The most shocking news here (to me) is Amazon's action and subsequent response. I think it's so awesome that they are refusing to sell the product b/c they know their customers will be unhappy, how novel for a giant corporation!
Why does this apply so strictly to audio recordings? If a poster or painting is visible in the background of a video, why doesn't the artist earn some money for that? Hearing a song is not the same as owning a license to that song, seeing a poster/painting is not the same as owning the physical poster or a license to the digital version so why does one type of artist get paid and not the other?
Someone probably said this already but i'm sure the director is misusing words (like so many do these days surrounding piracy/the internet). He is not for illegal downloads as he clearly stated. Illegal downloads of his show are any format/method you download that is not a temporary file (streaming) or a download from a source like iTunes (containing DRM).
From what I gather from talking to 'average users', most people (correctly) associate 'downloading' with basically everything on the internet. There is no way to view a file, site, page, w/e on the internet w/o first downloading it. A streaming video is still first downloaded to your browser and stored in a temp file that is deleted when you close the tab/window. I hope the director realizes that when people view his shows via streaming (which is totally legal in the US) that methods is far less detrimental to 'sales' figures b/c they do not permanently retain a copy and to view it again, they must stream it (again), illegally obtain a copy or pay for it. Not everyone is going to pay for it but most people who stream in the first place probably aren't going to download it illegally later on, they'll stream it again or buy it. Where the real value of unrestricted streaming comes in is the time-tested marketing technique called 'word of mouth'.
Most of my friends started watching Game of Thrones only after I told them how good it was and several of them now have HBO or have purchased the DVDs. After i streamed the first couple of episodes, i bought the books - which i would not have done if i wasn't first able to watch the episodes for free.
It was a really terrible thing that happened and what continues to happen today is almost as bad. The press are completely over blowing the gun issue, they are so excited to have something to talk about since Sandy is over and Obama is still president. As much as they want you think everyone is 'so concerned' about it, i think the majority of people do realize that bans won't work, more guards won't work, databases won't work and certainly 'curbing video game violence' won't work. The only things that might actually work are building modern fortresses and (trying to) educate children in them OR eliminating all physical schools and enabling every child to be home/internet schooled.
as we've all learned from reading this site, they legally cannot sell your photos in the first place b/c as the original artist, you have copyright protection. each 'sale' would be subject to 'infringement prosecution' (or whatever) and a bunch of lawyers would make a bunch of money off of it.
The most important thing to take from this article is that 40% of the ppl who torrented were at least interested in supporting the artist. I think that is a really great statistic to tout for posterity.
When I read the excerpt, I kept seeing all these coincidences lining up like 'V for Vendetta' or any other conspiracy movie. It just so happened that the Prime Minister was out of the country and the acting PM was the one who actually signed the document. -WHY was the PM out of the country just then, did the US know and push for action right then knowing the 'temp' guy would probably just sign it or did they orchestrate the event that the PM attended to put the puppet in place?
Makes me laugh b/c its probably nothing like that (but at the same time, it could be....)..
What an asshole. "Even though I have a home and no need (besides drugs/alcohol) for your money, I'm going to manipulate you into giving it to me." Is he 'shomeless' or just shameless? As for the 'mental instability' claims, he was with it enough to ask for a cut of whatever money was circulating as a result of being on YouTube so i don't think his issues could be that serious.
That said, i have heard this (owning a house/car) about several homeless people in the towns I've lived in over the years. Probably something like 10 years ago, i heard that a homeless person in NYC could make about $40-$50k annually from panhandling. A low salary for NYC but considering that's all tax free, enough for a decent living. I have no facts to back up the claim but i can believe its at least possible.
A surprisingly small number of people opposed this 'technology' directly but I see it having HUGE drawbacks that make it unusable. First, buying a textbook for a class should not ever be required. Second, even if everyone did buy it, two people could read together, especially with digital technology, they could put it on a big screen and read the pages at the same time which would only show 1 student's work and not the other(s). Third, I had a good friend in college who was not too far below that off the charts genius level who didn't have to read very much (or do much of anything) to get straight As all four years. How would this technology account for the rare cases like him?
This is yet another example of colleges trying to leverage technology to 'enforce learning' but that is completely contradictory to higher education You can't force adults to learn, if they don't want to learn, they should not be in college. If 'college' is seen as 'required' then it should actually be required...
I'm all for higher education but its not for everyone. A lot of what is taught in college should be taught in high school, that's where changes need to be made - not spying on students to enforce homework (that's what parents are for - in high school).
ok thanks for the explanation. I understand your point but it is important to be able to assign ownership of digital 'things' since their real world value is ever increasing. a new definition needs to be devised that works with modern technology, i agree with you there. copyright was only intended to protect written/printed words so its understandable that it doesn't work with 'things' that are never physically written or printed.
I have been saying this to friends and family (and receiving typically negative reactions), movies should go straight to sale and skip the theater all together if they want to increase movie sales. At the very least, they should be available to purchase and watch at the same time they are in theaters.
For me, and i know i'm not alone, the movies that come out now are pretty predictable in terms of whether or not i would buy the DVD/digital copy. If it is a film i'm willing to buy, I'm not going to spend nearly the same amount of money to watch it once on a really big screen. In the rare case that I actually go to a theater to watch a movie, there is almost no chance that i will buy the DVD.
Before the internet, I would actually have to wait until a movie was released on DVD but now i can watch it for free, legally, while it is in theaters. Ironically, i buy more movies now than i did before.
government knows that one misstep, slack in scrutiny, or the slightest concession will result in a HUGE blow back. they won't give this up until the Courts finally do their job, remain impartial and rule in favor of the written law like they are supposed to.