RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites

from the kicking-and-screaming dept

Cary Sherman, RIAA boss, is testifying before Congress on Wednesday morning, and (not surprisingly) he uses the opportunity to whine about those dirty pirates again, while asking Congress to buck up and do something. To his credit, it appears that Sherman (or one of his PR handlers) has realized that the combative and confrontational approach he took right after SOPA and PIPA died. He got a ton of backlash for that, and has since tried to be a little less condescending.

Thus, he starts out by talking about all the new business models and modern services that the record labels have adopted and licensed. Of course, he also says that CDs are not digital, so he's a bit confused about the technology. He also leaves out the fact that the labels had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, all the way to agree to the various services that he talks up -- and even then, its stance in negotiating licensing deals with them has been to try to strangle any service that gets too popular. He also talks up the recently negotiated royalty rates between labels, publishers and some digital music services -- leaving out the fact that they include royalty rates on things that don't require royalties (like mere music storage lockers).

But, in the end, Sherman is a one-trick pony, and back to that trick he goes. After talking about all of this "voluntary" innovation they've done -- and highlighting the various "voluntary" six strikes deal, as well as advertising putting together a blacklist of "rogue" sites they won't advertise on -- Sherman goes back to whining about how "piracy" must be stopped. He starts out by, yet again, misleading and misrepresenting what's happening. He talks about how there's less revenue from music sales -- but ignores that more money has gone into music itself, once you look at the massive increase in live music. He ignores the fact that people are actually spending more on enjoying music today than ever before in the past. The idea that people aren't paying is simply wrong.

And then he has the ridiculous gall to suggest less music is getting out to the world because of this:
What kind of harm? Massive layoffs, of course. But also less money to invest in artists. That means fewer artists on our rosters, fewer people who can make a living from music, fewer songs permeating through our culture that help form a piece of our national identity.
That's ridiculous. Look at any credible data, and you see that more music is being created today than ever before. More artists are making money today from music than ever before. And you know how songs can better permeate through our culture and help form a piece of our national identity? Well, here's a hint: by not locking up that music, by allowing it to be shared and played and heard. But that's not how the RIAA works.

He brings up the record labels favorite talking point these days: which is that fewer people list themselves as full time musicians in the Bureau of Labor Statistics data. This is, at best, a red herring. This is a time of transition, and certainly the labels are funding fewer musicians. But new business models are growing rapidly and while they may not be funding as many full time musicians (yet), they are helping more musicians make some money. And, as we've seen over and over again, the trend on these new platforms is that they're growing and able to fund more and more, as they grow. It's a classic innovator's dilemma situation. Similarly, the deeper you dig into the BLS numbers, the more interesting things you find. For example, there's been a massive increase in independent artists. But, the big labels that the RIAA represents don't want you to know that.

He then goes on to claim that enforcement works -- and uses Limewire and MegaUpload as examples. He notes the correlation between growth in sales after Limewire's shut down, and suggests "it is not a coincidence" the two things happened at the same time (though, other reports note the release of some very popular albums at the same time). He also insists that a survey of Limewire users claims they didn't sign up for any other unauthorized service. That's something more like wishful thinking. The data actually suggests there continues to be a pretty big growth in unauthorized sharing. The death of Limewire looks like a temporary blip. Also, if you were a former Limewire user, and a research firm representing the guys who shut it down came and asked you what you were using now, how many of you would point your finger to the new service you found so they could shut it down? Exactly.

As for Megaupload, nice work by the RIAA to support a case that is rapidly falling apart for the US, where it looks increasingly like the US didn't even come close to following the law in shutting down a site that had significant non-infringing uses. And, of course, he leaves out the fact that it was the RIAA's own bogus evidence, which they could never back up, that resulted in a hip hop blog, Dajaz1, being shut down and censored for over a year. That's the kind of enforcement he's supporting?

And then there's the push for a new SOPA:
These voluntary programs are not a panacea. No program ever will be. And sometimes, the Congress must step in to assure that our property rights, and U.S. economic interests, are being protected. Especially against sites overseas whose business model is the theft of U.S. works.
Funny that he says this right after talking about the success in shutting down Megaupload -- which didn't (according to the RIAA or the feds) require any new action from Congress.

He also continues to take shots at the tech industry, and at search in particular. After talking about things like the six strikes program and the ad blacklist, he notes:
We hope other intermediaries like search engines will follow suit in negotiating voluntary marketplace best practices to prevent directing users to sites that are dedicated to violating property rights.
Of course, this ignores the realities of the situation, in which you can't just block out sites because the RIAA doesn't like them. The RIAA has a long and detailed history of blaming perfectly legitimate products for being "illegal." Remember, this is the same group that sued to kill the first MP3 player. And now they want the search engines to just trust them in determining which sites are evil and which are good? It doesn't work that way.

He then points out that he wants to "reach out" to "the tech and Internet communities." He could just say, you know, "the public." Also, I'm trying to figure out why Sherman, Dodd and others keep talking about reaching out, but never actually do. Once again, it's not at all difficult to get into a discussion online. Why don't they ever do it?

Sherman also uses the opportunity to once again push for a RIAA bailout from radio, by forcing a tax to advertise their music. The RIAA has been pushing for this tax for years and it makes no sense. The labels know that radio is free advertising for them. It's why they're so often accused of payola. Because they know that if they get their songs on the radio, there's massive value in that and lots of ways to monetize it. So they pay ridiculous sums of money to "promoters" who pass that along to radio people to get the songs on the air. And now they're claiming that the labels need to be paid if the radios play that same music? It's insanity.

Either way, it's still more of the same. Until Cary Sherman is replaced by someone who actually spends time on the internet, the RIAA is going to increasingly represent a smaller and smaller portion of the music industry. The new music industry -- including tons of new artists, new music services, and even new labels, know that the RIAA's focus is on the past, not the future.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cary sherman, chris dodd, congress, pipa, rogue sites, sopa
Companies: limewire, megaupload, riaa


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    rubberpants, 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:25pm

    It's so ironic to hear the labels complain about iTunes and how much leverage and control Apple has over distribution when it's the very DRM schemes and laws they themselves lobbied for that enable that control. They forged their own shackles.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Niall (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 3:28am

      Re:

      And the very service they fought against offering themselves.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2012 @ 2:18am

        Re: Re:

        Damn, can't find the link to it but somewhere I read an article about Steve Jobs coming out of a meeting with the record labels, and it said he was grinning ear to ear because the labels had completely forgotten who their customers were.

        He knew he had 'em by the balls.

        Who says "Content is king"? If not for technology, there wouldn't be be any way to enjoy any content.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    iamtheky (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:31pm

    Cary Sherman, RIAA boss, is testifying before Congress on Wednesday morning

    tomorrow? and the post is based on what he said tomorrow?

    To his credit, it appears that Sherman (or one of his PR handlers) has realized that the combative and confrontational approach he took right after SOPA and PIPA died.

    That doesnt read as a complete sentence, but i have been wronger.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Justin (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:32pm

    If they were truly innovating he wouldn't of had to show up for this meeting. Also, there don't really seem to be any changes for the end user actually implemented by the RIAA. so what are they doing to innovate??

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:32pm

    The RIAA are old, cranky, forgetful and ramble on about stuff that happened forever time ago.

    “Artists have every right to be wary when powerful entertainment conglomerates push for policies that could undermine free expression, all the while claiming to speak for creators.”


    Casey Rae Hunter http://futureofmusic.org



    We need to put the RIAA in the retirement home, where they belong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    A Dan (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:34pm

    Typo

    and even then, it's stance in negotiating

    ...should be "its stance"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:43pm

    RIAA: Innovation in Stupidity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:43pm

    I don't really care what hollywood does anymore. Too much wasted energy ya know?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:48pm

    Mike Masnick just hates it when someone dares to make objections about having things taken without permission.

    That's the kind of guy he is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      silverscarcat (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:52pm

      Re:

      So, what's being taken?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:55pm

      Re:

      "Mike Masnick just hates it when someone dares to make objections about having things taken without permission.

      That's the kind of guy he is."

      Translation: blanket statement.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      weneedhelp (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:56pm

      Re:

      Anonymous Coward just hates it when someone dares to make objections about outright misinformation trying to get laws passed.

      That's the kind of guy he is.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:57pm

      Re:

      Funny you would be opposed to taking money (that didn't exist in the first place) yet support the RIAA in their attempt to take rights (that do exist) away from citizens. Not only that, but you seem to be suggesting that you want to take my money away from me and give directly to them just because I use a file locker for things completely unrelated to music (well, RIAA music).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      rubberpants, 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:57pm

      Re:

      I wonder what you think it is you're accomplishing with the drive-by insults?

      If you're trying to led credibility to Techdirt by displaying the character of the opposition - it's working.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 4:44pm

        Re: Re:

        He's obviously trying to reach out to those who a agree with him or hoping to show some of us the error of our ways, or more importantly, he's trying to show that there are alot of people that support his view on the subject

        Basically hes the internet version of fox news

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 5:35pm

        Re: Re:

        He's paid to meet a quota.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 9:06pm

        Re: Re:

        "I wonder what you think it is you're accomplishing with the drive-by insults?"

        He's trying to 'scare' or 'deter' Mike and others from criticizing IP. If you criticize IP he will insult you with personal attacks, defame you, make false accusations against you, mud sling, spam your inbox, harass you, maybe threaten, vandalize or attack you, etc... and it could ruin your reputation, etc... especially if he manages to identify you. So be afraid.

        It's basically a scare tactic to make you feel threatened. IP extremists have no moral standards and they want to make this clear so that if you oppose their position you know that they are willing to stoop as low as possible to bring you down and ruin your life/career, etc... to scare you away from doing so.

        Of course it doesn't work ;)

        (the above flagged post isn't really a good example of that though, but many IP extremist shills/trolls have made some really inappropriate posts before).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 9:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The idea is to make people feel insecure about criticizing IP because they know they could/will receive some very vocal, outspoken, and inappropriate responses.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 9:36pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          He's trying to 'scare' or 'deter' Mike and others from criticizing IP. If you criticize IP he will insult you with personal attacks, defame you, make false accusations against you, mud sling, spam your inbox, harass you, maybe threaten, vandalize or attack you, etc... and it could ruin your reputation, etc... especially if he manages to identify you. So be afraid.

          It's basically a scare tactic to make you feel threatened. IP extremists have no moral standards and they want to make this clear so that if you oppose their position you know that they are willing to stoop as low as possible to bring you down and ruin your life/career, etc... to scare you away from doing so.


          You mean like the way Anonymous put Chris Dodd's home phone number out on the internet so he and his children could receive vile and threatening calls during the SOPA run-up? Is that the sort of thing you are talking about? I defy you to document an example of anyone from the pro-copyright side doing something like that. Seems like the criminal activities and threats are limited to the copyright abolitionists.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Rikuo (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 12:17am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Dajaz1.com, Rojadiracta (hope I spelled that one right), Megaupload...
            while not the same as "posting phone numbers online", they have used the justice system to illegally censor websites and destroy businesses, and their evidence is either extremely weak, non-existant, or made up.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            The eejit (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 12:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Uhh, Eminem is the big one. But there's also Napster, iPod, rape, murder, drug-smuggling, embezzlement, fraud, chicanery and all other sorts of villainy.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 1:52pm

    He talks about how there's less revenue from music sales -- but ignores that more money has gone into music itself, once you look at the massive increase in live music.

    BFD. That's because it's harder to sneak into a concert than to steal a copy of a recording. So it should just be ignored? What about motion pictures? Not like you can take MIB 3 on tour.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 2:02pm

      Re:

      "Not like you can take MIB 3 on tour."

      No, but you could offer high quality Blu-Rays at a reasonable price that don't threaten the people that pay every time they want to play it (preferably not six months after everyone forgot it was in theaters). You could also offer digital downloads for a reasonable price and in a format that people can actually use that doesn't threaten to kill their devices.

      Or the big one, you could just realize that movies make a shit load of money despite piracy (or possibly because of it).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 9:41pm

        Re: Re:

        Or the big one, you could just realize that movies make a shit load of money despite piracy (or possibly because of it).

        I see. So the public should determine how much money a product or industry should lawfully make and then after that point, justify those earnings as a reason to simply take the product without paying? Nice theory, but experience indicates that people just take it whenever they can without any cognizance (or concern) of earnings or anything else.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          techflaws (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 9:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So, you think the producers should determine the price and everyone just has to buy, otherwise they want new laws that make people buy? Nice theory, but experience indicates that people just will take their money elsewhere.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Marcel de Jong (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 5:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The product will get the price the market decide the product is worth. It's always been this way for every other stinking piece of product.

          If you price your product too high (according to the public), no one will buy it, and you go out of business. It's that simple.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      rubberpants, 5 Jun 2012 @ 2:03pm

      Re:

      If a law can't be practically enforced then it has no value and should be ignored.

      When was the last time you drove over the speed limit without getting a ticket?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        rubberpants, 5 Jun 2012 @ 2:08pm

        Re: Re:

        Hmm, that's too strong, let me clarify:

        The enforcement of all laws is subject to the resources, physics, and the will of the public as to how vigorously they are enforced. It doesn't mean you're ignoring the problem, it means there are limits to what can be reasonably done.

        I'm curious, what is it that you think should be done? What would have to happen for you to consider the problem solved? Are the consequences of those enforcement actions worth the benefits?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 2:16pm

      Re:

      No one is saying it should just be ignored, but what has been said repeatedly on this site is that bad laws will not fix your problems and in fact will cause more problems in the long run and only drive more customers away (not necessarily to file sharing/piracy).

      And you're absolute right, you can't take MIB 3 on tour. But you can take the actors, directors, producers, etc on tour along with the film and charge for that. A chance to watch the movie and then discuss it with the people involved in it's making. You could even make a thing of it. Rent out a theater and have some kind of MIB theme put up for the entire theater and even have the staff wearing suits and alien costumes to add to the theme. They could offer up "alien treats" at the concession stand, so the theater can make a few bucks as well. At the end of the movie, have the people involved in making sneak onto the stage that's set up before the lights come on and before the Q&A session starts. Then when it's over before they all sneak off, have a bright light flash and have them "neuralyze" the audience/patrons. That'd be pretty nifty and I'd definitely pay extra for such a thing. Heck, I'd actually go see MIB 3 if they did that, even if it was a one night only thing in my city.

      But of course, that might be too creative and original a thought for you and your ilk to accept. That or too much legitimate work. You know, something only us commoners are capable of doing and getting paid for.

      Then again, see what I did there. I willingly gave you an idea that beats bitching about a problem, now here comes the part where you say, "Sure, that could work for MIB 3, but what about Transformers 4?! No way you can do that there! So ha! Fail!" Or something else just as moronic. At which point I'd probably face palm at how stupid you are and then laugh because it's quite amusing. You and your kind bitch about problems and rather than address them properly, you make things worse, and when people like me tell you how you can earn our money you call us thieves or get sarcastic or shrug off our suggestions because we're "not in the business" and "what could we possibly know". And that right there is your other problem, dismissing anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions as being "wrong" or "dumb" or whatnot. Meh. Your loss, not mine. I'm happy to spend my money elsewhere.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        rubberpants, 5 Jun 2012 @ 2:21pm

        Re: Re:

        It really is quite the spectacle watching them flail around as they try and stop the world from turning. I tell you what, there is a tremendous amount of money being made by companies, such as DRM vendors, who are selling them on the lie that you can stop progress because they are so desperate for the good old days that they will believe anyone who claims to have a way for them to keep doing what they've always been doing. Kind of sad really.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 2:37pm

        Re: Re:

        I'd also like to add that one of the best and quickest ways to beat file sharing, as independent studies have shown, is to offer the people what they want. Products at reasonable prices (no one is saying free and people are more than happy to pay as has been shown), with no restrictions (be they DRM, geographic or timely), in a convenient location and in an easy to use manner (ala Steam, Netflix or iTunes), and available in a variety of formats.

        Do that and you'll be amazed how fast piracy rates start falling. Keep not giving the people what they want and watch them keep going to someone who will. Be it approved of or not, legitimate or not, legal or not.

        See, I did it again. I, a consumer, told you how to solve your problem. Not watch me be ignored and be treated to another moronic comment going on about theft (which sorry to say, file sharing is very much not, theft involves something is taken... not copied).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 8:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I agree with everything you said until the last paragraph. The industry does need to distribute in the way you outlined.

          However, while not meeting the technical definition of theft, what you are describing involves you unlawfully taking something of value (someone else's creative output) for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner. That sort of unjust enrichment is equally as wrong and is just as illegal as theft. I've never understood that tortured rationalization that allows people to convince themselves that it is not simply wrong. And I'm not talking about film buffs swapping favorite movies and shit like that. I'm talking about the wholesale, massive, global infringement that so many people think is just dandy.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            techflaws (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 9:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That sort of unjust enrichment is equally as wrong and is just as illegal as theft.

            Bullshit. If someone is determined (for whatever reason) to not buy from you it doenst make the slightest bit of difference to your bottom line whether he consumes the conten anyway or not.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 9:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Sure it does.It is still unjust enrichment. You have enjoyed my creative output that I offer for sale without compensating me for it. And you have done it in violation of the law. My bottom line isn't a variable in that equation. Your wrongful enrichment is what is at issue.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 11:03pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "It is still unjust enrichment."

                First of all the purpose of IP law should never be to prevent your arbitrary perception of an 'unjust enrichment'. No one is entitled to a government established monopoly. It's purpose should only be to serve a public good. Anything else is grounds to either abolish these laws or fix them.

                The only intended beneficiaries should be the public, any benefit you receive should purely be the means. Anything else is an perversion of what it should be intended for. Your post is exactly why the public should be determined to abolish IP laws.

                Secondly, I don't subscribe to, or care about, your arbitrary (and selfish) moral standards. It is not unjust, what is unjust is for you to try and impose your arbitrary and selfish moral standards on others. If you think it's unjust then you are free to follow your own moral principles and not freely copy whomever you want, but don't force your arbitrary moral standards on others.

                I can just as easily claim that eating birthday cake is unjust because I said so. So don't eat birthday cake. Doesn't make it unjust. I can come up with arbitrary moral standards too and claim that others are violating them and call their actions unjust. It's not unjust.

                "You have enjoyed my creative output that I offer for sale without compensating me for it."

                If you don't like it then find another job. Your discomfort with me freely copying what I want as I want is your problem, not mine. No one is forcing you to create and release your work.

                But what you are absolutely not entitled to is a government established monopoly on your works. It is my every right to copy as I please, this right exists outside of government. Your privilege to prevent me from copying is a subsidy that the government provides you with, at taxpayer expense and at the expense of our rights. I do not want my rights, or tax dollars, being used to maintain this privilege. I want IP privileges abolished.

                "Your wrongful enrichment is what is at issue."

                No, what is at issues is, does IP law serve a public benefit. Your answer seems to suggest, no, it's not intended to. It's intended to prevent your perception of someone's wrongful enrichment at the expense of that someone, at the expense of everyone. IOW, it goes against the public interest. You are not entitled to an IP monopoly and there is nothing wrongful about me freely copying as I please. So, since its purpose is something other than the public interest, as you seem to claim, the conclusion I draw from your post is that IP laws should be abolished. They are against the public interest and so are immoral in nature.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                techflaws (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 6:00am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                My bottom line isn't a variable in that equation

                Of course it is cause that's what you and your ilk claim as "harm" when whining for tougher enforcement.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                DigitalDao (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 6:39am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                >>Sure it does.It is still unjust enrichment. You have enjoyed my creative output that I offer for sale without compensating me for it.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 11:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "what you are describing involves you unlawfully taking something of value (someone else's creative output) for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner."

            Your post gives good reason to abolish IP law. IP law should never be intended to prevent someone from 'taking something of value without compensating the owner', it's only intent should be to serve the public interest. Compensating the owner is the alleged means. No one is entitled to a government established monopoly on anything. You don't like it, stop releasing your works and find another job. Since you seem to suggest their purpose is something other than the public interest then the public has a duty to seek the abolition of IP laws.

            Secondly, I am not taking your creative output, I am copying it. You still have your copy and so are not deprived of anything. IP laws, by their very nature, are theft, because I am being denied something.

            "That sort of unjust enrichment is equally as wrong and is just as illegal as theft."

            It's not unjust and it's not wrong. Keep repeating it over and over and .... well, you still won't convince anyone.

            "I've never understood that tortured rationalization that allows people to convince themselves that it is not simply wrong."

            I can just as easily argue that I've never understood the rationalization that allows people to convince themselves that it's not wrong. Or how about I've never understood the rationalization that allows people to convince themselves that eating birthday cake is not wrong. Or ...

            You want to claim something is wrong, I'm afraid you hold the burden to convince others. I'm not the one with the burden to convince you that there is nothing wrong with something. You haven't provided a good reason to believe it is wrong. It's not.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 11:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              errr ...

              I can just as easily argue that I've never understood the rationalization that allows people to convince themselves that it is wrong *

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        silverscarcat (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 2:40pm

        Re: Re:

        "Sure, that could work for MIB 3, but what about Transformers 4?! No way you can do that there! So ha! Fail!"

        Obviously they've never been to Botcon.

        Neither have I, but that's another story...

        When Peter Cullen (Optimus Prime for those who don't know) first went to Botcon, the sheer overwhelming positive response he got from the fans was incredible. So much that I wouldn't be surprised if he was driven to tears over it. He never thought that he was so popular with the fans until his daughter got him to go to one.

        Fact is, you don't need giant transforming robots for a Transformers tour to work, just get their VAs. I mean, come on! Frank Welker (Megatron), Steven Blum (currently Starscream in TF Prime), Peter Cullen and David Kaye (Megatron from Beast Wars, Beast Machines, Armada, Energon and Cybertron, not to mention Optimus Prime in Animated) just LOVE being in front of fans and talking to them.

        They'd go for a live action tour of the movies.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 6:18pm

        Re: Re:

        The problem with that is it would largely serve those who are making millions already. Plus, given the project oriented nature of motion pictures, after shooting for two months (and God knows how many months of post) the release is about a year or so from the shoot. Most people have moved on. Especially the crew making $20/hour- not that the rigging grip would be much of a draw anyway.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          techflaws (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 9:53pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So what you are saying is that under your regime the crew would make more money? How come?

          Also, with all the "theft" going on driving the industry into the ground (see Avengers), they are still able to shell out that much money and to pay the crews. Now what does that tell you about the harm you've been going on?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 10:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What regime? I was simply debunking the idea that there is a film industry corollary to rock concerts.

            Sure big tent pole pictures can sustain piracy. What can't sustain piracy is small indy films. The very films that represent the true diversity of expression in the medium and where most of the best films reside and where all of the best filmmakers started. Go to popuppirates.com (I think) and see what happened to one indy filmmaker and why she is out of the business.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 11:32pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "What can't sustain piracy is small indy films."

              [citation needed]

              Before the Internet it was much more difficult for indy films to get anywhere because the big media cartels wrongfully controlled the overwhelming majority of communication channels and they abuse/abused their government established communication monopolies for their selfish gain. But, if you look at the data (as Mike has pointed out over and over on this blog and you willfully ignore) Indy films are doing better now than ever before. So you're just making things up based on some (likely fabricated) anecdote.

              "Go to popuppirates.com (I think) and see what happened to one indy filmmaker and why she is out of the business."

              First of all, do you have a link so that we can better scrutinize your claims? I visited that site and it seems to be a very poorly sourced site with terrible logic written by the same IP extremist shills that visit techdirt.

              Secondly, just because one person couldn't make money from an Indy film doesn't mean that

              A: The internet/piracy is responsible. This person at least now has a much better chance to gain the recognition necessary to succeed as an indy filmmaker, before, they had to go through the big government established media cartels who (would have and often still do) demand IP privileges on everything broadcasted. So you have to provide evidence that this person would otherwise be successful as an indy filmmaker, the answer is probably not.

              Thirdly, I don't care to subsidize an Indy film maker at the expense of my rights (and at the taxpayer expense necessary to fund them). You like this filmmaker you fund him/her yourself out of your own pocket, don't force others to fund him/her by sacrificing our rights (and the tax dollars necessary to enforce these laws).

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 5:24am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                This movie was likely made by IP extremists with the intent that it would fail so that it can be blamed on infringement. How sad.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Karl (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 12:03am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  This movie was likely made by IP extremists with the intent that it would fail

                  No, it's pretty obviously an indie filmmaker who wants to be mainstream, and has bought into all the bullshit lies that mainstream studios propagate.

                  It would be sad, if it wasn't being used as a propaganda tool.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              techflaws (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 6:02am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              What can't sustain piracy is small indy films.

              You mean those indy projects whose numbers have been going to the roof?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 8:06am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You don't seem to understand the difference between hobbyists and those who aspire to be professional film makers. Anyone can make a low budget film. Few can make a living at it.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 9:08am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Which has to do with IP laws how exactly?

                  Your statement is true with or without IP.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 9:27am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    and, besides, the purpose of IP should not be to ensure that someone can make a living creating content. Its only purpose should be to serve the public interest. If its intent is anything else then that's a reason these laws should be abolished.

                    So, at best, your comment is irrelevant. At worst, your comment is a reason to get rid of IP laws.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 10:39am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      The framers of the Constitution disagree with you:

                      "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" was the first stated purpose of U.S. copyright. The U.S. Constitution ratified in 1788 proposed to do that "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

                      What do you think the "exclusive right" was contemplated to do? Most lucid people would agree it was to afford exclusive financial exploitation of such writings and discoveries.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 11:03am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "The framers of the Constitution disagree with you:"

                        [citation needed]

                        ""To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" was the first stated purpose of U.S. copyright. The U.S. Constitution ratified in 1788 proposed to do that "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

                        What do you think the "exclusive right" was contemplated to do? Most lucid people would agree it was to afford exclusive financial exploitation of such writings and discoveries."

                        You're confusing the ends with the means. The ends are to serve a public benefit, the alleged means are through copy protection privileges.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 11:21am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          We're a nation of capitalists, Fidel. What you seem to envision is the failed socialist utopian vision of communal property. Without property rights, you get the intellectual and creative dynamics of N. Korea.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 11:50am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            "Without property rights, you get the intellectual and creative dynamics of N. Korea."

                            Provide reliable citations explaining the intellectual and creative dynamics of North Korea and provide reliable and reasonable citations and data and argumentation to show us the dynamics of IP laws there and how they are responsible. Oh, and I don't want some link to a website with anonymous authors and no citations and made up nonsense, I want reliable citations.

                            You can make baseless claims with multiple assumptions all you want, but to convince others you need more.

                            You musta recently seen this headline, though you obviously skipped the contents.

                            "That's significant because the penalties for anyone caught with forbidden music and videos are severe: months or even years in a North Korean prison camp."

                            http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120601/09495419171/north-korean-study-confirms-it-peopl e-will-share-whatever-risks.shtml

                            So ... North Korea has strict IP/content/infringement laws and you are arguing that they have poor intellectual and creative dynamics?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 12:18pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              "Without property rights, you get the intellectual and creative dynamics of N. Korea."

                              Provide reliable citations explaining the intellectual and creative dynamics of North Korea and provide reliable and reasonable citations and data and argumentation to show us the dynamics of IP laws there and how they are responsible. Oh, and I don't want some link to a website with anonymous authors and no citations and made up nonsense, I want reliable citations.

                              Fuck you. Do your own research.

                              You can make baseless claims with multiple assumptions all you want, but to convince others you need more.

                              You musta recently seen this headline, though you obviously skipped the contents.


                              "That's significant because the penalties for anyone caught with forbidden music and videos are severe: months or even years in a North Korean prison camp."

                              http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120601/09495419171/north-korean-study-confirms-it-peopl e-will-share-whatever-risks.shtml


                              Funny, the only thing missing was any indication that the law was actually enforced.

                              So ... North Korea has strict IP/content/infringement laws and you are arguing that they have poor intellectual and creative dynamics?

                              No, Derpsley. I am arguing that the lack of exclusive property rights is why they are among the most ass-backward nations on earth. That creates a paucity of creative/technological innovation to infringe on in the first place. God, you are a dope.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 12:25pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                "Do your own research. "

                                If you want to make an arbitrary claim with baseless assumptions the burden is not on me to prove your claim. The burden is on you to prove your claim.

                                I take it you won't substantiate because you can't, because substantiation doesn't exist.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 12:30pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                "No, Derpsley. I am arguing that the lack of exclusive property rights is why they are among the most ass-backward nations on earth. That creates a paucity of creative/technological innovation to infringe on in the first place. God, you are a dope."

                                No, what you are doing is making arbitrary statements with baseless assumptions and you are neither substantiating your statements or their assumptions. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

                                "Funny, the only thing missing was any indication that the law was actually enforced. "

                                More relevant questions are

                                A: How much effort is going into enforcing the laws.

                                B: How much are attempts to enforce these laws costing, both in monetary costs and in the costs to citizen rights.

                                C: How effective are these enforcement efforts. If they're not effective and they're costing a lot of money maybe the laws themselves should be done away with.

                                D: How are these laws promoting a social benefit. Can you provide evidence?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                techflaws (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 10:14pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Fuck you. Do your own research.

                                Hehe, thanks for being so obvious that you pulled all your assumptions out of your ass.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 11:51am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            "What you seem to envision is the failed socialist utopian vision of communal property."

                            Socialism is a government construct. IP is a government construct. IP abolition is the abolition of a government construct.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Karl (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 11:54pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            We're a nation of capitalists, Fidel.

                            Copyright is not capitalism. It is a government-granted monopoly. It is exactly as "capitalist" as the Dutch East India Company.

                            If you want laissez-faire capitalism, you'd get rid of copyright, and let any publisher sell any book that they want - including reprints of other publishers' books - free from enforced monopolies.

                            Now, I am not a copyright abolitionist. Nor am I a strict laissez-faire capitalist. I do believe that some government regulations are often necessary, and that includes some form of copyright (though not the form we have now).

                            But, make no mistake about it: copyright reformers are not in any way advocating socialism. They are advocating for its opposite.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 1:24pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "What do you think the "exclusive right" was contemplated to do? Most lucid people would agree it was to afford exclusive financial exploitation of such writings and discoveries."

                        So it's okay for copyright law to be manipulate for profit?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 2:06pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          It is OK for creators to profit from their copyrighted creation. And it is OK for inventors to profit from their inventions. Why comrade, do you believe that something unique and copyright/patentable should be public property. What effort did the public put in to it?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 3:44pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            You are aware that a government granted privilege (which is most definitely not a Constitutionally protected right) and monopoly is a lot more Socialistic than anything the AC you replied to said, right?

                            And if you don't, are you just pretending to be that stupid or were you born that way?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 7:39pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            I believe copyrighted material belongs to the artists not the labels (who use account tricks to prevent paying the artists) or Disney who takes the hard work of great authors and continually milks it for pennies, while maintaining a monopoly on IP.

                            You're not garnering any sympathy for the corporations that only have greed, and not creation or compensation for the artists on their mind.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2012 @ 11:11pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Funny you should say this. Are we allowed to unjustify paying rightsholders for playing ambient music during weddings and having to pay more if you dance? The rightsholder didn't get the couple together, institute their marriage or arrange for reception, neither was the song written for the wedding; what effort did the rightsholder make with regards to the wedding?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2012 @ 12:43am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        I have a little writing you might do well to read:

                        http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/opposingcopyrightextension/publicdomain/Loren2-7-00.html

                        Exclusive rights are not the purpose, they are merely the tool being used to reach the goal. Repeating the lie as you have just makes you seem little and ignorant.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  techflaws (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 10:06pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Few can make a living at it.

                  And you have the numbers to proof how piracy gets in the way of this?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Karl (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 11:37pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You don't seem to understand the difference between hobbyists and those who aspire to be professional film makers.

                  Filmmakers at exactly the level of "And Then Came Lola" are exactly the type of filmmakers that Techflaws was talking about.

                  These are the type of filmmakers who benefit the most by technological change: the same technological change that allows filesharing to exist. There is no evidence whatsoever that file sharing actually harms filmmakers like this.

                  So, what is it? Are people like Seidler "hobbyists?" If so, then that's pretty insulting, and also incredibly hypocritical that you would even present the link in the first place.

                  If not, then you have to provide evidence that filesharing actually harms indie filmmakers at that level. You've presented none. And, in fact, the popuppirates site presents absolutely zero evidence that filesharing hurt "Lola," either. (Nor that Google hurt them - and Google, not the pirates, is her real target here.)

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 2:48pm

      Re:

      And just because it's harder to detonate a nuclear device in Chino, Nevada does not mean we should stop looking for those who infringe that law! (and fine them $500).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 6:30pm

      Re:

      "That's because it's harder to sneak into a concert than to steal a copy of a recording."

      Congratulations on figuring out the difference between something that's finite and not reproducible (scarce), and an infinitely reproducible digital file (abundant). Welcome to Econ 101.

      And obviously you can't "steal" a digital copy.

      "What about motion pictures? Not like you can take MIB 3 on tour."

      If you can't see how watching a film in a cinema is (or should be) a much better experience than watching a film at home, and hence more valuable to the consumer, then you have no place in this discussion.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 8:18pm

        Re: Re:

        If you can't see how the relationship of a rock concert to listening on your home stereo differs from the relationship of going to the theater versus watching at home on your HD television- it is you who has no place in this discussion.

        And I understand the distinction that allows you to be more comfortable with stealing. You are still unjustly enriched by violating copyright law and taking someone else's creative output for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner.

        There. Does that make you feel better?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 8:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I never compensate owners when I listen to music on the radio. I know this because the moment a commercial comes on I change the station. In some cases I turn off the radio if I'd rather just be alone with my thoughts or hum to myself instead.

          I also routinely DVR shows and skip the commercials, thus avoiding watching what pays for the handful of shows I watch.

          I also purchase games from the Humble Bundle but prefer that all my funds go to charities of my choosing, thus at most a penny goes to the game developers.

          I am a no good thief for all of that, aren't I? According to your deluded view that is. You trolls/shills are getting quite pathetic. It's almost sad... almost.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 9:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I never compensate owners when I listen to music on the radio. I know this because the moment a commercial comes on I change the station. In some cases I turn off the radio if I'd rather just be alone with my thoughts or hum to myself instead.

            I also routinely DVR shows and skip the commercials, thus avoiding watching what pays for the handful of shows I watch.

            I also purchase games from the Humble Bundle but prefer that all my funds go to charities of my choosing, thus at most a penny goes to the game developers.

            I am a no good thief for all of that, aren't I? According to your deluded view that is. You trolls/shills are getting quite pathetic. It's almost sad... almost.


            Ok, since you are bent on acting like a fucking idiot, I'll indulge you. The discussing was about infringing. I-N-F-R-I-N-G-I-N-G. I typed it really slow so you could follow along. What does anything you wrote have to do with infringing? Perhaps someone on your short bus can explain it to you on the way to school in the morning.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 9:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              *discussion* sorry, that probably really threw you.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              techflaws (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 10:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              What does anything you wrote have to do with infringing?

              Apart from consuming content you're not paying for?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 4:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              No, you were not specifically discussing "infringing". I'd like to quote you now, so you can see why I said what I did (which was not acting like a fucking idiot, you're the only one here who ever does that, fyi), "You are still unjustly enriched... taking someone else's creative output for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner."

              You know what my smart alec response was? Exactly that. Me being unjustly enriched without compensating the owner.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 7:36am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Oh, and before you go off calling others a "fucking idiot" or telling them to have things explained on the way to the "short bus" you would do well to make sure you've made no grammatical errors in your statement. Otherwise YOU look like the fucking idiot on their way to the short bus to get to school.

              Example: "The discussing was about infringing."

              Wtf? Do you mean "the DISCUSSION* was about INFRINGEMENT*"?

              Sorry to say, but according to your own words, anytime someone unjustly is enriched by enjoying the creative output of another without properly compensating the creator, that is infringement. I'm basing that based off all you've said so far.

              "Did you enjoy listening to that song? Well, I hope you wrote the artist a personal check for it. Did you like that show you saw earlier? Cool, you better have watched all the commercials that aired during it and paid for it's production. Blah blah blah." That's how you are coming off and thus that is the reason for my reply to you. It was me showing how I routinely am "unjustly enriched" by listening to or viewing or playing "someone else's creative output for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner." You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? I bet it really grinds your gears when people turn your own words against you. In fact, I know it does. Else you wouldn't get all uppety like you did and have been. You'd do your side more justice by not being as rude and obnoxious as you have been. Just some friendly advice, cupcake.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 7:54am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "You'd do your side more justice by not being as rude and obnoxious as you have been."

                He'd do his side better by keeping his mouth shut and not commenting because every time he talks he says something stupid. He should do IP extremists a favor by leaving the commenting to more intelligent IP extremists (if there are any).

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 10:22am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Oh, and before you go off calling others a "fucking idiot" or telling them to have things explained on the way to the "short bus" you would do well to make sure you've made no grammatical errors in your statement. Otherwise YOU look like the fucking idiot on their way to the short bus to get to school.

                Example: "The discussing was about infringing."

                Wtf? Do you mean "the DISCUSSION* was about INFRINGEMENT*"?


                I corrected the error moments after posting. Did you miss that or are you just totally desperate?

                Sorry to say, but according to your own words, anytime someone unjustly is enriched by enjoying the creative output of another without properly compensating the creator, that is infringement. I'm basing that based off all you've said so far.

                "Did you enjoy listening to that song? Well, I hope you wrote the artist a personal check for it. Did you like that show you saw earlier? Cool, you better have watched all the commercials that aired during it and paid for it's production. Blah blah blah." That's how you are coming off and thus that is the reason for my reply to you. It was me showing how I routinely am "unjustly enriched" by listening to or viewing or playing "someone else's creative output for your own enjoyment without compensating the owner."

                Again you stupidly overlook key components in making your weak arguments. First, there's your inability to understand infringement. From copyright.gov:

                "As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner."

                Such things as skipping commercials and listening to the radio aren't infringing. My point regarding unjust enrichment related to the similarity of theft to infringement. The fact that both are illegal and that both have the element of unjust enrichment should be apparent, unless you are even slower than I initially suspected.

                You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? I bet it really grinds your gears when people turn your own words against you.

                Let me know when that happens Derpsley.

                In fact, I know it does. Else you wouldn't get all uppety [sic] like you did and have been. You'd do your side more justice by not being as rude and obnoxious as you have been. Just some friendly advice, cupcake.

                And your side would likely benefit if you stuck with making pot holders, weaving gimp lanyards or recovering stray shopping carts in a Wal Mart parking lot.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 11:12am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "The fact that both are illegal"

                  Is irrelevant, since the argument being made is that the law itself is unjust. That something is illegal doesn't itself justify its illegality.

                  "regarding unjust enrichment"

                  There you go again, making IP laws about preventing your perception of an 'unjust enrichment'. No, their only purpose should be to serve the public interest, not to prevent people from 'enriching' themselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people 'enriching' themselves, it needs no justification because it's not unjust. Since you're arguing that its intent is about something other than what's in the public interest then your argument is a good reason to abolish them. Abolish IP laws.

                  "both have the element of unjust enrichment"

                  Labeling infringement an unjust enrichment is your own arbitrary fabrication. I don't subscribe to your arbitrary and selfish moral principles. What is unjust is for you to impose your personal moral principles on everyone else, as if you are the ultimate authority of morality. You're not. IP extremists are morally corrupt.

                  "should be apparent, unless you are even slower than I initially suspected. "

                  The fact that you are an idiot should be apparent, unless you are too much of an idiot to see that. See, I can use your own lack of reasoning to make arbitrary statements too.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 11:31am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    No, their only purpose should be to serve the public interest, not to prevent people from 'enriching' themselves.

                    You seems committed to ignoring the Constitutional guarantee to an "exclusive right". Yet I'd wager you demand your other Constitutional right to things like due process, right to bear arms, etc. That exclusivity is the incentive for creation. People are enriched by creative and technological advances, but creators are entitled to the exclusive rights to exploit such advances- society is not entitled to enjoy those advances without compensating the creator or rights holder- assuming the creator seeks compensation and the societal benefit is within the statutory period.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 11:41am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "You seems committed to ignoring the Constitutional guarantee to an "exclusive right"."

                      It's not a constitutional guarantee. The constitution does not guarantee the exclusive privileges. The constitution gives congress the legal right to grant IP privileges but it does not require congress to grant them. So the granting of these privileges is not guaranteed or required.

                      "Yet I'd wager you demand your other Constitutional right to things like due process, right to bear arms, etc."

                      Again, IP is not a constitutional right. It's something congress has the discretion to grant, only to the extent that it promotes the progress (serves a public benefit) of the sciences and useful arts.

                      "but creators are entitled to the exclusive rights to exploit such advances"

                      No they are not. No one is entitled to a government established monopoly. To make this about serving a creators alleged entitlement is reason to abolish IP laws. Their purpose should only be to serve a public benefit, nothing else.

                      "society is not entitled to enjoy those advances without compensating the creator or rights holder- assuming the creator seeks compensation and the societal benefit is within the statutory period."

                      Society is not entitled to the air it breaths either. No one is entitled to anything.

                      However, society has a natural right to freely copy as they please despite an IP holder's disagreement. IP is a privilege given to IP holders by government, at the expense of those being governed and those funding the government. It's not something the government is, or should be, required to grant, it's not something creators are entitled to, it's purpose is not to prevent society from receiving something you claim they are not entitled to. It's only purpose should be to serve a public interest. I do not want IP laws to exist and I don't want government to pass them anymore. If a creator doesn't like it s/he can find another job.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 12:10pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Society is not entitled to the air it breaths either. No one is entitled to anything.

                        However, society has a natural right to freely copy .....


                        So society has no right to the air it breathes, yet it has a right to freely copy and enjoy the creative output of another?????

                        You are utterly delusional.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 12:12pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          No, you are utterly stupid. You are confusing a right with an entitlement.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      JMT (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 5:04am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "You seems committed to ignoring the Constitutional guarantee to an "exclusive right"."

                      You seem to be committed to believing a completely incorrect interpretation of the Constitution, which actually guarantees no such thing. An unfortunately common mistake among copyright maximilists.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          techflaws (profile), 5 Jun 2012 @ 9:55pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Does that make you feel better?

          You accuse him of something (with no evidence whatsoever) simple because he dares to disagree? Of course that makes him feel better. What did you expect?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2012 @ 10:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            He rationalizes his illegal unjust enrichment the same way you do. Except he didn't bitch up and whine about it. Feel better?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              techflaws (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 6:05am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              With you proving yet again to everyone what a jackass you are? How could I not? Thanks for asking.

              BTW, what do you call your constant ramblings about "unjust enrichment". bitch up and whine, per chance?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 12:43am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "If you can't see how the relationship of a rock concert to listening on your home stereo differs from the relationship of going to the theater versus watching at home on your HD television- it is you who has no place in this discussion."

          Right back at ya. They are fundamentally very similar. Both live music and films in the cinema are far more immersive social experiences compared to home listening/viewing. Both involve significant aspects that you simply cannot replicate at home or duplicate and share. I'm amazed that you can't see that.

          "And I understand the distinction that allows you to be more comfortable with stealing."

          I've reread my post and can't see where I mentioned anything about my "stealing". I don't see why explaining basic economic and social concepts to you should automatically (and incorrectly) qualify me as a thief. It's funny to watch you lash out though, it does indeed make me feel better.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 10:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "If you can't see how the relationship of a rock concert to listening on your home stereo differs from the relationship of going to the theater versus watching at home on your HD television- it is you who has no place in this discussion."

            Right back at ya. They are fundamentally very similar. Both live music and films in the cinema are far more immersive social experiences compared to home listening/viewing. Both involve significant aspects that you simply cannot replicate at home or duplicate and share. I'm amazed that you can't see that.

            You can come far closer to replicating a motion picture at home than a rock concert. And it seems that consumers who pay upwards of several hundreds of dollars to attend a concert versus ten bucks to go to a movie do not share your view of how similar the multiplex and concert hall experience are.

            "And I understand the distinction that allows you to be more comfortable with stealing."

            I've reread my post and can't see where I mentioned anything about my "stealing". I don't see why explaining basic economic and social concepts to you should automatically (and incorrectly) qualify me as a thief. It's funny to watch you lash out though, it does indeed make me feel better

            You are but one of the many piracy apologists who attempt to justify infringement and ignore that, like garden-variety theft, it's illegal and involves unjust enrichment.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 1:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "You are but one of the many piracy apologists who attempt to justify infringement and ignore that, like garden-variety theft, it's illegal and involves unjust enrichment."

              We feel better at the end of the spectrum, then the one where corporations use illegal accounting to deprive artists of their due.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 2:02pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Compensation is governed by contracts. Contracts are enforceable in court. If the terms of your contract were violated, sue. If you got duped, get a different agent/lawyer.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2012 @ 7:36pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Read up on Mike Meyers and Nicole Kidman, both tried settling lawsuits in the courtrooms with Hollywood-based studios over contract disputes. Both almost or did go into bankruptcy because of it.

                  Sorry but court can be manipulated by high-priced lawyers the same way that law can be manipulated by high priced former politicians.

                  I'd rather support the underdog than the rich asshole.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              JMT (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 4:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "You can come far closer to replicating a motion picture at home