Evidence Mounts: UK Study Shows Better Legal Alternatives Pushing Pirates To Become Customers

from the yarrrr-forget-it dept

The theory that piracy enforcement is a far inferior method for combating copyright infringement when compared with better and innovative business models and offerings is certainly old hat for us here. And, while there have certainly been studies going back years showing that to be the case, it seems notable that the past few months have seen a wave of these studies all coming on top of each other. We had MUSO, of all organizations, essentially concluding a survey it did in the UK showing how much content "pirates" actually buy legitimately by saying, "Hey, content industries, get your shit together!" That was followed quite recently by a study performed by Dutch researchers that did an amazing and large-sampled survey that concluded quite clearly that user-friendly legal alternatives depressed piracy rates at a far greater clip than enforcement measures.

And, now, because good things always come in threes, yet another study in the UK has shown that once-pirates of music are morphing into very real customers due to convenient and user-friendly streaming services.

A new report from market research and data analytics firm YouGov only adds weight to that apparent shift. The headline stat from the company’s Music Report is that just one in ten Brits are currently downloading music illegally. That’s down from almost double (18%) that figure five short years ago.

It's quite obvious what coincides with that time period of the past five years that could contribute to this reduction in piracy and sure as hell isn't anything in the enforcement arena. Instead, the YouGov study suggests that the streaming services so many in the music industry have tried desperately to torpedo are responsible for this reduction. And, more interestingly, the report suggests that the trend line is only going to continue, if not accelerate.

More than six out of ten (63%) illegal music downloaders predict they’ll still be pirating in five years’ time but a significant 22% believe they won’t. Just over a third (36%) acknowledge that using unofficial sources for music is becoming more difficult but the summary doesn’t offer reasons why.

“It is now easier to stream music than to pirate it. And the cost is not prohibitive,” one respondent said. “Spotify has everything from new releases to old songs, it filled the vacuum, there was no longer a need for using [an] unverified source,” added another.

In other words, innovators solved the music piracy problem in the UK, as we always said would happen. John Marshall, the associate director at YouGov, was even more explicit in his conclusions, essentially stating that the public was now satisfied with streaming services and mostly had no use for piracy.

All of this is not to say that the music industry doesn't still have jobs in peril, of course. It's just that those jobs appear to be the ones involved in copyright enforcement, while the business of music itself should be doing quite well.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Aug 2018 @ 6:25pm

    Getting appropriate responses

    The question remains, what is is going to take to get the entertainment industry (while this study is about music, I think it is reasonable to infer that it applies across all the genre, ie. all the MAFFIA's) to not only comprehend, but to stop their efforts, useless as they are, at enforcement.

    We do understand that it is not just anti 'piracy' but about control. Control they do not deserve, nor should get.

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

    • identicon
      MathFox, 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:08am

      Re: Getting appropriate responses

      I would say the best way is to take the monopoly rights away that copyright-law gives them.

      Copyright reform.

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

      • identicon
        John Smith, 7 Aug 2018 @ 7:54am

        Re: Re: Getting appropriate responses

        That's called mechanical licensing, and it's why Marilyn Manson could do all those god-awful cover versions of songs.

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

  • identicon
    Nemo, 6 Aug 2018 @ 8:14pm

    You know how it is with these anti-piracy types

    They won't stop until they get what they want, a short drop and a sudden stop.

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

  • identicon
    WTFrak, 6 Aug 2018 @ 8:30pm

    Uhm, Pirates? There be no pirates.

    How does legal alternatives prevent these oil-tanker and other ocean-going vessel pirating?

    Oh, you meant file-sharing, which isn't piracy in any way, shape or form, did you?

    Why didn't you just say file-sharing? Oh, right, you want to call it piracy because you don't understand how things work in modern society.

    The only piracy going on is the kind perpetrated by MPAA and RIAA organizations, stealing everything they can from the content creators, song-writers, composers, singers, actors, directors, etc... As well as the copyright and patent pirates, you know the ones, that take content, by force if necessary, and then keep it locked up forever.

    DMCA? That's actually illegal, because it extends copyright to eternity.

    Yeah, we need to start punishing those fucking pirates, all of them, take down every business entity like the MPAA and RIAA, as well as Disney and every other movie studio keeping their content illegally out of public domain, pretending like it's legal by buying out our government to make pretend laws to whitewash their thievery.

    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, 6 Aug 2018 @ 9:20pm

      Re: Uhm, Pirates? There be no pirates.

      Wow, interesting post. You are defining pirates as the content owners, and then saying we should punish them. I love this place, the Mike Masnick Matrix. Comments like yours get promoted, and normal law abiding Americans are silenced. This place has it’s own reality, separate and distinct from the real world. What’s interesting is that people seem to be living happily in this contrivied reality, with some help from Google, Facebook, Twitter and the like. It’s a whole world with a social structure that people stay inside without ever experiencing the real world, just like in the Matrix Movie. Fascinating. Do you think you will ever wake up to reality or are you happy and content in your MMM? The Blue Pill for you, I think.

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

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 6 Aug 2018 @ 10:34pm

    Proof?
    Pish, this is just anomaly #5927265. It's not like it ever actually happens, it's not proof of anything!

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

  • identicon
    John Smith, 6 Aug 2018 @ 10:38pm

    All of these articles seem to be slanted towards a world where copyright theft shouldn't be enforced, or shouldn't exist. Why not abolish all copyright protection then? Because then it would be impossible to steal from the other guy while protecting their own content.

    If we're going to have copyright protection, and we should, we need enforcement. Telling me I need a better way to sell my books or my writing because someone can steal it makes no sense. I can adapt to any environment but I see no reason why that environment should be ruled by pirates.

    Don't like my work? Don't download it. The act of downloading it is an admission of its value. Lack of piracy enforcement helps the big "mafia" cartels at the expense of creators with small audiences who can't rely on tunnel distribution like someone who got their book on Oprah used to have.

    In a world without any copyright, I could copy this article, post it to my site, and the "market" could decide who has the better "business model." Masnick would just have to adapt by that logic, rather than rely on a constitutional right.

    Since artists still have to pay their bills, they will adapt naturally, but that would be like using FEMA and the Red Cross to justify arson.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2018 @ 11:01pm

      Re:

      Infringement*

      “In a world without any copyright, I could copy this article, post it to my site, and the "market" could decide who has the better "business model." Masnick would just have to adapt by that logic, rather than rely on a constitutional right.”

      You totally can. Mike has said so repeatedly. As you would know if you actually read the articles before you drooled stupid onto the page.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 6 Aug 2018 @ 11:52pm

      Re:

      In a world without any copyright, I could copy this article, post it to my site, and the "market" could decide who has the better "business model." Masnick would just have to adapt by that logic, rather than rely on a constitutional right.

      Yes, you can do that, and yes, if that was successful we would have to adapt. I've explained this many times over. We put all our content into the public domain, and you are totally free to do what you want with it, so let me know if you post it somewhere. And, if you can make money off of it better than we can, then we can learn from you and that helps us. Also, we expect most people will eventually figure out where the original content came from and prefer to get it from the source -- so in essence you'd be marketing us for us.

      So, yup, go for it. That would be great.

      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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 12:16am

        Re: Re:

        And you are funded by “who” again? Your material is so valuable that people want to copy it? Or your material is so one sided and misleading that only Globalist/Socialists like the Koch Brothers would pay for it?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 12:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          And... if your point is that the material here is so unvaluable, why does it bother you so much if it's fine to copy?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 3:36am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well seeing as Johnny Boy Smith was just threatening to infringe Mikes copyrights...

          Also you misspelled Soros.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 9:06am

        Re: Re:

        I've explained this many times over. We put all our content into the public domain

        You have, but... it's not officially documented anywhere, is it? I don't see anything about this on each story page, the main page, the "About Us" page, on any of the contact pages... so, don't be surprised when people don't know this. I've seen you say it many times and I'm still unsure in the details (are guest posts covered?).

        In a world where everything is copyrighted forever by default (and where some countries don't even let authors fully opt out), we should really want explicit identification of public-domain content.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 6 Aug 2018 @ 11:58pm

      Re:

      In a world without any copyright, I could copy this article, post it to my site, and the "market" could decide who has the better "business model." Masnick would just have to adapt by that logic,

      I do so love it when people think they've got a gotcha like that, only to end up falling flat on their face. As the AC above noted you can absolutley do that, as has been made clear several times in the past by previous people who thought they could score an easy point with that very idea.

      rather than rely on a constitutional right.

      Yeah, hate to burst your bubble but copyright isn't a 'constitutional right'. The constitution allows for congress to grant it, with the goal of serving the public, but copyright law in the US could be eliminated overnight and not a single constitutional right would have been violated.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 12:21am

      Re:

      The act of downloading it is an admission of its value.

      That's not necessarily true. At most I'd say it could be an admission that your work might have value, but I wouldn't know that until I've seen/read it. I might be willing to pay a modest fee to trial the work if what I knew of it was sufficiently interesting, but then if it was utter crap I would be less upset at the loss of money and possibly willing to view a future work from you. However, if I paid full price for crap, good luck ever getting any money from me ever again.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 12:25am

        Re: Re:

        Aha! You have rediscovered the maxim “let the buyer beware” or “E Pluribus Uranus (or something like that)! Good for you.

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 1:45am

        Re: Re:

        Exactly. It *might* have value, but not necessarily the price being demanded by the seller. Which is actually one of the common defences of infringement - everybody's been burned so many times by a terrible movie not worth the rental or by an album with only one good track, that we have the desire to try before buying.

        People have always done this where possible, be it by getting a friend to copy / lend an album for you to listen to a few times to giving you a game cartridge when they're done to borrowing a book from the library. The internet opened up availability, it didn't make people do what wasn't already happening. Only the parameters changed, and it just meant that if you had a worthless product, people could find that out before paying instead of afterwards. The issue there is still the worthless product, though.

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

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 12 Aug 2018 @ 1:15pm

          Sharing in the 1980s vs. sharing in the 2010s

          Sharing norms and by that copyright infringement norms appear to be based on what content providers can restrict by force and be tolerated by the public.

          In the 1980s, mix tapes were an accepted part of music culture, where today music play rights are restricted to one end user. They tried to DRM music to limited plays or time limits, at which point the public ceased using supporting media types and circumvented it by going straight to sources of DRM-scoured files.

          iTunes originally allowed a limited number of downloads per file. It has since relentes that limit. There is logic to the notion that pirate activity measures the degree to which the public rejects the providers' terms-of-use of culture.

          And given the providers try to further restrict thos TOS by force using DRM, it follows that piracy and sharing would continue by force as well.

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        John Smith, 7 Aug 2018 @ 7:58am

        Re: Re:

        That's called mechanical licensing, and it's why Marilyn Manson could do all those god-awful cover versions of songs.

        So an involuntary free trial is okay for government to impose on a rightsholder?

        The market can simply punish those who don't provide free excerpts. Still no justification for theft and every incentive for a small creator to focus exclusively on a wealthy audience or write for a large "evil" company who will protect them and pay them.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 5:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So an involuntary free trial is okay for government to impose on a rightsholder?

          No, and I never said it was. I only provided rebuttal to your proposal that downloading something means it has value.

          The market can simply punish those who don't provide free excerpts.

          True, and I'm sure there's an impact in many markets where those that provide samples/demos/rentals/etc. gain an advantage over those that don't.

          Still no justification for theft

          Again, I never said it was. Also it's not theft, it's infringement. We should have copyright protection, and we should have copyright enforcement. However, its current implementation is bad. The point of the article wasn't "copyright bad," it was "if you provide your material in a form that the consumers desire, they are much more likely to acquire the content legitimately than they are via piracy. Rightsholders should take note."

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

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 7:07am

      Re:

      "Why not abolish all copyright protection then?"

      Indeed, why not? It has become a toxic teratological clusterfuck thanks to your bosses, the MAFIAA.

      Also, you lost your entire argument the moment you used the word theft to describe copyright infringement.

      "Since artists still have to pay their bills, they will adapt naturally, but that would be like using FEMA and the Red Cross to justify arson."

      Oh no, it would be like using a professional that doesn't produce quality stuff that people want going out of business.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2018 @ 11:35pm

    “Lack of piracy enforcement helps the big "mafia" cartels at the expense of creators with small audiences “

    This is the most important point to artists, especially small ones. The world of no copyright enforcement is the world of less art, less literature, less music, less everything creative.

    He was not drooling stupid at all, but you are definitely drooling something disgusting.

    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, 6 Aug 2018 @ 11:46pm

      Re:

      I think Mr. Droolbags sounds like a Socialist Zombie: “Free Software, uh, Free music, uh, Free movies, uh, Free everything!”, Repeat forever. “Copying is not theft”, uh, “Everything should be free”, on and on ridiculous horseshit. Zombies like ridiculous horseshit, and they like repeating it. Just watch how many will take up the Socialist Zombie cause. Koch Brothers sponsored, right? Need I say more? Drool On, socialist zombie.

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

      • identicon
        tp, 7 Aug 2018 @ 12:20am

        Re: Re:

        > "Copying is not theft”, uh, “Everything should be free”

        Why is all these great business models based on "relaxed rules", i.e. illegal activities? Simply because they don't like some of the rules and they can get away with their illegal practises, why do they think it's a good plan?

        "We don't like ownership, so stealing is ok"?

        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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 12:27am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think their pitch goes something like this: I am a big company, so I can develop and market a product on my own dime. I can study audience response, refine and revise my offering, and then finally settle on a version that I will charge for after establishing a large audience. I can do this because I am well financed. So, screw the law, I have the money and the will, and now everybody has to do it my way because it works for me. To tell with small artis that can’t afford to do it, I will just pay Mike Masnick to tell them they are wrong a billion times and to silence any critics.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 12:08am

      Re:

      This is the most important point to artists, especially small ones. The world of no copyright enforcement is the world of less art, less literature, less music, less everything creative.

      Yes, because if anyone is going to be making use of the DMCA and other forms of copyright enforcement it's going to be the smaller artists, those who's greatest obstacle for success is not people sharing their stuff without paying them, but people not even knowing they exist.

      More stuff than ever before is being made and shared, and for large chunks of it(remixes and fanfic/pics as three examples) it's despite copyright, not because of it.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 12:14am

        Re: Re:

        Compare and contrast the amount of art and entertainment that come from the US (with it’s historical protection of copyright) and the rest of the world. The USA leads the world in creative content, and we are the envy of totalitarian regimes like Russia and China. There is one reason for that. Copyright protection and enforcement. Argue otherwise, please. Try.

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

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 12:22am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Compare and contrast the amount of art and entertainment that come from the US (with it’s historical protection of copyright) and the rest of the world. The USA leads the world in creative content, and we are the envy of totalitarian regimes like Russia and China. There is one reason for that. Copyright protection and enforcement. Argue otherwise, please. Try.

          Correliation is not causation of course, but if you really insist on playing that game, buckle up.

          The first burst of American creativity... came because of US piracy. We had very weak copyright laws in the 1800s and that enabled all sorts of creativity to flow.

          But, if you want more modern info, the rise of Hollywood in particular took place during decades when the US had much more limited copyright compared to the rest of the world. Remember, much of the rest of the world signed and implemented the Berne Convention way, way back when (signing was in 1886). The US refused to be a part of it for basically a century because it would have required much stricter copyright laws, only assenting in 1988, after other countries agreed to make exceptions that allowed the US to NOT include moral rights and allowing the US to retain broad fair use protections.

          So... uh... the claim that we lead the world because of copyright protection and enforcement is not supported by history. The US as a strong copyright protection and enforcement nation really only started much much later, well after the US had become the capitol of entertainment.

          Indeed, if anything it supports the studies that Levine and Boldrin noted in their book that historically shows that stronger protections and enforcement tends to come AFTER an industry takes off, because those who were successful then want to put up protective barriers against competition.

          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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 12:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Indeed correlation is not causation. But money is money, and fuels the fire of genius (someone said that before me I think). “We had very weak copyright laws in the 1800s and that enabled all sorts of creativity to flow”. That is a thin soup, you really didn’t say anything.

            We (Americans) lead the world in creativity, that is undisputed, and it has been done under American Law. My belief is that the fuel for this creativity is money, that is what brought creative people to the US and money is what fueled their artistic contributions. Artists need to eat, they need to support their families. They charge for their work. Copyright protects that. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. But stealing it and paying nothing is just wrong.

            I understand you need money too, and you need to eat, and I see who you take money from, apparently Globalist Socialists. But your articles are literally taking food from the table of starving artists. Don’t you feel at least a little guilty about all the art that will never come to market because of your efforts? Are you really satisfied with the crap that is being produced from stolen works and promoted by your Globalist Socialist masters? Have you no shame? Do you feel no empathy for those with creative skills but no money? Do you really want only to see work from well financed global corporations?

            I say give some protections to talented artists with little or no money, and make it cheap and easy for them to protect their work and prevent anyone from using it for free. Let them prosper and flower into whole gardens and orchards and estates of creativity. You are the one supporting the “status-quo” with your talk of copyright and patent abolishment. Your politics supports large well financed corporations and decimates the creative geniuses of tomorrow who are not yet funded.

            Oh, I forgot, you’re the same guy who peddles “truth” in the absolute form. You believe “truth” is absolute and not relative to the thinker. Share more with us, Mike, maybe you will win me over. I’m open to it.

            Think about it, Mike. The small starving artist who contributes something to society that everyone appreciates. Don’t steal it from him and remove his source of income and let his family starve. It’s just wrong and Un-American.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 1:01am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              But your articles are literally taking food from the table of starving artists

              Yeah, I'm sure that consumers suddenly chose not to buy music when they could get Masnick articles in exchange. You're just not good at argumentation, Hamilton. Or providing any sort of proof for your claims.

              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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 1:41am

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

                A was using a bit of literary license. Arguing in favor of weakening or abolishing copyright protection (and patent protection) hurts the individual creative professional the most. Techdirt goes on and on and on about the “abuses of the system” (which there will always be) but completely forgets the PURPOSE of the system, which is to reward those who create and allow them to monetize their creation. You advocating stealing and distributing the works of others without consequence. You are advocating socialism, and you are doing so for the benefit of large Globalist Corporations, who you admit pay you directly. You are sell-outs of your own country and your own heritage in return for crumbs from Globalists. Most of you are not even American, and could not recite the Pledge of Allegiance. My arguments for my claims are historical fact, not socialist fiction, you moron.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 1:49am

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

                  "Most of you are not even American"

                  Which matters exactly what on an article about the UK where you're rambling on about Russia and China?

                  If you're going to be a jingoistic idiot, it looks better if you keep them to the articles that are about America in the first place.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:33am

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

                  Arguing in favor of weakening or abolishing copyright protection (and patent protection) hurts the individual creative professional the most.

                  It would hurt those that get rich off of the works of creative people the most, that is corporate moguls, and lawyer who patent troll and use copyright as the basis of an extortion racket.

                  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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:43am

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

                    To a much lesser degree. Those with the proclivity to abuse the law will simply find another way. To sacrifice the income stream to our most creative citizens is far too high a price to pay in order to police the ruthless few who abuse the law.

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

                    • icon
                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 5:56am

                      To sacrifice the income stream to our most creative citizens is far too high a price to pay in order to police the ruthless few who abuse the law.

                      Who, pray tell, gets the right to judge which citizens are “most creative”? What makes “creative citizens” more deserving of an income stream than anyone else? What makes abuse of the law less important than protecting the wealthy “creative citizens” about whom you are obviously most worried?

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

                • icon
                  blademan9999 (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:45am

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

                  There's no evidence that weaker copyright protections will reduce creativity. In fact is likely th opposite.
                  For exapmle explian to me exaclty how redcuing the length of copyright from life + 70 years to life + 50 years or life + 30 years would reduce creative output.

                  Take disney, if current copyright laws were in force when the were founded you probably would never of hears of them.
                  They built their empire on copying othere peoples work, much of which would not be in the public domain if current absurdly long copyright laws were not in force.

                  Then take this
                  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-century-books-is-even-worse- than-it-seems.shtml there are more books available from the 1910s then the entire second half of the 20th centurey COMBINDED!

                  That is the whole that copyright has caused.

                  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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 3:11am

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

                    OK, look, about your point regarding 70 years vs. 50 years or 30 years, I could be persuaded. What I care about is enabling inventors to prosper without huge capital requirements. Just protect people creating and distributing original works, make it cheap and easy for them to demand payment if people want to use their work. 70 years does seem like a long time, I think it may defeat the primary purpose, that is, to encourage people to innovate. 70 years is probably too long, because the original innovator is probably dead, and his children are probably worthless (that’s how it usually works). So, I’ll trade you - help me get young inventors and artists started in their business, and you can have your reduction in term length - deal?

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 5:50am

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

                      There is room for copyright to exist. The main thing is to keep it sane and keep fair use part of it.

                      Reviews, critiques, reactions, parodies, community interaction with the work is valuable to culture as a whole and to the inventor or artist themselves; the more play their creation gets, the more people are aware of it, and the more people are likely to actually spend money on it (as evidenced by the effect streaming services have). Copyright abuse tends to target these expressions - this, in and of itself, is harmful to new creators and inventors. In this sense, the current copyright doctrine is counter-productive to the very thing you care about.

                      If we must have copyright, let it be limited to 20 years. No extensions for any reason. No transfer of these rights allowed. You cannot sell the copyright, it cannot be inherited.

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

                    • identicon
                      Nemo, 7 Aug 2018 @ 4:09pm

                      What I care about is enabling inventors to prosper without huge

                      "Rapture Riders" was a fantastic mash-up, something really creative and well-done. The person who created it really hit on something, when they noticed the songs could go together. It may still exist somewhere on the internet, but when I checked youtube a couple weeks ago, it was no longer there. The reason it vanished? If it wasn't copyright that was the culprit, it is in many, many other cases. Rapture Riders was artistry, using the art of others.

                      Or compare it to a rugby guy who has been doing NFL reaction videos. It's as much about him experiencing the videos as the videos themselves. No, moreso, because people wouldn't be watching the clips, if that were all he was posting. His channel's exploded, and has pre-clip ads, but he's not making much from that. Who gets the profits from his creative works? Corporations*, mostly. Who protects him? Who advocates for his creative freedom? Not you, AC. You want him stripped of earnings because he "stole" the videos - and he doesn't even host them, just puts them up while recording so we can see what he's reacting to.

                      You, by your logic, want him to stop "stealing", shut down his video series, abandon the success he has found there, and pay...not original artists. Not artists at all, since these are mostly videos of old, forgotten football games, and not entire games, at that. It isn't the fellow youtubers whose video compilations he is watching. More exposure's good for them.

                      Check him out, his videos are great stuff. Just search for 'rugby guy reacts', to find his channel. And keep in mind who's getting the lion's share of his ad revenue, rather than him.

                      You know what the artists in both cases lacked? A huge capital investment in getting all the permissions from copyright holders, before creating their art. Or publishing, whatever. In neither case is the art valuable enough to invest in, in advance, and while the RR artist didn't ask for money at all (thus (C) would preclude her/him from posting it at all), the Rugby guy started out with little to no ad revenue, and wanted to make some - but how could he pay in advance for something he didn't see coming?

                      Those are just two artists whose works copyright holders would want gone. Or maybe just working for them, so they can add hundreds of dollars that would have gone to him to their private vaults.

                      You, AC, want Rugby Guy to lose revenue for his "theft". The only artist being hurt is him. The only artist losing money is him. Copyright laws make it so that he must lose that money to the owners of the original content. Who are almost all, if not entirely, not artists. The artists in the football clips get nothing for their efforts, in terms of (C) payments.

                      In short, no artists benefit from the ad revenue being off the performance art of Rugby Guy. If one does (and best I can tell, there's only the theme song he uses to account for it, the song's artist), it ain't much. Pennies out of the dollars he's not getting.

                      Copyright holders such as the RIAA, MPAA, and the NFL, to name a few want this status quo to continue. So do you. You want this guy to have to pay, and pay, and pay some more to entities that do not create art.

                      Those with the proclivity to abuse the law are the ones who are spending big money to re-write the laws to favor themselves, and then use those laws to suppress artists who do not conform to their business model. The ones who do conform aren't going to be making big money without the publishers, anyway.

                      If I check a book out of the library, or buy it from a used book store, the author gets nothing from me or the sale. I have done plenty of both, "costing" all those authors money in "lost revenue", even though when I did so, I couldn't have afforded new copies, and would not have purchased any of them at all.

                      I guess buying used books makes me a pirate, too. Now those who shill for the corporate copyright model we currently have can lecture me about how my used-book piracy is stealing from authors, right? Right?

                      Whoever it was who claimed to be an author in this thread can comfort themselves with the khowledge that I will likely never download anything by them to read for free, and therefore am unlikely to ever read anything at all by them. In fact, if I know who they were, I'd be certain to not read anything of theirs, other than via purchase of used books - and then only if they're already an author I like.

                      I do have authors who I spend new-book money on. Each and every one of them I encountered via non-author-payment transactions described above. Authors who demand I purchase a pig in a poke because "artists deserve to get paid, because copyright!" can keep the pig and the poke. You'll never lose money due to piracy by me, and you'll never make a dime from me, either.

                      Doesn't make you happy to know that you'll never lose a sale to me due to piracy on my part? Of course, you'll never make a sale to me, either. If I read something of theirs for free, OTOH, I might have been interested, but at least they haven't had to endure the horror of knowing I read their art for free, before I became a customer, which since I didn't, I couldn't.

                      Funny how that works, isn't it? Maybe the corporations need to find a justification to bill non-customers for non-purchase of works they have never even seen, to make up for that lost revenue, then write that into copyright law, too. Of course, then indie artists would end up having to pay for the revenues lost from non-sales due to non-exposure, along with the rest of the customer market. You won't be a scofflaw and object to paying, will you, Author-chan?

                      Metallica's not getting turned off, if I hear it on the radio, but I'm not buying anything of theirs, either, given their taking the corporate side on the topic. Any author-chans want to sign up to join them on my list? I promise to not consume anything produced by verified members. At all. Unless, of course, you are willing to pay me to check it out, since my time's valuable, too, and your work(s) may turn out to be a waste of it, but I deserve to get paid for time invested in your product, if I didn't enjoy it.

                      Or is that the bottom line for all author-chans, that they want my money up-front, no refunds, and if their crap turns out to be crappy, I'm out my time, as well. That's the model that crappy writers use. Good ones can sell more books to people who read a book or two for free, first. Bad ones worry about how piracy is hurting their sales, and then they wonder why they aren't selling more.

                      So the copyright shills can continue to support the major cash flows of copyright corporations, because apparently, blind sales are all they have for income. Or maybe they think that their repeat customers would steal from them, if they could legally. Neither authors who expect me to pay for the privilege of experiencing their Great Art for the very first time, nor businessfolk who view all their customers as potential thieves deserve my business, nor anyone else's.

                      And they have no support for artists like Rugby Guy at all. Content creators like that are thieves, after all, unlike those who create derivative works in ways that are acceptable under the current system.

                      Are all of you headquartered at a Buggy Whip Manufacturers' Support Society office, or something?

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

                      • identicon
                        Nemo, 7 Aug 2018 @ 4:20pm

                        Re: What I care about is enabling inventors to prosper without huge

                        *This isn't about bagging on corporations because corporations are "evil". Some are worse actors than others.

                        This is about using the indie artist as a false front for bad actors on the copyright issue, all of whom spend loads of money rigging the game to their own benefit. That /especially/ applies to those who are (or claim to be) indie artists making it sound as though indie artists will all be abused, if the corporations aren't supported on copyright.

                        Too late, sunshine. Indie artists are already getting abused - by the very organizations you shills support.

                        If you have no sympathy for other indie artists, who are getting abused by the very system you extol the virtues of, then you, good shills, deserve none in your role as indie artists.

                        And I hope you get what you deserve, in abundance, and at every opportunity.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 11:37am

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

                    Take disney, if current copyright laws were in force when the were founded you probably would never of hears of them.

                    Or maybe we would have, as the victim of a C&D or lawsuit. Maybe Techdirt has already reported on the would-have-been-next-Disney getting smacked down.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Even before the Internet two memes were and are common in reference to creative people, they were "think of the starving artist", and "Don't give up the day job". They pre-date the Internet by centuries.

              Most creative work is driven by a desire other than money, which is a secondary consideration. Also the fate of most creators is to languish in obscurity.

              If making money by selling copies was the main driver behind creative effort, YouTube, Jamendo, and similar sites would not exists. Those sites give a creative person a chance of reaching an audience, as do personal wed sites where they give away works, and there is a chance that a creative person could use patronage, or the selling of physical copies, or live performances, or other business model to make a living from their creativity, if that is what they want.

              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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:34am

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

                Because certain truths are old truths that does not make them untruths. Not sure what you point is there.

                “Most creative work is driven by a desire other than money”.

                Time is money and money is sex. And vice versa. (Not my quote)

                Tell me why anyone works for anything if not for time or money or sex. Religion? Not that much work in religion, actually, you can relax a lot. I don’t meant relax, I mean really work, get the hell up, focus, keep that focus for hours days or weeks, again and again, over and over, until you achieve a goal. Why do you think people do it if not for (a) money (b) sex or (c) time to spend (a) or enjoy (b).

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:53am

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

                  >Tell me why anyone works for anything if not for time or money or sex.

                  How about being part of a community, or a strong desire to tell a story, or simply the pleasure of creating something, or sharing a passion for something.

                  Also, creating something is not the only activity that does not earn money, and some people would rather be doing something, or creating something, rather than than being passively entertained. The Internet allows them to share their efforts without having to convince someone else that they have a marketable work.

                  Also, if you think creating something is a good way to make money, well you are more likely to join the millions where the work gain little or no purchase, that the few whose work make them a living, or the even fewer that get very rich.

                  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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 3:06am

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

                    Let’s see, get up early every day, keep my focus even when I’m tired, miss meals, holidays, pretty much sacrifice my life for ....

                    A) being part of a community. Nope, a community that demanding is not worth it.

                    B) a strong desire to tell a story. Nope, that level of desire pales in comparison to real desires, like sex and money, trust me about that, maybe you’re a little young to understand

                    C) the pleasure of creating something - you mean I would sacrifice my pleasure for the pleasure of sacrificing my pleasure?

                    You seem to be missing the point. I am talking about sacrifice now in return for pleasure (time money sex) later. Why do people sacrifice if not for time, money or sex? You talk about creativity as if it’s like passing gas. It’s not like that, trust me. It’s really hard and not always pleasurable.

                    I believe creating something is not just a good way to make money, it is the best possible way. And the best possible place to do it is the USA, and one of the reasons for that is the existing (or improved) copyright and patent law. Both should be made cheap and easy for creators to control the distribution of their own works. Believe me, it is an effective technique that makes the country as a whole richer simultaneously with making creators richer. It is fundamental to wealth creation as opposed to wealth distribution.

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

                    • icon
                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 6:11am

                      You seem to be missing the point.

                      You seem to be ignoring the one you either cannot or do not want to see. For a good number of people, yes, money and sex are incredibly tempting motivators for creating artistic works. But I doubt you will find many fanfic authors who have fat stacks of cash and lipstick stamps on their passport. (I think I need a new one, myself.) Your narrow view of creativity—and the reasons that people create new works—blinds you to a point you have yet to refute: In the absence of restrictive copyright laws (or any copyright laws at all), creativity would no more die than you or I would.

                      I wrote fanfic many, many, many years ago. I did not do it for fame and fortune and pussy—I did it because I liked the original IP on which my fics were based and I wanted to write something for the fan community of that IP. That community never demanded anything of me. I wanted to tell a(n admittedly shitty) story and I had fun writing it. If you create only for the sake of dollars and sex, your work must be mediocre as hell.

                      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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 7:49pm

                        Re:

                        Wow, interesting world view, Stephen. Tell the truth - you are lazy, right? Not really willing to work hard for anything, not even money or pussy, right? That’s why you’re here and not doing something productive.

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

                        • icon
                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 8:23pm

                          Pot, kettle, black.

                          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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 12:06am

                            Re:

                            Perhaps the difference might be the 20 odd patents I have had issued, the millions of lines of code I have copyrighted, the dozens of products I have designed and delivered, the millions of dollars I have made from privately held stock, and the four children I raised. Now, yes, I am lazy and hang out on Techdirt because it’s easy and fun. What’s your excuse?

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2018 @ 2:36am

                          Re: Re:

                          Have you ever thought that for some people, once they have the money needed to live a reasonably comfortable life, they spend time doing things that they enjoy, rather than compulsively obsessing over how they can make even more money.

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

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2018 @ 3:19am

                            Re: Re: Re:

                            Yes of course that would be normal and usual. After the have the money, that is. Happens all the time, I’ve seen it.

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

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 5:58am

                  Tell me why anyone works for anything if not for time or money or sex.

                  Lots of people create artistic works because they feel a creative compulsion. I mean, you feel compelled to lie all the time, and lying is technically a creative act, and I doubt you do it for time, sex, or money.

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

                  • icon
                    Ben (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 6:20am

                    Re:

                    I'm a gigging musician (occasionally). My last gig netted me £20. It was still great fun.

                    (Broad sweeping statement warning!) The money is not the motivator for most creators; for most creators it's a need to create that drives them.

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

                  • icon
                    Ninja (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 7:12am

                    Re:

                    "I doubt you do it for time, sex, or money"

                    Psychological disorder probably. But I wouldn't be surprised if money is involved.

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

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    John Smith, 7 Aug 2018 @ 8:07am

                    Re:

                    That's called mechanical licensing, and it's why Marilyn Manson could do all those god-awful cover versions of songs.

                    So an involuntary free trial is okay for government to impose on a rightsholder?

                    The market can simply punish those who don't provide free excerpts. Still no justification for theft and every incentive for a small creator to focus exclusively on a wealthy audience or write for a large "evil" company who will protect them and pay them.


                    You think YouTube doesn't pay its creators?

                    They're the ONLY outfit who properly rewards content, and why they will thrive as the others lose content.

                    YouTube pays 68 percent of the money it makes on ads to creators. It's why YT videos are such a great source of information. Also thanks to YT, no one needs any "sampling" (theft) to "get the word out" about their work.

                    What exactly is wrong with copyright enforcement anyway? The immunity granted the intermediaries is actually quite strong. You have to almost be a Napster before you can be held liable. Just ask Perfect 10.


                    So because someone else has the luxury o doing something aa hobby, I have to as well? This is involuntary distribution unless I have the right to control my work instead of you controlling my work.

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

                • icon
                  The Wanderer (profile), 11 Aug 2018 @ 6:11pm

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

                  Tell me why anyone works for anything if not for time or money or sex.

                  Fun.

                  Almost everyone finds sex to be fun. (Exceptions include the asexual, those with a physical or mental disability which detracts too much from the experience, and those too young to have the physical facility to enjoy it yet.)

                  Some people find work itself to be fun. (For some specific types of work, different depending on the person.)

                  Some people find "being appreciated by others" to be fun. (I think someone else in this discussion mentioned "fame" as a motivation.)

                  Some people find spending money to be fun.

                  Some people find just lying around doing nothing to be fun. (At least some of the time.)

                  Some people find provoking angry or otherwise upset responses out of other people to be fun.

                  Some people find helping people to be fun.

                  There is almost nothing which is not considered to be fun, or otherwise enjoyable, by someone out there.

                  There are basically only two motivations to do anything; omitting a long philosophical discussion, they can be roughly described as "in order to survive" and "for enjoyment". There are a lot of things which can be fed into by the desire to survive; there are a lot more things which can be fed by the desire to enjoy oneself.

                  If you fail to consider "enjoyment" in your model of people's motivations, it should be no surprise that your model doesn't correspond to reality very well.

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

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                John Smith, 7 Aug 2018 @ 8:04am

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

                That's called mechanical licensing, and it's why Marilyn Manson could do all those god-awful cover versions of songs.

                So an involuntary free trial is okay for government to impose on a rightsholder?

                The market can simply punish those who don't provide free excerpts. Still no justification for theft and every incentive for a small creator to focus exclusively on a wealthy audience or write for a large "evil" company who will protect them and pay them.


                You think YouTube doesn't pay its creators?

                They're the ONLY outfit who properly rewards content, and why they will thrive as the others lose content.

                YouTube pays 68 percent of the money it makes on ads to creators. It's why YT videos are such a great source of information. Also thanks to YT, no one needs any "sampling" (theft) to "get the word out" about their work.

                What exactly is wrong with copyright enforcement anyway? The immunity granted the intermediaries is actually quite strong. You have to almost be a Napster before you can be held liable. Just ask Perfect 10.

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

                • icon
                  James Burkhardt (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 9:07am

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

                  Ignoring your vague Copypasta about mechanical licences that has no basis in anything in the comments you are replying to....

                  YouTube creators have noted that YouTube ad revenue is notoriously unreliable, not because of an unreliable number of views but because the standards for monetization are unclear, and YouTube has a tendency to change them and tell no one. It was a whole big thing. They called it the Adpocalypse. It made the news. How did you not hear of it? In any case, for creators I watch, they note they don't have a good revenue stream anymore from YouTube. It never recovered, and they can no longer predict if a video will get any ad revenue.

                  At this point, most creators literally can not make any ad revenue, as YouTube has limited ad sharing to YouTubers with high levels of viewership. YouTube got tons of content before they shared any revenue, and they still get tons of content by users who now can not earn revenue. Because the drive to create is not about money. Its about sharing information.

                  The issue with enforcement is its had a high cost financially, and little returns either financially or in piracy reduction, and is easily contrasted with the shown decreases in piracy and increase in revenue with the introduction of services and practices that are pro consumer.

                  If the goal is to either reduce piracy or increase revenue, copyright enforcement is not succeeding, and other techniques have been shown to work. That's why Techdirt shits on copyright enforcement. Well that and the censorship.

                  You seem to think enforcement is targeted at platforms, and that its goals are about revenue and piracy. They aren't, largely. They are targeted at users, and are about rent seeking and control. The biggest places we see copyright enforcement these days outside of user targeting mass shakedown 'lawsuits', is DMCA take downs. Techdirt has spent years highlighting abuse of this system explicitly by accusing people of infringement and take down material the accuser admits is non-infringing content they don't like.

                  But because of a very weak (potentially toothless) anti abuse mechanism, there is no penalty for this behavior. Combined with abuse of the legal system to shakedown dead people and Alzheimer patients for relatively small sums and that studies suggest that enforcement is ineffective as an anti-piracy measure, enforcement seems, economically, a bad option for rights holders.

                  What is the value of enforcement efforts for creators if they generate no additional revenue (or at least, no revenue in excess of the cost) and do not reduce piracy? How much is that value lessened if there is an alternative means of accomplishing those goals that is both cheaper and proven more effective?

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

                • icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 10:07am

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

                  That's called mechanical licensing, and it's why Marilyn Manson could do all those god-awful cover versions of songs.

                  Why is it always the copyright maximalists who insult the creative output of others? It's almost as if they're not actually about creativity at all...

                  They're the ONLY outfit who properly rewards content, and why they will thrive as the others lose content.

                  So... you're now agreeing with the premise of the article that innovation in licensed services is a good thing?

                  Do you even know what you're talking about?

                  YouTube pays 68 percent of the money it makes on ads to creators. It's why YT videos are such a great source of information. Also thanks to YT, no one needs any "sampling" (theft) to "get the word out" about their work.

                  What?

                  So now you're a fan of YouTube, which is the kind of innovation we're talking about in this post that shows that innovation is a good way to beat piracy. So you're agreeing with us and yet think you're disagreeing.

                  Fascinating.

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

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 11:49am

                    So you're agreeing with us and yet think you're disagreeing.

                    All of their other posts read like that, too—half of each comment sounds like he is agreeing with the post (and other commenters), while the other half sounds like he is disagreeing. They read like someone showing off cognitive dissonance in real time or something.

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

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 11:44am

                  What exactly is wrong with copyright enforcement anyway?

                  It favors the copyright holder—which is a large corporation more often than not—to an absurd degree. It offers few, if any, meaningful punishments for people who abuse the system. It can stifle free speech when the DMCA notification system is followed to the letter by everyone but the party accused of infringement. If copyright enforcement were a balanced and fair process for the accused, regardless of their guilt, people might not dislike the idea.

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

            • identicon
              bob, 7 Aug 2018 @ 3:58pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              By this point in the discussion you have made it clear you don't care what the evidence sbows. You either are trolling or so engrained to the idea that copyright protection is the only way to go you can't accept anything else.

              You don't work at or own Denuvo do you?
              Cause that would explain a lot.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 1:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The USA leads the world in creative content"

          By which metric?

          "we are the envy of totalitarian regimes like Russia and China"

          Citation needed.

          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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Unlike you I have been to Russia and China. I have listentened to informed opinions at the Kremlin (albeit in the tourist areas from a translator). They are jealous, really. Russians do not love their government, they only love their land. I think Americans are unique in this way, that is, they, uniquely, loved their system of government throughout their entire history. Americans still routinely sacrifice their lives in the pursuit of “happiness” and wealth and prosperity and government service, look at Donald Trump. How hard does he work? We are the most motivated and productive people in the world, the envy of the world.

            However, now there is an organized group of people who advocate hating America. When I listened to both Obamas, they both seemed to hate America to me, and they seem to have gathered up all the other haters into what we now call Democrats.

            Regarding leading the world in creative content, consider the US GDP. We are not the biggest or most populous country, but our economy dwarfs all others. That’s historical fact and something worth protecting from all you America Hating Democrats and Socialist Foreigners.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Unlike you I have been to Russia and China"

              I do love how much you know about me personally. Stalker with poor fact gathering skills, or just an idiot creating strawmen?

              "Regarding leading the world in creative content"

              Oh, you finally got around to the question that was actually asked? Cool.

              "We are not the biggest or most populous country, but our economy dwarfs all others"

              Which proportion of that is due to creative content, the only part of the economy under discussion here. Come on - fact, figures,

              That's the problem with jingoistic types, they have to bang on about things irrelevant to the discussion just so they can drool over a country they likely had no part in creating.

              Come on, it's easy - you insisted that "the USA leads the world in creative content" and have not provided a metric by which you're measuring this claim, let alone citations for said claim. Why not discuss the issue at hand rather than spout rambling nonsense that's got nothing to do with your claim

              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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:52am

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

                I dunno - how much content does Hollywood license, and how much does India license, and how much in the Rest of the World. Hollywood is number one by far. (I used to be in that business) Same for musical content. You want me to give you figures? Go fuck yourself, you fake Brit. You don’t even care that your compatriots are being jailed just for free speech. You have no standards or ruths at all, abandoning your countrymen without even a word in their defense.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 3:44am

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

                  So you got nothing but personal insults. Go figure.

                  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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 3:48am

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

                    I literally used to be in that business. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that Hollywood leads the world in content licensing. Years ago, India was number 2, I’m not sure if they are number 2 anymore, and I really don’t want to go look it up. Facts that directly deal with the question. Did you read that part? No? You can go fuck yourself too.

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

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 3:52am

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

                      "I literally used to be in that business."

                      So you claim.But, surely someone from the industry would have something other than empty insults to back up his claims with. Acting like you are now is loudly proclaiming "I'm a liar with no facts to back my lies up".

                      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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 4:04am

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

                        The US leads the world in creative content. That’s a fact that every executive in the media business knows. Every movie goer knows this from decades of experience. Every music lover would attest to the same thing. What the hell is your incredibly pompous and long winded British bullshit question actually about? Are you just stupid, or do you have a single fact that would lead anyone to any other conclusion? Anything at all?

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

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 4:37am

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

                          "The US leads the world in creative content"

                          Again, by which metric? There's plenty of ways in which the US is not number one, even if it pains morons to admit this.

                          But, we cannot argue the facts until you have determined which metrics you're using to come to your conclusion.

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 4:43am

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

                      Personal insults is a business?

                      No wonder you feel so threatened that you have to waste your time on a website you yourself consider so insignificant.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 3:51am

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

                  "I dunno - how much content does Hollywood license, and how much does India license"

                  Why is licensing the major issue? Does domestic consumption not count?

                  "Hollywood is number one by far"

                  Again, by which metric - domestic revenue, international revenue, quality of movies, number of films produced? You refuse to say. Name one, then state why that is the most important metric.

                  "You want me to give you figures?"

                  Yes, you make a claim, you support it with evidence. That's how it works.

                  Unfortunately all we have is a man child launching personal attacks because I dared question his assumed authority. Sorry, you need to do better than than.

                  "You don’t even care that your compatriots are being jailed just for free speech"

                  If you knew the facts, you'd know this is a vast oversimplification, and outright lie at best. But, either way it's got nothing to do with the discussion at hand. So, back your own words up with something resembling evidence, I dare you!

                  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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 4:00am

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

                    I listened to your compatriot speak - did you? Did you hear what he said? Do you have any comment? He was jailed in solitary confinement directly across a Mosque where all the Muslim prisoners were paraded by every day, launching feces into his cell daily, until he finally had to board up his only window. Complicated? He only recited a printed publication in a public square and was jailed for 60 days under horrendous conditions. And you really have nothing to say? You have no country and no compatriots at all, do you. You are a countryless globalist zombie, tell the truth.

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

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 4:35am

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

                      Huh, you must be talking about a different case to the one that morons usually parade around recently. Do you have a reliable source?

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 5:25am

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

                        I saw him speak on Tucker Carlson

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

                        • icon
                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 6:13am

                          Oh, like that means anything.

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

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 7:29am

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

                          So, no?

                          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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 7:33pm

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

                            I saw Tommy Robinson speak. That is, his own words to describe his own experience. Are you saying he is not a reliable source? What a traitor you are to your own countrymen.

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

                            • icon
                              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 8:17pm

                              Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

                              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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 12:11am

                                Re:

                                That is the coldest thing I have ever heard from you. Seriously, have a little care for this journalist, listen to him speak with his own words:

                                https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iYfStBZ2w8w

                                It is a truly horrific story perpetrated right in public by the British government. Who will be next? How can you be silent about this and ridicule the speaker who underwent what amounts to torture? You will ignore journalists being tortured? You know if this stands eventually they will come for all of us, including you and me. You first, of course.

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

                                • icon
                                  PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 1:16am

                                  Re: Re:

                                  "listen to him speak with his own words"

                                  Have you fact checked those words, by any chance?

                                  "You know if this stands eventually they will come for all of us, including you and me"

                                  Only ones who are contempt of court and attempting to do things that will trigger costly retrials of the men he's trying to remove free process from. I wouldn't believe a word this asshole says about what he had happen to him while under arrest, since it was lie that got him there to begin with.

                                  Just another right-wing agitprop activist trying to get the bigots angry against their own country's legal system and go vigilante. Truth is not something these people trade in.

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

                                • icon
                                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 1:18am

                                  How can you be silent about this and ridicule the speaker who underwent what amounts to torture?

                                  If and when I see any evidence that corroborates his claims of “torture”, I will gladly reconsider my stance. Until then: Fuck him.

                                  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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 7:24am

                                    Re:

                                    Unsympathetic, immoral, countryless, ruthless, ignorant asshole that you are, yes, I can see you doing this. This man appeared on TV to explain his plight, his video is available, and you are absolutely heartless to turn a blind eye. Socialism on display for all to see, you godless countryless heathan. You make American Indians look civilized.

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2018 @ 8:44am

                                      Re: Re:

                                      This man appeared on TV to explain his plight,

                                      That mans words are not to be trusted so independent witnesses required.

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

                                      • icon
                                        PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 8:50am

                                        Re: Re: Re:

                                        That's what's funny here. We're all bad people for taking into account context, history and evidence. Instead we're just meant to take the word of a man with no credibility at face value. Anything other than uncritical, unquestioning belief with no outside critical thinking applied to what you're being fed is monstrous.

                                        Yeah, sounds like a genuine Fox viewer at least.

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

                                    • icon
                                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 11:10am

                                      This man appeared on TV to explain his plight

                                      So what? If I had no morals or ethics and I could get on TV by whining about some shit I made up to get right-wing sentiment (and money) on my side, I would do that shit in a heartbeat. Until some form of evidence corroborates his claims, fuck him.

                                      you godless countryless heathan

                                      You say that like it’s a bad thing.

                                      You make American Indians look civilized.

                                      Wow, racist much? (Yes, the answer is yes.)

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 10:44pm

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

                              So still no citation. How unsurprising for a liar and a fraud.

                              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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 12:19am

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

                                https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iYfStBZ2w8w

                                Take 7 minutes and watch this and then tell me you are not outraged and disgusted.

                                Yes I agree Tucker reminds me of Morpheus too, but watch the British reporter speak. I believe him. And if you believe him, and are silent, god help you.

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

                                • icon
                                  PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 12:59am

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

                                  "Take 7 minutes and watch this and then tell me you are not outraged and disgusted.|"

                                  If I did, I'd likely then tell you the actual reason the guy was arrested, and all the pesky little facts that propaganda sources like Fox won't tell you. Because, you can't get the angry morons rallying behind someone who is literally trying to stop Muslims from getting a trial while claiming the opposite if facts get in the way.

                                  "I believe him"

                                  Of course, but that doesn't mean he's telling you the truth. Fox's remit is to get you angry, not to inform you.

                                  I'm not going to watch the clip, but does the interview tell you that "Tommy" (not his real name) is a career criminal who was jailed for contempt of court, while under a suspended sentence for the same act, when he has trying to prevent a fair trial from going ahead that was already in session? Those facts tend to get left out by his fans.

                                  There's plenty of debunking out there, Snopes is a good one for giving a full breakdown of why this happened and how the original reports cam out, but there's others

                                  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tommy-robinson-arrest/

                                  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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 1:59am

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

                                    Well, unlike you, I am willing to consider both sides of a reported event, and I read your snopes link. I found the personal testimony of the journalist more compelling and believable, and the snopes article to be unpersuasive.

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

                                    • icon
                                      PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 2:13am

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

                                      Your impartiality would be more believable if you would detail a) exactly what was wrong with the other link and b) not be depending for your own evidence a testimony from a known bias toward the political viewpoint of the subject.

                                      There are other sources that give you a better background, but since the man is known liar, I'm not going to take his emotional testimony as anything other than . an attempt at riling the troops up again. The whole case is a criminal somehow getting support for breaking the law because he said "Muslims" a lot.

                                      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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 5:24am

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

                                        Tell me if I’m right, PaulT: You cite “riling up the troops”. You see this as a active “no holds barred” war, correct? You are another anarchist, alone with your anarchist friends, and without any scruples or moral obligations to worry about. You are proposing that because you believe a man is a liar, he should be jailed and spat upon for months. You are ruthless, cruel, and with a moral core. You should be defending this man, it is almost in-human not to do so, given the facts of the situation. He is a “liar” and therefore should be jailed and tortured. Wow.

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

                                        • icon
                                          PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 5:39am

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

                                          Wow, you found an lot of shit to make up about me. Zero reason that I'm wrong about "Tommy", given his known history and his openly rabble-rousing tactics. But you sure showed that strawman what for!

                                          No wonder you watch Fox, things with actual facts must pain you as they force you to think beyond the stereotype.

                                          "given the facts of the situation"

                                          I've not seen any facts. I've seen the claims of a known liar, played out on a right-wing propaganda station, and zero evidence to back him up.

                                          I'll be happy to change my mind if such facts appear, but so far it looks like you're being played by a known conman.

                                          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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 6:41am

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

                                            I suppose there is some risk of that, yes. But considering the two alternatives, coming to the aid of or abandoning a fellow citizen, I would choose the former and give him the benefit of the doubt. If I was played thats fine, I will say I was wrong. But to be silent in the face of real abuse at this level would morally repugnant.

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

                                            • icon
                                              PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 7:06am

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

                                              "But to be silent in the face of real abuse at this level would morally repugnant."

                                              First, prove there is real abuse. So far, all you have is the word of a con man and criminal with a record of deliberately trying to cause problems around him. Who was in jail because he openly disobeyed the law and in the process jeopardised a trial that may have cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds to reschedule. Who is now trying to gain sympathy because nobody with knowledge of the facts can argue he was improperly imprisoned.

                                              I'd happily defend anyone actually being abused like he claims, but I have no reason to believe a single word of it based on the track record of him and his supporters. It's far more likely that he's trying to act the victim, and knows the words to say and where to say them to get people who don't know the facts all hot and bothered.

                                              Which detracts attention from people who are actually being abused, by the way.

                                              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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 7:26am

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

                                                Right. Very logical. You have taken a vigorous stand. You are fine with the whole situation, and care nothing about him or anyone else. Very clear.

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

                                                • icon
                                                  PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 7:44am

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

                                                  Yes, I'm fine that somebody was correctly jailed for violating a court order that was intended to preserve a fair trial, and received just punishment as a result. I have seen no evidence that this was not the case, except from the man himself, a known liar and agent provocateur, and his supporters, who habitually get basic facts wrong about the case,

                                                  If evidence of someone actually being victimised comes to light, I will take up their cause. This is not it, from what I can see. No matter how good an act he puts up for the audience on Fox, I need facts.

                                                  A shame that "he claims to be from the same country as me" is apparently good enough for you to take up their cause if they put up a good enough sob story, but that's not me.

                                                  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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 8:13am

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

                                                    Yes that about sums it up, you globalist ghoul without a soul or an ounce of compassion for journalists practicing free speech. For all your bluster you are part of no group and come to defense of no one and give no “benefit of the doubt”, even for your countrymen . You probably sleep fine about it too. What’s the term for this - sociopath? I think my dad taught me that. He diagnosed wacko dackos like you all the time, he was a psychiatrist. Hard to believe people like you exist, but hey, here you are, denying even a kind word to a jailed journalist based on ... feeling nothing for him, or, likely, anyone else. Sociopath. That’s the term for it, yes. Write that down. On your forehead, in permanant marker. That would be good. Sociopath. So people around you know better than to expect you to join in any normal activity, like defending victims of government abuse.

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

                                                    • icon
                                                      PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 8:20am

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

                                                      So, you can't defend the issue so go ahed and lie and launch personal attacks against a strawman. It's very tiresome.

                                                      "even for your countrymen"

                                                      My countrymen are better served by not talking word of bigots and charlatans without evidence, especially those who have tried to deny others their day in court. I'd rather not let the hatred of people like Robinson remove the rights from others (as he attempted to do) lead the conversation.

                                                      I'll wait until somebody with reliable facts can have an adult argument, and not be swayed by the ranting of someone who gets his sole knowledge of the case from a talking head show the other side of the world with a reputation for lying.

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

                                                    • icon
                                                      PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 8:22am

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

                                                      Oh, and I love the fact that you accepted the term "journalism" to describe this guy's work. You haven't really looked into what he does have you?

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

                                                      • icon
                                                        Toom1275 (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 9:30pm

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

                                                        Or that he called you a "globalist" which is an alt-Right codeword for "Jew."

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

                            • icon
                              PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 1:21am

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

                              "I saw Tommy Robinson speak. That is, his own words to describe his own experience"

                              So, you saw a career criminal who has been trying to rile up bigots make up a story to make his fans even angrier?

                              "What a traitor you are to your own countrymen."

                              Violent racist thugs and criminals are people I happily will not accept within that group just because they share the same passport.

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

            • icon
              blademan9999 (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:39am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You've got to be trolling by now. Americans hate their government https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
              The approval rating is below 20%, which is incredibly low.
              Trump approval rating is somewhat better but is still net negative.
              Your talking out of your ass here.

              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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:49am

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

                I believe you mistook what I said. I said Americans have consistently loved their system of government. I did not like Obama (even a little) but I loved our system of government. I knew there would be another election. I stayed a tried and true American, even with a sitting government I did not agree with. My patience paid off. It used to be that Americans consistently loved their system of government, except for a tiny fanatical fringe.

                It has only been since the Obamas that the ideas about hating the system itself have flowered, as least from my view. People used to bicker about the politics, but I have never seen the level of hatred I see now for the system itself. Overturn the election with the electoral college. Overturn the election with impeachment. I’ve heard CNN advocating military coups. It’s crazy now. A new period in history.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 3:46am

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

                  That’s just cause you are a fake american. Real Americans know how badly flawed the system always has been.

                  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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 4:08am

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

                    I would humbly suggest that 10 generations of military service from my family would qualify me as a real American. My father was a full bird colonel in the US Army. My distant ancestor wrote many of the Federalist Papers. Is the system flawed, yes of course. Is there a better one? I say not, my whole family says not, and we have proven to back that opinion up with force, repeatedly.

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

                    • icon
                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 6:16am

                      we have proven to back that opinion up with force, repeatedly

                      The American government sucks. When will you coming to shove a gun in my face and make me say otherwise, you violence-happy ratfuck?

                      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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 12:20am

                        Re:

                        No one cares what you say, Stephen. But try to take my gun and I will happily blow your head clean off your shoulders. Have a nice day. :)

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

                        • icon
                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 1:10am

                          No one cares what you say, Stephen.

                          You care enough to threaten me with violence. Pretty sure that is a felony in some states.

                          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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 2:00am

                            Re:

                            Read my words. If you try to take my gun, you will be met with violence. That’s the law in America. In some states I can also shoot you should you set foot in my house, I like that law, too.

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

                            • icon
                              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 2:41am

                              Now you have advanced to openly fantasizing about shooting me. Hey Mike, think you can do something about this psychopath who wants to make sure the last thing that goes through my head is a bullet?

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

                              • icon
                                That One Guy (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 5:25am

                                How's that meme go? 'Watch out, we've got a tough guy here.'

                                If I thought for a second that they were anything more than a blowhard(among other things) they might be of concern, putting forth admiration for a law and situation where they get to murder someone for simply entering their house, and where a gun is worth murdering someone over, but as it is they're just showing how warped an individual they are(as, serious or not, Ken White's Goatfucker Rule would apply) and/or throwing out the usual tripe in a failed attempt to make themselves out to be 'tough' and 'manly'.

                                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, 8 Aug 2018 @ 5:30am

                                  Re: How's that meme go? 'Watch out, we've got a tough guy here.'

                                  Wow are you off base, you socialist foreigner. My house is my castle, that has real meaning the US. Check it out. I know you don’t understand us and guess what? No one cares! There is no sexuality to my assertions, ladies shoot just as straight as men when they encounter an uninvited stranger in their house. Really. Doesn’t happen much because everyone knows this, and we just don’t sneak into other people’s house uninvited. Doesn’t happen much at all anymore, actually. Those who advocated that position are no longer in a position to continue. Life should be so simple more often.

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

                                  • icon
                                    That One Guy (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 7:02am

                                    Re: Re: How's that meme go? 'Watch out, we've got a tough guy here.'

                                    Wow are you off base, you socialist foreigner.

                                    Try again you jingoistic joke, though it's telling(and rather funny) that your first response was a laughable assumption that someone who disagrees with you simply must be from another country, rather than, oh I dunno, someone who doesn't wistfully talk/think about blowing someone's brains out to 'defend' their guns and/or someone stepping foot in their house.

                                    Well, at least you're an entertaining blowhard.

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

                                  • icon
                                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 11:06am

                                    There is no sexuality to my assertions

                                    I dunno, you seem like an ammosexual from where I sit.

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

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 6:14am

                  Americans have consistently loved their system of government.

                  Oh my god, you're serious.

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

                • identicon
                  bob, 8 Aug 2018 @ 12:46pm

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

                  When did Alex Jones start working at CNN?

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

            • icon
              Ben (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 6:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "I think Americans are unique in this way, that is, they, uniquely, loved their system of government throughout their entire history."?
              Didn't you guys have something of a Civil War about that?

              As for how hard D. Trump works, have you looked at the statistics (published by his own Whitehouse) about the amount his golfing trips have cost in terms of hours and dollars?

              And as for 'leading the world in creative content' ... that's only in English, and really only because the US population is much larger than the sum of any other predominantly English-speaking country.

              The Spanish, Portuguese, and, need I say, INDIAN, creative industries are also very, very active. Bollywood is cited as creating somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 movies per year. Hollywood produces less than half that.

              That's before we even consider South America media production, or creative industries outside of cinema and music, with which the US seems obsessed, to the exclusion of the other arts.

              Yes, the US does create a lot (sometimes I wonder how much is actually worth creating, but that's another story entirely), but to assume it's world leading because the MAFFIA say so? US blinkers off, please.

              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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 7:56am

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

                Come on, you want to compare the creative contribution of Hollywood to the creative contribution of Bollywood? You’re joking, right, trying to make some other point by promoting this ridiculous point. No one in their right mind would compare Bollywood favorably to Hollywood, regarding of “movie count”. You’re joking, right?

                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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 8:09am

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

                  You know, it just occurred to me that I might be impatient with you because you are actually from another culture. In my culture, people spend some percentage of their time enjoying or practicing the arts. Weekends, holidays, evenings sometimes. That would include watching movies, going to plays, operas, ballets, those kinds of things. Movies are one of the most available forms of art education, and I have watched a lot and enjoyed a lot, so the Hollywood vs. Bollywood comparison is totally obvious to me. But perhaps in your culture, you have not been so exposed to the arts and the differences between Hollywood and Bollywood. Who am I to say? So sorry for my attitude, sometimes I think I am talking to another American, when obviously I am not.

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

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 11:38am

                    you have not been so exposed to the arts and the differences between Hollywood and Bollywood

                    For starters, Bollywood has an pint of creativity, whereas Hollywood has only an ounce.

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

                  • icon
                    Ben (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:14pm

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

                    OMG, what a presumptuous anonymous fool you are. You have no idea what I get up to at the weekends; what arts I might be practising (two musical instruments for a start). Or for that matter, the incredible creative industries that work on these British Islands (yes, I'm British, I don't care if that means you can discard my opinions as 'irrelevant').

                    I must admit that I am in no way qualified to critique the artistic contributions of the commercial output of one movie industry over another - I wouldn't dare, as I don't understand the language spoken and sung in Bollywood movies for a start. Do you?

                    Okay, how many French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, Russian, Czech, Italian, South African (and I don't mean District 9), Zimbabwean, Australian, Egyptian, Mandarin, Taiwanese, Japanese or Swahili language movies have you seen? Care to judge whether their contribution to global culture is greater than the output of Hollywood?

                    But I would maintain that, with your blinkers on, you are equally unable to see that your criteria for "creative contribution" are inherently biased by your own culture. Look outside your borders and smell the (cafeinated, if you like) beverages from elsewhere.

                    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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 7:42pm

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

                      My oh my, you seem upset, for a Brit. I was literally in the movie business. I met the Wachowski brothers, who personally thanked me for my contribution to their art. I previewed and critiqued the James Bond films with the best ears in the world (Dolby geniuses). My friends helped put together Titanic, Independence Day, Jurassic Park, Avatar, the list is long and storied. My personal friend put the stars in the eyes (literally) of Jodi Foster in Contact. I designed, manufactured and sold and supported the equipment used to make movies all across the world. I knew hundreds of the creative geniuses behind them. So yes, between myself and my compatriots, I can say with complete confidence that Hollywood leads the world in movie creative content. Bollywood pales in comparison, as do the other countries you mention. Obviously.

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

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 8:18pm

                        I’m sure your dad works for Nintendo, too.

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 10:47pm

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

                        And last week you were a cowboy (definitely not an Indian), and the week before you were an astronaut, and a police officer the week before, and yesterday you rgrandaddy was a bonafide General in the army!

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 8:28am

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

                  "No one in their right mind would compare Bollywood favorably to Hollywood, regarding of “movie count”"

                  Depends on where you like, and there's more people on the subcontinent than there are in the US. If they like it, and they make money, why are you trying to demean them, just because you fragile ego might be hurt when reminded that the US is not always at the to?

                  If you want to get on to subjective value rather than objective, it's shaky ground given the amount of utter crap churned out by American corporations.

                  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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 9:08am

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

                    Count the dollars, dimwit.

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

                    • icon
                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 11:47am

                      Money is not a metric by which you can judge quality of output or whether that output is more “creative” than the output of another artist, group, or country. Even crappy movies can make a boatload of money under the right circumstances—just look at Batman v Superman.

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

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2018 @ 1:12am

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

                      Oh, so you finally decided on a metric. Cool, that means that the Chinese production Wolf Warrior 2 was one of the top 10 grossing movies of last year, so while somewhat dominant other players exist.

                      A shame that you prefer such a metric rather than one of quality, but such is the way of Hollywood.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 3:37am

      Re:

      Well you “almost” had a coherent point.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2018 @ 2:02am

    since you invoked 'science'

    I seem to recall hearing in my philosophy of science class that a theory does not truly die out until the last person holding it does.
    So we may have quite a while to wait before "copyright enforcement effectively combats 'piracy'" is no longer believed.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Ham Sammich, 7 Aug 2018 @ 6:46am

    Oh, good! Back to the old topics and spins!

    just one in ten Brits are currently downloading music illegally. That's down from almost double (18%) that figure five short years ago.

    This is the key factoid. Ignoring the bull in between two points, your intent is to claim brilliant foresight for Techdirt, though vague on persons and methods: "In other words, innovators solved the music piracy problem in the UK, as we always said would happen."

    More than six out of ten (63%) illegal music downloaders predict they'll still be pirating in five years' time

    It's a prediction for start, and doesn't imply they're turning to legal ways...

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2018 @ 7:25am

      Re: Oh, good! Back to the old topics and spins!

      You are aware that this isn't a set of binary groups, right? Some people will do both.

      Also, some people will pirate regardless, they'll never give you any money no matter what you do. So, it's a good idea not to waste your time on them, attacking people who want to give you money but you make it unlikely/impossible.

      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, 7 Aug 2018 @ 7:45pm

      Re: Oh, good! Back to the old topics and spins!

      out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Ham Sammich, 7 Aug 2018 @ 6:47am

    "but a significant 22% believe they won't."

    Because have read of pirates being JAILED and are rightly fearful. More jailed would cause this figure to rise, the first to drop.

    Just over a third (36%) acknowledge that using unofficial sources for music is becoming more difficult but the summary doesn't offer reasons why.

    Right along with my prior comment, news of actual consequences now being applied is having effect.

    In sum, you (and whatever "study") dodge all mention of higher enforcement as most likely cause, again claim credit for simple expansion of network bandwidth that's really the only enabler for more streaming, legal or not, and then crow that you've been right all along -- dropping mention that Techdirt has advocated outright piracy for 20 years, heedless of the law.

    The Typical Techdirt Twist. It'll fool anyone new here (which I doubt there is) into thinking Techdirt promotes new ideas and methods, but in fact it's just a den of pirates promoting easy old ways of simple content theft.


    Few and crap topics of late have led to more than merited dumps by the fanboys on this feeble old anti-copyright spin, too.

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

  • identicon
    BlackBeard, 7 Aug 2018 @ 9:04am

    Arrrrrgh!!! Once a Pirate always a pirate. Pillage!!! Plunder!!! Download your mp3's!!!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2018 @ 4:19pm

    Movie producers pay people to manipulate IMDb ratings because they think a higher rating means a higher revenue.

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.