I know. I love it. He so desperately wants someone, anyone to agree with him. And he just can’t understand why no one likes him. It’s adorable in a third grade smelly kid kinda way.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
That’s funny. You think he is the smelly kid? Techdirt is the smelliest group of shit smearing idiots on the planet. Just read their headlines and count the times the word SHIT appears in the articles and the comments. This is the stinkiest site ever established, especially when considered in light of the years and years of SHIT appearing again and again by the primary authors and commenters. Go look at Stephen T. Stone comments and search for SHIT. Or the do a Google search on Techdirt and SHIT – wow, hundreds of references with no effort at all.
Stinky, stinky, stinky. That’s you, not him!
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I’m sure somewhere in your broken mind this counts as a "win". What a pathetic life you must lead.
Re: Re: Re:5
Nooooooo, no no no no no, silly anon, that isn’t the case at all! …we don’t like you because you can’t accept that we don’t believe you’re telling the truth about anything.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No, no, no; the correct answer is "If what you just said weren’t so obviously true, you’d have just committed libel". Please try to keep up with the class.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Except I’m an alias so there’s no way I could prove you wrong, plus it’s way expensive to sue every individual who defames, which is why Section 230 has to go. It will soon enough.
Governments seem to disagree with you on Article 11/13. Perhaps you should whine to them.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Except the Italian government, funnily enough.
Not surprising. Enforcing Hollywood’s laws is a fucking money sink that will far outweigh whatever profit Hollywood wishes to share. …Which Hollywood doesn’t.
Re: Re: Re:4
You present yourself as a mega-successful creator, but refuse to offer any evidence for it; that makes you at least a liar. You accuse others of being “pirates” (or on the side of copyright infringers) when they disagree with you on anything; that makes you an asshole. All of your other insults and your attempts to drive a discussion into a whole other barely-related topic (e.g., “but their emails, bro!”) make you an ignorant fool who is in way over their head in this discussion.
And even if you refuse to reveal your identity, anything I have said about you in this comment is based only on your prior comment history — which means my judgments of you are protected opinions, not statements of fact. You could no more sue me for defamation than Shiva Ayyadurai could sue me for the same reason over my calling him an arrogant prick.
Now do us all a favor, kid, and shut the hell up while the grown folks talk.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I actually know a mega-successful creator. Howard Tayler, one of the biggest names in webcomics, lives just a couple blocks away from me, and we get together and talk about stuff on a pretty regular basis. He gives his primary work away for free online, to generate demand for print editions and other swag based on his comic, and he and his family live pretty well on that. I’ve never heard him complain about piracy, because he’s come up with a business model that makes it irrelevant.
The fact that our resident troll has not managed to do so says more about him than it does about the Internet.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Schlock Mercenary is an awesome webcomic. I’m actually flabbergasted that I had never thought of successful webcomics as an example of how "free" is a business model.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Why do I have the lightbulb, Mason’s the one who brought up Howard Tayler. Lightbulb his post…
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Do not taunt Happy Fun Bulb.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Wow, it’s almost as if releasing some form of digital content with no costs attached to build up an audience that might one day buy physical items for an agreeable-to-the-market cost is a better business model than, say, making digital content artificially scarce, then exploiting that “scarcity”~. Who could’ve seen this coming~?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
It’s only better for large pocket businesses, it is terrible for start-ups. In a start-up, you have to conserve every penny until you get to break even. If you can’t do that, you have to raise huge amounts to cover the gap between production and revenue, and you end up working for your investors rather than working for yourself.
Free is a big capital marketing decision. Free is disaster for start-ups.
Re: Re: Re:8
I know a bunch of independent artists who show off their works for free and use the exposure gained by their showing-off — among other factors — to convince others that spending money on a genuine scarcity provided only by that artist is a good idea. You may know some of them; they’re part of the furry fandom.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
You’re joking, right? “Furry Fandom”?
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
A fan is a fan, they will spend money regardless of the subject matter.
And giving out free samples is an extremely old practice to entice new customers to buy stuff and if it didn’t work the practice wouldn’t be extremely old.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Not at all. Some of the most well-known/successful artists in the furry community make good money by showing off their works for free, which generates enthusiasm for that artist’s work that they can later monetize via commissions of all kinds (which grant access to an artist’s time and skill, the biggest scarcity of all) and physical goods such as stickers, buttons, and physical copies of comics. Aside from the fact that a lot of furry artists depend on companies such as Patreon and PayPal to handle the monetary transactions, they are independent artists in the truest sense of the phrase.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I follow YouTubers who started by, and still give their content away, and who after four or five years gained enough supporters to go full time on YouTube. People like Skallagrim, or Thomas Sandalader. It is not a bad way of building a content creation business, as the creator needs to develop their skills before they are good enough to go full time, and having a small but growing audience helps them do that.
The thing is that takes work, and requires continued work, but appears to be rewarding to those who re prepared to do the work.
Other decide to make YouTube part of a more complex business model, such as Abom79 who explains his plans here.
A creators relationships to their creations, and their audience and other content creators is usually much more complex that give me your money.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
If it weren’t for some "infringement" posted to Imgur, I would have never discovered the one webcomic I read every day, nor would I have only attended a comic book expo for the first time just so I could buy the comics in print form (and also browse and buy from other artists at the event).
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Which webcomic is that? I need more for my list of reading…
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
"Questionable Content" by Jeph Jacques.
It’s set in the nearish future, about twenty-somethings getting on with their lives, working at Coffee of Doom, relationships, etc.
And, oh yeah, the Singularity happened a few years back so true AIs are walking among us now.
It starts off pretty awkward for the first few years but I feel it has hit a better stride now.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
‘Questionable content’, well, that seems like a safe phrase to do a search for. Also it’s a webcomic, so I should probably do an image search too, I’m sure nothing could go wrong with that.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
I only just remembered this now:
QC’s artist, Jeph Jacques, has been mentioned by Techdirt before.
He was the guy who made the walmart.horse ( <- links to TD article) parody domain that Walmart streisanded with its C&D.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
QC is not quite my stride. Glad you enjoy it, though!
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
If you have a few hours/days to burn and need some more stuff to check out I could certainly recommend a few myself.
Girl Genius – Steampunk mad science.
Erfworld – What if a gamer got transported to a world that operated on game mechanics like turns, zones and so on.
Weregeek – Board games, LARPs, D&D…
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
I can also vouch for Girl Genius. Excellent story, great writing, and fantastic art. I read through to the current point in a couple of days, then went back and read it again.
I haven’t heard of the other two but they sound up my alley. I’ll have to check them out.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Girl Genius is on my list, yeah. Erfworld I should get back into. Weregeek I might check out.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Dubious thanks for recommending Girl Genius. 8 hours of binge-reading later, I’m now up to 2011.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
I know I’m late, but I’d just like to thank the commenters here for pointing out examples of making money off of free I hadn’t considered, as well as additional examples of content I can view myself.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He invented it
Re: Re: Re:
E-mail, the conveyor of spam and unsolicited messages. Anyone who rely on distribution lists to conduct their business is a dinosaur that has yet to realize that their time is over.
Sending unsolicited mail is theft of time, MY TIME. My time is priceless and if you send me unsolicited mail you have robbed me of time which I can never recoup at any cost. That makes you a THIEF!
I propose that we institute a law where the senders of unsolicited mail is fined heavily and put in jail for long times – because they are TIME PIRATES! And TIME PIRATES is just here to steal our time and should be banned from the internet! TIME PIRATES has no right to exists and is an affront on decency!!!
(sorry, was blue channeling for a bit)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Opt-in e-mail duh.
I forget who posts here…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You. You post here.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"Opt-in e-mail duh"
That appears to be the first time you mentioned that part.
Which does raise the question of why you’re so specifically obsessed with email, if all you’re doing is running a newsletter and you have so many other platforms to engage an audience with nowadays.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If you got their email address from a purchased list, they didn’t opt in.
Copyright holders (aka real pirates) make their content expensive and difficult to acquire/view, and then they’re surprised that "pirates" (aka consumers) take exception to the issues burdening the process. The piracy that content companies complain about is (1) of their own making, and (2) only a perception based on the belief that they aren’t making enough profit (of which there’s never enough).
Make everything easily available at a reasonable and rational price, and consumers will buy it (because people [other than those at the content companies] are not the thieves and crooks that the purveyors of content claim they are).
Re: Re:
I get to price my work, pirates don’t, and they can’t justify breaking the law (a felony no less) by saying I charge too much.
Don’t like it? Don’t steal it.
Re: Re: Re:
What work?
Re: Re: Re:
I didn’t steal your work. Stop getting my government to pay for your failed retirement plan for an act I did not do.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Others, however, have stolen my work and broken the law.
If this is harming you, blame the pirates, not me.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
What work have they stolen?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
That’s a cute way of asking for my name.
You first.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Right, so no work was stolen, then.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Well because you WANT that to be the case, it certainly must be!
Masnick is very lucky to have such intellectual thought-leaders posting here.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
There’s an adage that’s been around for years:
"Pics or it didn’t happen."
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It sucks that your work was pirated. However, whatever harm was done to you does not justify the implementation of laws that will harm other content creators and legitimate distribution channels. Your creations (and your profit) are not more important than theirs.
So, if I am harmed in turn by not being able to legally consume the content that would become unavailable to me due to the implementation of the laws that you support – yes, I blame you.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Apparently, my work IS more important, which is why Article 11/13 are becoming law.
Copyright isn’t the only issue with lost profits, of course, I’ve noted that too many producers is also a problem. All I’ve said is that I support zero-tolerance for piracy. If you come up with an alternative that can work effectively and that doesn’t require weakened protection for copyright I’m all for it. I’m sure there are good middle grounds but the ones I’ve seen here don’t cut it.
I only post here to counterweigh against Masnick’s obvious leanings, so people know there are very fine people on both sides of the debate.
Re: Re: Re:4
Only if you think a handful of people should ever be able to make a decent amount of money from selling copies of their works. Otherwise, the only “problem” lies in not being able to make works compelling enough to make people want copies for themselves (and thus pay for that privilege).
Does this mean you support “zero tolerance” for every type of infringement, from illicit downloads of Black Panther to meme-ified GIFs of Black Panther to someone quoting a line from Black Panther in their social media bio? All of those acts technically infringe upon the copyright on that film, so how should all of those people be punished for their infringement — their “piracy” — under a “zero tolerance” copyright law?
Oh goody, you’re a Trump fan. Tell me: Was the guy in the car as “fine” a person as Heather Heyer?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You value your work over the work of everybody else? Talk about hubris.
Also, if you knew how the EU legal process works it’s not certain it will become a law. Currently it’s just a proposal that has to go to a council vote, and if the vote isn’t unanimous the legislation doesn’t pass.
What about your leanings? You are so self centered that you believe your way is the only way no matter how much collateral damage it does. You haven’t one bone of fairness in you and it must comforting to live in such a black and white world where you instantly know that those not agreeing with you are "filthy pirates" that should be thrown in jail – even if it is a delusion.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
This, exactly.
Multiple people, myself included, have challenged this guy on the subject, and his responses never address it. Why? Because he has no good answer to it!
Digital copyright enforcement, as it currently exists, already causes far too much collateral damage. What we need are changes to the law to reduce it. What we’re being offered are changes to the law that will make it much worse, but he’s incapable of seeing that.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Assuming they’re not just a troll(which I’m fairly sure they are), it’s not that they’re incapable of seeing the collateral harm, so much as they seem to see it as a positive. They’ve actually claimed before(pretty sure in this very comment section no less) that there are too many creators, and under that mindset something that will drastically reduce the number of works that can be made public would be a good thing(with of course the assumption that they won’t be one of those negatively impacted).
Re: Re: Re:
How can I decide whether I like or it or not if I cannot see it before buying?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If your policy is to demand a free sample, then deal only with those who offer them.
Many authors do give away their work btw, either for a limited time, or like on Kindle, the first X pages, which has altered how books are written, btw.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If you do not offer a free sample, and keep on moaning about how you reputation is being ruined on the Internet, the probability is that you are a snake oil salesman. This view of you is further enhanced by your preference for isolated forums for you marketing, as those make it easer to move on to the next when you reputation is ruined on the current one.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Except none of that is the case.
I never said I prefer "isolated fora," (the correct plural of "forum"), only that it worked better than the current system, which I’m also fine with. I’m not fine with piracy.
There’s also "legacy" media advertising that doesn’t require a gatekeeper who enables piracy.
Like I said, if I weren’t an alias, I could sue you for defamation. If I did post as myself, I’d wind up having to sue half this board or more. It’s why I cloak.
You just can’t comprehend the notion that others might know more than you (especially about their own lives), and might be more successful than you want them to be. Neither is my problem, and your insults have no logical bearing on this debate.
Re: Re: Re:4 Do you work in the movies
“You just can’t comprehend the notion that others might know more than you (especially about their own lives), and might be more successful than you want them to be. Neither is my problem, and your insults have no logical bearing on this debate.”
Another silver screen gem from Jhon the projectionist.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, you cloak because you (think) doing so makes saying bullshit like “I’ve sold thousands of books” and having people believe it an easier task. But your claims are on the same level as “I have a girlfriend in Canada” or “my dad works for Nintendo” — they are grade-school horseshit lies told to make yourself sound like someone important when you are, in all likelihood, just an average asshole.
If you want people to believe you are some über-successful writer or whatever, you have to provide citations. Otherwise, as others have already said, that which is claimed without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Nut up or shut up, honey. Make your choice.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I’m not out to prove anything regarding my writing. I contribute to the discussion from that perspective because that’s my perspective.
You’re the one calling me a liar. Even if I were, someone else who has been pirated would say the same things. That’s why these laws are being passed.
You don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to.
Re: Re: Re:6
No, you are, you just have a lack of self-awareness to notice. Every time you bring up how your works are “best-sellers” and you would be selling even more copies if not for “piracy”, you are literally trying to prove that your writing is not only worth buying, but that it is among the most successful writing in the U.S. (or maybe even the world) today. That you offer no evidence of your claims makes your attempts to prove yourself to us that much harder. Nobody believes your bullshit because you have done nothing — not one thing at all! — to prove your claims are anything but.
It ain’t just me, honey.
Then let them say those things. Do not imagine you speak for anyone but yourself.
Well, you have yet to give anyone here a reason to believe your claims about being a billionaire genius playboy author who physically curbstomps copyright pirates on the side, so…
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I’m not a billionaire genius playboy author. I’m an author who has been mass-pirated and lost millions in revenue to it (the value of the mailing list). The one who ran the piracy ring made $10 million a year at its peak and dominated the niche.
Crime pays. I welcome Article 11/13. It’s time these pirates are stopped. Any internet which cannot stop it as it exists now needs to change or stop existing.
Re: Re: Re:8
Please provide proof of the following factual claims:
I’ll wait.
A mailing list is only useful/valuable to people who would exploit it for their own personal gain. You wouldn’t be looking to run a scam, would you?
…never mind, I have my answer.
Anyone who thinks the Internet cannot exist as it is without the “collateral damage” of copyright infringement wants it turned into a broadcast medium where only the corporations with the monies to fight off lawsuits and license other people’s works can publish anything to the Internet. Copyright law must adapt to the Internet — not the other way around — and any failure to recognize this fact is a failure to grasp that the Internet is not a broadcast medium.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
_I’m not a billionaire genius playboy author. I’m an author who has been mass-pirated and lost millions in revenue to it (the value of the mailing list). The one who ran the piracy ring made $10 million a year at its peak and dominated the niche.
Crime pays. I welcome Article 11/13. It’s time these pirates are stopped. Any internet which cannot stop it as it exists now needs to change or stop existing._
Pics or GTFO.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Uhm, a mailing list is a collection of facts comparable to a telephone book. Those can’t be copyrighted. The list itself can be used for promotional purposes which CAN generate revenue which means the intrinsic value of it is somewhat nebulous depending on the demographic composition.
Claiming that someone else used your mailing list resulted in you loosing millions in revenue means 2 things:
1) Presumptive revenue isn’t the same as actual revenue, you can’t loose something you never had. It’s all fantasy money until a sale occurs and you have the money so you loosing "millions" is the same as saying that I lost the jackpot on the lottery because someone stole my ticket.
2) It seems the alleged "pirate" was able to use the mailing list in a much more effective manner than you could if he could make 10’s of millions of it and you claiming you "lost millions"…
FYI, on the dark web you can buy 1 million e-mail addresses for between $150 to $175 last I checked…
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I’m with Stephen, here.
Mr. AC, we don’t believe you because you’ve given us no reason to believe you. As the adage goes:
"Pics or it didn’t happen."
If you continue to assert things without providing evidence to back them up, you will be labeled a liar.
You: shocked pikachu.jpg
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Yes you are.
No you don’t.
You are, no they wouldn’t, no they aren’t.
We don’t because you are a liar.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You say therefore it isn’t.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I could sue you for defamation. If I did post as myself, I’d wind up having to sue half this board or more.
You’ve said multiple times that there were police investigations ongoing. So why not go the whole hog instead of speculating which lawyer bogeymen we might be? You do know that outside of sexual cases your name is going to have to show up, right?
You just can’t comprehend the notion that others might know more than you (especially about their own lives), and might be more successful than you want them to be.
I thought the whole point of your series of rants was that pirates stole all your money and copyrights and writing credits so you weren’t successful. So which is it? Are you destitute and are only miraculously affording an Internet connection to rant at alleged pirates, or are you bleeding money out of the ears to the point where you can bribe multiple governments to do whatever you want?
People don’t care that you’re successful. It’s amusing why anyone successful would rather waste time on a site they detest with every fiber of their being instead of, you know, making more money if they’re that successful and lucrative. It’s when you piss and moan about why the law doesn’t make it easier for you to bully money out of children – now that, people notice. On account of you being an asshole.
On the one hand, Italy gave us awesome things like pizza and spaghetti.
On the other hand, there’s the Mafia and (to some degree) fascism.
It’s good to see them contributing to the positive side on this one!
CopyMax
Why does the board get spammed everytime an article mentions copyright?
One or two maximalists go berserk and post like the world is going to end unless everyone realizes that they love censorship?
Does anyone else just relish the irony that if they had their way user-generated content would be shut down and they couldn’t complain anymore?
Re: CopyMax
My armchair diagnosis is "obsession."
Obsession with TechDirt, TechDirt’s commenters (with a slight focus on Stephen), and copyright, in that combination.
Re: CopyMax
Maybe the Russian Troll industry has figured out that the Trump Train is derailing so they’re branching out into new fields of endeavor.
Re: Re: CopyMax
That is both insightful and funny as I’m unsure if that’s a joke or quite possibly true.
Re: 'Calling for the destruction of the bridge you're standing on.'
Does anyone else just relish the irony that if they had their way user-generated content would be shut down and they couldn’t complain anymore?
It is one of the funnier aspects of their ranting, yes, the fact that if they ‘won’ then they’d be silenced right along with everyone else, though honestly more often than not they strike me as more than petty enough that they’d still see that as a win. Sure they can’t post anymore, but neither can all of those people that (rightly) mocked them, so that’s still a win(in their warped little minds)!
Re: Re: 'Calling for the destruction of the bridge you're standing o
There’s print, radio, and television for getting one’s message out. Even flyers, billboards, etc.
Without piracy, copyrights are much more valuable. I had forgotten how valuable the mailing list is. Terrible all that money was stolen but there was no way to stop it. The thieves really did get rich.
Re: Re: Re: 'Calling for the destruction of the bridge you're standi
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Re: Re: Re: 'Calling for the destruction of the bridge you're standi
So what you’re saying is that we should just dump the internet entirely and set communication back about 70 years because we don’t actually need this thing call the internet that completely and totally revolutionized communication. That’s like saying we should go back to the horse and buggy days because a few terrorists decided to fly a couple of planes into some buildings.
Re: Re: Re:2 'Calling for the destruction of the bridge you're st
I think he wants to go pre Gutenberg.
Re: Re: Re: 'Calling for the destruction of the bridge you're standi
"There’s print, radio, and television for getting one’s message out. Even flyers, billboards, etc."
Yes. All of which are far less effective than the internet at marketing directly to a fanbase. Mainly because they are all controlled by corporations like the ones you wish to force everybody to use, presumably because whatever crap you created in order to build you spam lists fails when people have access to quality competition.
"Without piracy, copyrights are much more valuable."
How do you know? Piracy has existed longer than any of us have been alive. Yet there were still successful people in media… hmmm…
"I had forgotten how valuable the mailing list is. "
The fraudsters and scam artists like yourself. Actual creative people would be interested in the next piece of art they are working on and the fans they can communicate with, not how many people they can spam.
Awesomeness
Hey I’m all for more copyright, just soon as all copyright ownership is put on a public data base (the cost to maintain comes out of copyright’s profits) So that we can know "happy birthday" is owned or not. As was found with happy birthday, it was not owned buy the folks that got paid. The did keep the cash. That is theft btw.
Re: Awesomeness
It’s called the Library of Congress. All registered titles are contained in it.
Re: Re: Awesomeness
I know that was true at some point, but is it still true today? (Not saying you’re wrong; I’m genuinely curious.)
Re: Re: Re: Awesomeness
As far as I’m aware technically that would be correct, in that if it’s registered it’s going to be in a list of registrations. However, with copyright-by-default the rule that list, vs the number of unregistered works, is likely to be a fraction of the total, to the point that I would be surprised if it comprised even a whopping 1% of all works out there.
Re: Re: Awesomeness
That may be true, dood, but it definitely doesn’t contain up-to-date information on copyright ownership, which is what was being talked about here!
Re: Re: Re: Awesomeness
All works become automatically copyrighted as soon as they are fixed in a tangible medium. It is no longer required to file the work with the library of congress.
This post, as soon as I hit hit “Submit” becomes copyrighted. It’s rather amusing to think that the LoC could contain all copyrights – let alone somehow catalog and determine ownership.
Stopping transmission of copyrighted works literally means stopping all transmissions.
Re: Awesomeness
I need to suggest something about WHERE they are..
If you really want something Quiet, you dont file it..
You file the basic’s, and sue for anything LIKE IT..
The auto corps, have, bought and stolen, and other things…to keep certain thing Kinda private. They want the WHOLE thing, and any invention that could improve/change what they have, they WANT and will hold, privately..
The general idea/concepts are posted, but you wont see the final products..fixes/changes/…
Let be Let you notice something..
1970’s oil crisis(it was fake, until the other nations notice we would pay more) That the USA gov. demanded better fuel economy…We got it, by doubling the mileage…then the gov said STOP.. ?? because they saw that the taxes from Fuel/oil went in 1/2..
Then prices went up again…and the gov. made the same demand…and soon after…STOP..??? can you guess what was happening???
We started at 10mpg from thje 60’s went to 20mpg in the 70’s…then 30-40 in the 2000’s..
And if you understand engines abit, and a few neat tricks, All the tech they are using, could have been used in the 60’s.. the original test engines were Straight 6 Giant motors that got 10mpg..
Re: Re: Awesomeness
Quick question – are you 10 years old? Your logic reminds me of my grandson.
Understanding..
2 largest Internet corps..and all that they hold access to and could be liable..
Amazon
Google
If they Pulled out all they have in the EU..
You might as well Shoot all your gov. representatives and anyone else running your countries..
Because there WONT be much left..
And MSN will be right behind them..as they will be the only target..