So, I said something you don't like and called you out based on previous behaviour, so that means I'm paid by Google? that's pretty weak. How do you know I'm not paid by Amazon or one of the other scary tech companies? (Hint: I'm being paid by a company with no US presence for something completely different and I'm arguing with fools during downtime. Idiot bating is not in my job description, sadly).
I can't prove the "shill" accusation because you people never bother to identify yourselves enough to categorically differentiate between you (if there are indeed more than one). So, I'll retract that and stick with "mentally deranged obsessed idiot" instead. My evidence is visible for all to see in this thread.
Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
Mike didn't write the story.
Is this the best you have? You could at least be posting the proof of your assertions rather than ranting like lunatic. If this is the best you people have, you're convincing people to side with Google rather than the crazy homeless person in the corner...
"Here's what Techdirt doesn't understand, doesn't EVER mention"
...an opinion from some else? Sure, they've got plenty of those.
Let me guess - *that* blog repeats stuff *you* want to hear, so it must be truth? (Yes, it's an opinion piece so it's essentially a blog even if it has the name of one of your MPAA gods above the headline)
"Google shills are already out in force"
They are? Name them, they deserve to be outed. Oh, and provide proof, not assumptions dredged from your nether regions, OK?
"And unlike Google, we have to send you a bill--a bill to pay for the broadband infrastructure that Google and others profit handsomely from, but don't support directly"
What? Google Fiber customers don't get bills? Google don't pay their bandwidth bills? Google haven't installed any new infrastructure? Did someone let them know, I could have sworn I saw some overheads claimed on their finances, they'll be happy to know they didn't actually pay them.
Yet again, everything seems logical if you just transport yourself into a fantasy universe where the realities of other people just evaporate.
"We're called 'the gatekeepers' when companies that control 90 percent of the search market are not"
...and how do people access those search engines? You are aware that you don't have to use a search engine to use the internet, but you absolutely do have to have an ISP. Right?
At the time of writing, Universal have made $1,920.9 million worldwide on 6 films. They still have a number of blockbusters such as Jurassic World and Minions to come along with numerous smaller films. But, this doesn't count as billions of revenue in your world. Got it.
As you can see, at the time of writing, Furious 7 has made $1,156.7 million and Fifty Shades made $568.8 million. That's 1.73 BILLION for two films, 4 months into the year for a single studio. Tell me again how the industry doesn't rake in billions.
After your hiatus, try to at least develop the ability to read your own links and consider that arguments being made. You've failed miserably here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, it's not always about Google
"Yes, and Google took in 15 plus billion in the same quarter"
So? How does that make your assertion that studios make million and not billions somehow true?
Yes, we get it, you have such an irrational hatred of Google that you'll forgive all the sins of other corporations. But, stick to facts and not laughable fictions, OK?
"You need to understand that this is not standard for all corporations. It's something created quite recently all considered by tech companies who were looking to move money from high tax areas (where they do business) to low tax areas (where they do almost no business). "
Citations. I'm sorry, you're such a poor liar that I can't take your word at face value. Focus on how this affects them internationally, by the way, not some localised rule since you seem to be switching between local and global figures on a whim. Especially focus on how only tech companies are able to do this.
"I would think a Tech blog would be more interested in the goings on at Tech companies, not old line movie companies."
Why would they not, given that these "old" companies are directly trying to change laws to cripple tech companies in order to protect their own businesses? That's even without considering the amount of tech that these companies depend on (what, did you miss digital projection and the CGI used in the movies themselves, for example)?
But, you can't pretend that the studios don't make billions any more, so deflect, deflect, deflect!
"Anyway, enough fun for this month, you can talk to yourself now, see you sometime in May or June."
I'll be here to debunk the pathetic lies you spew in the same way, see ya!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
"I read the FCC's plan and yes I typo'd the number of pages."
You made a typo that made 8 into 400? Or, you understand so little of what you actually read, you didn't realise that most of the pages were not in fact the rules in question, only supporting material to help explain and justify them?
"Your comments seem more designed to shutdown debate rather than discuss the issues."
I debate facts, not long-debunked assertions such as the lie that there's nearly 400 pages of rules. Feel free to present facts in place of myths, if you wish. You certainly haven't presented facts here.
"Interested in the government deciding on what constitutes "viewpoint diversity"?"
No, but neither is the FCC. The term refers to the fact that net neutrality guarantees that diverse opinions will be seen and heard. Without it, corporations will tend to drive people to their own preferred services, which tends to shut out smaller services and those which can't pay larger fees. Diversity is only guaranteed by ensure that all services are treated equally - which is exactly why preserving net neutrality is so important.
"I guess that's okay as long as its not your viewpoint that's being suppressed in the name of "diversity"."
*sigh* The only people trying to suppress viewpoints are the corporations you're so valiantly defending. Net neutrality is about preventing suppression. You understand so little of what this is about, you're attacking the people trying to protect what you claim that you believe is so valuable.
Stop cowering at the government boogeyman, and try to address facts. I'm sorry that the wording of a few handpicked articles is confusing you and scaring you, but look past those and read the objective facts. Somehow, you've managed to read the entire report and other reports discussing it, but you still haven't grasped the nature of what's being discussed.
He has no citation, it's a six degrees of separation kind of thing.
Google makes money from advertising. A small percentage of both advertisers and sites that host infringing material. A percentage of those ads make money. Therefore, Google's income is from piracy.
It won't get any more concrete than that, since it requires a creative interpretation of facts, not facts themselves. He's essentially saying that anyone who carries ads for second hand goods makes their money from stolen items, because a small percentage of them may well indeed have been stolen. Therefore, we should give Sony a free pass on everything they do, for some reason.
OK, but you must surely then understand that when Valenti made his comment, he was referring to the type of device and not a format. The VCR was a blanket term for devices that used Betamax, Video2000 (among other numerous other minor formats)... and VHS.
So, in that context how does "the VCR in question died out long before... the DVD made VHS obsolete" make any sense given that the VCR reference covered VHS? I'm presuming you think that VCR meant Betamax, but it certainly didn't. Valenti was railing against the entire concept of a VCR, not Sony's specific implementation. If Sony had been defeated, VHS manufacturers would have been next on the slab.
"Royalties are a "before the net" thing and not an after the net thing."
So, you're saying that no current record contract includes royalties? I assume you have a cite for that claim, as that sounds rather ridiculous?
"My original point is only that the studios and such do it on what is a very small scale. Google does it with BILLIONS of income, not millions."
So do the studios. Universal Studios, part of a huge multinational corporation, has just taken in over $1 billion worldwide for a single movie (Furious 7), which takes their current year to nearly $2 billion worldwide. In case you didn't notice, it's still only April, Universal still have several movies that look to be guaranteed moneymakers coming up, and Furious 7 is still the highest grossing movie in the US. If they end the year with less than $4-5 billion in gross, I'll be very surprised - and those are just the figures that are easy to get publicly (it's much harder to get accurate figures for DVD sales, licencing, merchandising, etc. - although as ever if anyone has such sources I'll be very happy to examine them)
How is this "only millions", especially once you start to consider the rest of the group's income? That's just one studio, there are others likely to rake in similar amounts this year. The domestic US box office alone has been worth around $10 billion every year for the last few years, and the US is increasingly worth less than 40% of the total gross for most movies.
But, why let actual facts get in the way of your bare assertions, huh? Only millions? Please, I don't even need to check another page to know you're full of shit.
"This harms you directly, why worry about how a studio counts their beans when it doesn't really harm you?"
Because the studios are doing EXACTLY the same thing. I don't give a crap what Google does individually when it's something that's standard for all corporations. Want me to sign on to something to stop all corporations from doing this? I'm on board. Want me to pretend that Google is somehow uniquely evil and we should ignore the actions of every other corporation? Nope.
Which shouldn't matter to HBO if they're recouping the lost subscription fees through licencing fees to the venue. If a weekly screening of one show is enough to get them to cancel their entire cable subscription, they're hardly going to be a high value customer who would have continued subscribing after the show run anyway.
"If people sign deals for "percentage of net" without knowing what is involved in going from gross income to net profits, then they had pretty bad legal advice up front"
So, by that logic, musicians who signed a contract for royalties, rather than a fixed fee upfront, had bad legal advice and only have themselves to blame if they can't feed their families from work they did 50 years ago?
That's a interesting view coming from you. I'll bear that in mind in other threads.
"One thing is licensing (characters, screen play, and the like) which is an upfront and ongoing cost"
Erm, you do realise that they get paid for the licencing, often both in upfront fees and royalties? How in the hell are they a net cost?
"It's pretty much the same deal that large corporate entities use to shift income off of their books"
Ah, so you admit that studios are using the same tactics as Google! Why, then did you try to derail the thread to attack that company when you admit that entire industries are doing the same thing? Almost as if you have an agenda by posting here. Hmmm...
Re: Re: Oh Google? >>> "No great investigations into Google?"
"Someone really persistent has nagged Masnick for years about Google"
Yes, they have. An anonymous coward such as yourself, who refuses to accept any of the answers given, repeatedly asks the same questions that have been answered, and refuses to accept the existence of the many posts critical of Google. He demands personal attention and whines when his posts (among hundreds or thousands posted each day) don't get immediate personal attention, while posting obvious lies that can be debunked in moments.
Why should the claims of such a person be trusted?
"The only time Masnick runs anything (even mildly) bad about Google is after the NYTimes has vetted it."
Oooh this is a new line of bullshit! Cite?
"Google directly funds Masnick, though that won't be revealed here by Masnick."
Possibly because it's not true? I'm yet to see evidence beyond "Google sponsored a place where Mike gave a talk" and "Mike was named by Google in a lawsuit against Oracle" (during which he disclosed that some articles had been sponsored by Oracle - funny how morons don't get their panties twisted over that company. I wonder why? Maybe because MPAA shills don't get paid to attack them despite the same evidence as their Google claims?)
So, are you going to furnish us with any facts, or are the rantings of an obsessed anonymous proven liar meant to be a smoking gun?
"But just go to his latest flop-to-be, the "Copia Institute", and there's Google's logo"
One of many. Is it your opinion that Mike is also paid to shill for the MacArthur Foundation, Yelp, Automattic and a number of venture capital firms? Or, are you cherry picking data to pretend you have a point?
Ah, there it is. I was wondering which troll would try and defend this. But, you can't so deflect, deflect, deflect!
"We know that they have used every tax dodge and offshoring option possible to avoid paying their fair share of taxes."
...and the movie studios haven't? Please...
"They didn't rip off some overly entitled producer or artiste"
Neither did Hollywood, unless your definition of "entitled" now means "terms agreed in a legally binding contract". If you don't care about those, why do you care about other legally binding contracts like, say, copyright or tax law?
"everyone currently in the education system"
Jealous of those who had an education in the real world, rather than the fantasy world you seem to inhabit?
Indeed, so you agree that the while the video was a trigger, people didn't simply riot over the video as you implied? Good.
Now, if we can just get you to work on your concept of why it's bad to refer to someone as a rapist when they've never faced a trial for such a crime, which was the subject before you derailed the thread. Trial by media doesn't count. Such accusations have destroyed lives and careers of many an innocent man, and I dislike those who use them lightly. Dislike Assange all you want, whether for his personality, his actions with Wikileaks or his legal asylum status. But, let's stick to the proven facts, OK?
Presumably, HBO's service will have its own licences that may or may not exclude public performances. If they don't offer that option, it will be a licence violation even if it's fine with other channels.
"No, I understand and I agree it would be beneficial to the bar."
...and to HBO in a number of different ways. This is a situation where both parties can benefit if the terms are amicable. Instead, they just pissed off a bunch of their own customers, both those who would have attended the screening and those reading articles on this shutdown.
"Obviously, the current arrangement is beneficial to HBO or they wouldn't continue doing it."
Correction - they *think* the current arrangement is beneficial, or at least they believe it benefits them more to pretend it does than to admit it doesn't.
They're definitely protecting a business model that's getting frayed at the edges, and they're locked in to some degree with existing cable network agreements and the like. There will be a side that we're not seeing here, but on the face of it, there were several choices, and this is the least positive one for both parties.
Probably, but this is still a silly stance. You can offer something, but the minute you let people know about, it's not allowed? Again, why not work with them and offer a way to get paid - any money lost by the advertised offering is almost certainly going to be less than the lawyer's fees involved in getting lawyers to find and shut down the event.
Few people are going to cancel their subscription and/or stop buying merchandise because they saw the show at a bar. But, a public showing might not only convert new fans, but also attract those people who are currently pirating the show because they don't want the huge overhead of a cable subscription to begin with.