This is exactly the kind of crap I run adblock for. Advertising companies may whine about how people are using adblock software, but they aren't the ones dealing with idiots who care more about their money than the user's computer security and ability to use a site without being bombarded by intrusive and annoying ads.
Make ads that are low-key, don't present a security threat, and by the FSM aren't pop-ups, and you might convince younger people that they don't need ad blocking software. Don't even bother spending time trying to convince older people though, they've seen what browsing is like without ad blocking software, and aren't likely to want to repeat the experience, ever.
Sunk Costs plus very finely tuned 'gameplay' designed to make players feel 'rewarded', and therefor invested, so that they're more likely to pay.
Sure, it's a few bucks for the next bit of 'help', but you've spend so much time in the game, and it's only a few bucks, you spend that much on a coffee and/or snack... Standard(if more than a little sleazy) sales trick, keep the individual costs low, and people will only pay attention to the smaller amounts, rather than realize just how huge the overall amount has risen to.
1. 'Pirate' sites make tons of money off of ads(1). 2. Google both offers these ads(2), and links to them, giving them a cut of the profits. 3. To protect the massive income stream of money from the pirate site ads, which vastly dwarfs the amount coming from other sources, Google looks the other way and in fact makes sure to prioritize such sites to increase traffic(3) to them, and as a result increase their cut. 4. Therefore, Google is funded by piracy.(4)
(1) Ignore for the moment how only seriously dodgy companies would ever offer their ads on 'pirate' sites, and tend to pay pittance even compared to the usual low rates.
(2) Ignore for the moment how they do not, due to not wanting to open themselves up to legal issues that they don't need, and in fact are apparently ridiculously trigger happy when it comes to pulling ads off of even potential 'pirate' sites thanks to the desire to avoid said legal issues.
(3) Ignore for the moment how #1&2 make the 'income' from such site insanely low, if not non-existent. Also ignore how said pittance wouldn't even begin to pay a fraction of the legal fees that are regularly incurred by Google thanks to the parasites demanding that Google 'do something' regarding piracy, fees that would only increase if Google was actually trying to increase piracy rates.
(4) At this point you should be practiced enough ignoring reality that you have a promising career in either politics or the 'entertainment' industry should you wish to take either up.
No, that's pretty much exactly the reasoning behind the statement from the union. The recordings are bad and should be illegal because they expose police 'misconduct', and as a result led to the investigation and possible punishment against the thuggish idiots in blue.
You can be sure if the recordings exonerated the cops the union would be demanding that they be admitted as evidence, rather than demanding that they be excluded as evidence.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Repeating a falsehood does not a truth make
And of course you ignore everything I said and just repeat the same claims from before, what a surprise.
Call it theft all you want, you'll still be wrong, and you'll still be in a position where you don't want to be right.
Copying is not theft, taking is. If someone magiced up a perfect replica of a car on a showroom floor without paying the dealer they have not stolen anything, and the same applies when someone makes a copy of a song, movie or book.
When's the last time they, or really any government did one of those for increasing copyright before doing so?
Never any study or even care what the repercussions, whether economic or otherwise, are when ratcheting up copyright, but even consider ratcheting it down for a change and suddenly it's 'too difficult' and 'needs to be studied for possible economic effects'.
Re: Re: Repeating a falsehood does not a truth make
I didn't say infringement is the same as theft, I said that stealing copyrighted material is called infringement.
Cute. 'I didn't say that infringement is theft, I said that theft is called infringement.' Let's just leave off the follow-up, that of 'If theft is called infringement, then infringement is theft' shall we?
To which the question is, what copyright material is being stolen? Be specific, what does the copyright owner no longer have due to an act of infringement that they had prior to the infringement?
If someone steals something, that item is demonstrably gone, no longer in the possession of the former owner. If someone infringes on the copyright of something, such that they have a copy where they didn't before, the copyright owner is not suddenly missing something that they had before.
Also are you saying that being burgled causes 'low'harm ?
No, I'm saying being burgled, or shoplifting, or whatever example of actual theft you care to use causes measurable, demonstrable harm. If someone shoplifts a CD, then a store has demonstrably lost a scarce good that they previously had. They can no longer sell the item, because they no longer have it.
On the other hand, infringement lacks this. If someone downloads a CD, the seller still has their copy. They can still sell it, multiple times at that assuming a digital store. They have not lost anything, except at the most a potential sale, and even that's not always a given, since people can download something now and end up buying later.
Is having a youtube video removed worse then being imprisoned for armed robbery? That's what you're saying? Nothing that happens to a thief is worse than what happens to a copyright stealer?
For the life of me I cannot figure out how you got this from my comment. It's either deliberately mischaracterizing what I wrote, or completely missing the point.
My point, which you apparently missed, was that those who use the 'infringement is theft' line don't actually want infringement to be treated as theft, as currently infringement is treated much more harshly than all but the most extreme examples of theft.
Downloading a CD would go from something that carries the potential of thousands, if not more in fines, to something that would carry a fine of under a hundred. Companies and individuals would no longer be able to automate takedown demands, but would have to provide proof that they had lost something for each and every file/site, and false accusations would likewise carry negative consequences where they do not currently.
'Infringement = theft' is used as an emotional plea, but it is not only wrong, those using it would be among the first to object were it treated as fact in a legal setting.
The smart ones realize that unless you've got a monopoly on whatever it is you're offering(or your customers are masochistic idiots), looking out for your customers is looking out for #1, because a company whose customers have gone elsewhere due to being mistreated is one that's not going to be around very long.
The ones with a monopoly of course don't care, because what are their customers going to do, go to the competition that doesn't exist?
The 'consternation' is not because you're posting an 'annoying truth', it's because you're repeating a lie that's been debunked so many times it's just tiresome at this point.
No matter how many times you lie, it does not change the actual fact, and in fact those spouting the infringement=theft line do not want anything but the emotional baggage that the term brings.
Infringement has insanely high penalties, utterly divorced from any 'harm' caused, and allows punishment without proof(you don't have to prove you own something for it to be taken down, merely claim that you do).
Theft on the other hand has penalties drastically lower, proportional to the harm suffered by the one who's property was taken, and requires the one stolen from prove that they have been deprived of ownership that they previously had.
Quite unlike claims of infringement, where an 'Oops, my mistake' is generally enough to weasel out of punishment for making bogus claims, if someone went around charging random strangers with theft they would likely be looking at a pretty nasty benchslap from a very annoyed judge.
By all means, if you think infringement is the same as theft, then push to make them equal under the law, but I can guarantee you that the first people in line to object would be those that use the same lie, as while they're happy to use the emotional baggage the term 'theft' has for their own arguments, the last thing they want is the legal baggage as well.
Those people do beg for money and don't use the capalistic way of searching an investor. You know or well... you probably don't... an investor gets something in return based on the percentage of her or his investment.
It boggles the mind how you can look at kickstarter and not see exactly what you are describing. Kickstarter allows those with prospective ideas/projects to present their idea to potential 'investors' in the form of 'backers', and those backers do get something for their 'investment', whether that's a copy of the finished product or some other perk.
What you are describing as 'capitalism' is exactly what is going on here, yet you insist on calling it 'begging'. I guess capitalism as a whole is nothing more than begging then.
Nonsense, what could possibly be coercive about being told that you'll be tortured for eternity if you don't spend your entire life brown-nosing the divine posterior and praising them for being just so very merciful and loving by creating and/or allowing the existence of a place of eternal torment and not throwing everyone in there just for laughs?
What next, are you going to claim that a mobster telling a shopkeeper that unless they want their store burned down or their kneecaps broken they'd better pay 'protection' is coercion, rather than a simple, generous act of informing someone of the consequences of their actions?
Oh but you see they aren't judging anyone, their god is, and it's just a complete coincidence that everything that they don't like is also something their god doesn't like.
If they don't like homosexuals, then funny thing, neither does their god.
If they don't care whether someone's homosexual or not, would you look at that, neither does their god.
If they think those of other faiths, or even worse, those of no faith, are at best deluded, but more likely horrible people, then their god is right there next to them, backing them up.
If they don't really have a problem with people of different or no faiths, then by pure coincidence, neither does their god.
Like I said, they don't judge anyone, as that would be wrong, they just happen to agree with the judgements passed out by their particular version of god, and it's a complete and totally coincidence that those judgements always match their personal opinions on any given subject.
So if you're going to defend the actions here as an 'honest mistake', when it was obviously anything but, you just destroyed any ability you might have had to criticize those engaged in copyright infringement.
After all, clearly someone downloading a song/movie/book that they don't actually own was just making an 'honest mistake', so no need to worry, it's no big deal.
Funny thing about those in power, a good portion of them really don't like being criticized, and see nothing wrong with proposing and passing laws making it so that people can't criticize them or others.