He completely ignores the fact that this will destroy privacy, anonymity and also block most of new creators from getting a chance to start.
I don't think he's ignoring this at all. The internet has done a great job of destroying the gatekeeper role; by restricting content generation to a small "known" list of content generators you in effect put the gates and walls back up. Now a band CAN'T just give their music away for exposure; they once again have to go through one of the approved content generators and sell themselves into slavery to get any exposure at all.
I think this bill is more aimed at putting the walls and gates back up (and worse putting them back up and having them funded by taxpayers) than it is at piracy.
This is an interesting (intended?) consequence of this bill that nobody is talking about. How much of this is about combating "piracy" as claimed vs. regaining total control of the distribution chain?
Could not any service that provides distribution to small bands also be used to "facilitate infringement" and thus be illegal, leaving Big Content as the only way to get exposure and thus forcing musicians back into slavery.
Why is the top situation illegal and the bottom not.
Well duh! They are obviously different in that the first one bypasses the "legal system" and prevents lawyers & politicians from getting their cut, and puts lawyers and judges (mostly former lawyers) out of work. THINK OF THE LAWYERS!!!
For me the big barrier to eBooks (of established, in print authors) is price. I simply refuse to plunk the money down for a reader and then pay more for an eBook than I do for a dead tree book.
As a paperback reader up until Borders went under I was buying $8 paperbacks at ~30% off, and with them gone I can still get a 10% discount at B&N (I buy enough to come out ahead in their membership). Meanwhile every eBook of any author I've bought recently is priced at the paperback list price $8-$10.
It seems that (as usual) the content copying industry has it's collective head up its ass when it comes to pricing. The biggest benefit of eBooks IMO is the ability of an author to route around said content copying industry.
Re: Re: So don't use slang! If doesn't say "pirate" or "bootleg", it's fine.
Those sites are heavily used by the various modding communities for videogame mods. Of course he would probably consider that "infringing content" since we have the audacity to alter content created by Big Media (or in some cases medium sized media).
They'd have a little problem with that. Ice Age the Magic expansion came out in 1995, Ice Age the movie came out in 2002. Wizards of the Coast is also owned by Hasbro, who unlike the maker of this dice game, has a nuclear stockpile of lawyers and would fire back.
Just yet another case of a big company using the law as a club against a small company that cannot fight back.
It'd be interesting to know what innovations they were successful in stopping over the last century.
DAT (digital audio tape) was originally pushed as a replacement for the audio cassette but paranoia over "perfect" digital copies forced all consumer DAT decks to have copy protection (Audio Home Recording Act of 1992) and the format was stillborn outside of pro audio (where it was used through the mid to late 90's). Amusingly the protection used was called SCMS which most users of DAT decks referred to as "scummy".
I don't think it would have replaced audio cassettes anyway as the transport was similar to a VCR in design and was probably too fiddly to be reliable in a car stereo, which is what really pushed cassette in front of vinyl at the time.
Why stop at 1? Pick a suitably large number and there is no way the system can handle it. Accuse him of 10,000 copyright violations and he can have his net access back for the low, low price of $35,000.
Hell write a bot that accuses people you dislike of copyright infringement and you've basically got a way to kick them off the net forever.
Here Mr. Troll, have a cookie... (I really can't help myself)
Sooooooooo, if the only reason people go to a theater at all is because they have no alternative choice (which your semi-rant implies) why should they stay in business? Do they have a divine right to be new release cinema gatekeepers or something? Is a monty-pyhon style cardboard lightning bolt going to strike me if I don't see a movie in a theater?
If the industry would use it's brain it would realize that you get money from customers from providing them a service that they want, not by providing them what you want to provide them. Only monopolies get to do the latter which is why these industries are fighting so hard to remain monopolies...
If you advocate paperback pricing for ebooks then you are in effect advocating that the fixed costs of prepping the ebook + the server/bandwidth costs for distribution equal the printing, storage, and distribution costs of the paperback. IMO that is insane as I cannot imaging those two costs are even close. This fails my basic reality test as a consumer and $8 ebooks make me feel like I'm being ripped off. If my choice was $8 for an ebook or nothing I'd stop reading.
Worse, as long as Borders remains in business (how long this lasts is debatable) paperbacks will be cheaper than $8. Borders 30% off coupons are common as dirt if you are a rewards club member (free to join) so if you have a local Borders still in business your paper cost is closer to $5.60 + tax. So I can buy a paperback for $6 then resell it or share it with friends or buy an ebook for $8 or more and be stuck with it. Pretty bad choice IMO. From my point of view ebooks of fiction paperbacks need to be in the $3 range to justify me buying a reader.
This reminds me of an episode of Babylon 5, "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars". It shows Earth 500 years after B5 where the govt. propaganda machine was hard at work. Over time the meaning of words had changed, "truth" no long meant what we think of as the trust (that was realtruth), it means the facts as the propaganda machine wanted to present them. And felt perfectly justified in warping and twisting them, for after all, to not tell the "truth" would be to lie and to lie was bad.
This is the same thing; the word "steal" no longer means "to take something which doesn't belong to you". It means "to not let a corporate overload milk as much money as humanly possible from you". You're "stealing" from a company by refusing to pay what they want you to pay or to consume what they want you to consume. Because it's their DIVINE RIGHT for you to hand them all your money.
I don't think you'll ever see change at the xxAA's; they will become irrelevant before they adapt. I suspect the culture of control is too deeply ingrained at all of these organizations. Think about it, if vacancies open up who's doing the hiring? People that think this is the way to go. If you stroll in there spewing off about "changing business models" and "unmet consumer demand" are they going to hire you? Of course not they are going to hire someone that tells them what they want to here, that it can all be "fixed" and we can get back to the good old days when monopoly rents could be charged and control exerted over both sides of the market. So the organization as a whole will continue to have this mindset until it gets replaced by another that is more agile and can/is willing to react to the marketplace.
I agree that the issue is ad revenue, however I'm not so sure the networks want the current system to change (even if they think they do). If Neilsen started tracking how many people actually watch ads on a channel (instead of what channels people watch) ad revenue might plummet.
As an example if I'm going to watch something on TV (a rarity these days) I'll DVR it specifically so I can skip the ads. Even sports, I'll start watching a game 90 min into it so I can skip all of the ads. I have to assume that other people do this.
So if I understand your thinking correctly you've decided that:
1. Torrents are 'mostly' used for infringement and should therefore be illegal.
2. Any tool that is used to 'primarily' search torrents should be illegal as it is used for 'mostly' infringing (see #1)
3. You have no data to back any of this up (if you've made citations I've missed them) so it's all based on fuzzy lines drawn in the imaginary sand in your head.
Where's the line drawn? 50%? 80%? 20%? Would you find it acceptable if someone drew the line at a different place than you do? Or do we all have to agree on the same line? Would you agree with COICA if it caused google to be shut down? (I'm guessing no.) Shutting google down would use logic identical to yours, the only difference is the line would be drawn someplace where you (presumably) consider it unreasonable.
Let's take the logic to a ludicrous extreme. People commit all sorts of illegal acts. People infringe, buy drugs, steal, murder, assault, even (gasp) produce child pornography. (If you listen to big content a pretty sizable portion of the populate infringe.) This is all illegal, if you just kill everyone who commits any of these acts you'll have zero repeat offenders. But why wait, that 12 year old could be a future infringer or drug consumer. Kill him now before he commits that future crime. Even better just kill the entire human race, then you've got zero crime. Problem solved.
Some of the things you say seem as silly to many of the techdirt readers as the above probably sounds to you.