Wrong. GOT is simply very popular. There is one large fanbase. It's just that some douches steal it.
The show's director and Time Warner's CEO state that they "benefited" from the piracy of GOT:
Observers, including series director David Petrarca and Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said illegal downloads did not hurt the series' prospects, as it benefited from the resulting "buzz" and social commentary, while the high rates of piracy did not significantly translate to lost subscriptions. Source
Re: Re: Re: And "seizing" domains with infringing links is nothing like censorship!
Yes, your obscure claims eliminate facts shown by software providers much larger than you. OK.
Care to share these so-called "facts"?
If you bring up Microsoft, I'll have a good laugh. Their world market share is due in part to illegal sharing. Didn't they also purchase Minecraft? A product made phenomenally popular because of Notch's policy of not getting all upset about pirated copies?
For example, you can't copy my novel until my novel exists. The moment it does exist, you still can't copy it. You never could before I wrote it, and you still can't once I do write it. I don't see how any rights have been taken away.
The moment that the work exists isn't the important moment. The moment it's shared with others is the pivotal moment.
Prior to the existence of copyright, once you told your story to another person they had a natural right to re-tell it or embellish it. Copyright restricts that natural right. I'm not sure why you deny that.
Also, since you argue that the "laborer’s moral claim is superior to the claim of someone else who didn’t labor to create the thing", do you apply that to physical products? If I spend two weeks creating a chair and sell it to you, do I have a moral claim to restrict whomever I wish from sitting upon that chair? It was my sweat of the brow that created the chair, so I have a "superior claim", right?
The data is inconclusive, but it's faith to support IP and science to resist it? That makes little sense.
Seriously, that's what you got from this article?
I didn't see it as slamming the Pro-IP crowd any more so than the anti-IP crowd. Both sides seem to have those who base their arguments on faith instead of facts.
One of the reasons I was drawn to Techdirt in the first place is that Mike tends to make his arguments and observations from empirical data when possible, sometimes even when that data goes against his views. Other IP blogs I've read would never do that, usually because they are too busy trying to pull the emotional heart strings of their readers to actually deal with facts.
Re: Hmm. Doing what they know, unable to think of more...
Too funny Blue.
Actually the best change around here in the last year or so was when you stopped spamming the comment sections with your "holier-than-thou" rants and half-baked notions. We've had some real nice adult discussions since then.
Obviously you did not understand that my comment was limited solely to how the EFF attorneys reacted when the agency informed them about a concern it had with the submittal. A pro who wanted to be taken seriously would have reacted in a markedly different manner.
I'm sorry. You comment has been rejected because it's an "improper protest."
If you want to be taken seriously, please resubmit your comment without the preconceived bias against the EFF.
In addition, I find it pretty hilarious that you desire the censorship of comments because they contain words that offend your snowflake sensibilities and in the very same sentence you cry that the reporting of your comments is unfair.
Your paradox-absorbing crumple zones are simply amazing!