So you admit to not even checking the second link then, even though it IS a French Ministry of Justice document. Well done. Just because a document is posted on an opinion page doesn't mean it's not official. That's like saying if the RIAA posted a document from congress it's ok for me to completely ignore it because the RIAA website WILL be an opinion website.
I also note that you're still responding to these message about the sources but you're completely ignoring my issue about wireless router WIFI implications. You've had several minutes to explain how that is supposed to work and you've tactfully ignored it.
Once again you completely ignored the one from the French Ministry of Justice. You're also forgetting that there's still a lot of stupid people out there who don't know how to correctly configure a router. It's entirely possible for HADOPI to be accusing people of infringement and taking them to court for other people stealing WIFI.
You can't sit there and say "Someone shouldn't be that stupid" or that they should learn how to do it, because I could then turn around and tell you that you need to have the equivalent education of a doctor so you no longer need to see him for any ailments. It's why we have professionals in different fields.
How do you explain the risk of this happening and people being forced to go to court by accusations from CONTENT OWNERS and NOT AUTHORITY figures such as police, just so they can waste money trying to defend themselves from false accusations because they simply don't know how to secure their routers.
There's a substantial difference between the two that you're devoid of. Those accusations are made by POLICE, people who are put in place to protect actual LAW and citizens from mostly BODILY harm. The people in this case are getting accused by content owners (note I said owners and NOT creators) who are NOT police who are claiming ECONOMIC harm. Given that we have absolutely no clear proof that any infringement truly causes economic catastrophe, there's no reason to listen to a content owner who claims it's because of economic concerns when there currently are none.
I'm still worried this is a time bomb. While the governments can "say" they're going to shelve it for now, there was a previous commenter who said they'll just wait till the public is no longer watching then pass it through quieter next time.
With the reach and money that **AA has, it's certainly possible they'd be willing to play the waiting game until it's passed. Unless mass people decide to threaten governments and we aggressively attack copyright laws, I see this all subsiding at some point and corporations pushing through what they wanted anyways.
I just moved to Texas in January. I will now be calling AND writing to the office of Mr. Lamar and informing him that in the next election, where he could have had a new constituent vote for him, I will instead be voting him out of office, even if I have to vote for a baboon.
Do you not see how unintelligent you sound when you make unfounded, completely baseless statements like that? Your comment doesn't even pertain to the article at all. You took a subject that was being discussed and completely twisted it in a direction that wasn't even remotely close just to bitch.
This may not be the best solution that us pro consumer rights readers want, but it's a step (however large or small you may see it) in the right direction. If we don't stand up for something, they'll strip it away. Small but consistent victories will hopefully win the war. Maybe not for us, but maybe hopefully our children or children's children so they may live in a truly free and rich cultured world.
I signed this petition and the petition to have Dodd investigated. If congress really is being fed money from RIAA/MPAA I don't really expect much to happen but I can at least say that I'm actually trying to make a difference. I've also posted both petitions on my facebook to try and get the word out.
I wasn't trying to diminish Mike's point at all. I actually agree that smaller artists certainly are harmed more by obscurity than piracy. I don't agree with your thoughts about Metallica though. After the Napster incident Metallica lots many fans. This would obviously result in fewer concert tickets sold and fewer hard goods sold from t-shirts to cd's.
If on the other hand he said "We know it's happening but you guys can have a better experience coming to the concerts and buying our t-shirts." instead, I'm pretty sure fans would vigorously get behind them. They've long been known for supporting bootleg audio which garnered them a lot of fans back in the days. They essentially went he opposite direction with Napster and lots many fans which provide $$$.
The problem that I'm going to focus on is how you say it won't work in general and point to Lars Ulrich. While I am a HUGE Metallica fan, I also understand that Lars f***ed his fans with the crap he spear headed. Had he NOT done what he did and instead embraced his fans, I am thoroughly convinced Metallica fan following would be even significantly larger than what it already is today.
People are funny like this. If you harm someone emotionally even just once, many times people will stay bitter to that person to the very end. This is exactly why Lars' image will forever stay tarnished, even after Death Magnetic was pirated before release and he openly stated that he didn't mind and he was confident the cd would sell. Which it did. Millions of copies.
This is pretty typical if you think about it. For many years people have been trying to institute gun laws for the exact same reason. They believe if you remove guns you'll remove crime, specifically murder. Unfortunately this is completely wrong because criminals will STILL find a way to come into possession of a gun and commit a crime.
It doesn't matter which subject it is, if a politician doesn't like an action, they go for the tool of said action without it affecting anything. In this case and the gun case, this only hurts law abiding citizens, very similarly to DRM. It's a vicious circle of political grandstanding.