Re: Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.
Not necessarily true. There are plenty of situations where you might want be able to post on the internet and still retain your privacy. Plenty of people participate in online discussion groups and do not want their postings to go beyond a trusted community. Ashley Madison leaps to mind obviously but there are plenty of far less controversial examples. It would be a pretty sad world if we had to give up one of the greatest things about the internet – communicating with like minds – because we all decided it was too difficult to retain a level of privacy.
Re: Okay, so tell us what will get pirates to obey the law and stop stealing?
"Okay, so tell us what will get pirates to obey the law and stop stealing?"
At this point it's just a running joke how many times this dumb question has been asked and answered, but it's no surprise you're asking it again. Copyright infringement is about one day younger than copyright law. It has always been there and will always been there. The only proven way to reduce it is to offer people a better option. Obsessing about 'Stopping Piracy' is a huge waste of time and money. It's using resources that could instead be looking at all ways to maximize revenue, which can include accepting that piracy is often a zero-cost method of promotion. By far the best way of course is to provide affordable, convenient ways to access content, like Netflix, Spotify and iTunes.
"Jeering is easy. We've all got jeering down pat. You jeer at ALL methods industry tries. So you need to make some positive statements of what will work. "
Again, asked and answered many times. Most 'industry' methods are worth jeering at, because they all put the users' needs well behind the industries' needs (or greed) instead of coming up with platforms that people genuinely enjoy using. All the companies that have been truly successful at reducing piracy came from outside the traditional content industries (see examples above).
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 18th, 2015 @ 7:41am
"...so that MPAA or anyone defending their property rights are portrayed as evil criminals."
Your simple mind is showing again. Just like there are legal and illegal ways to defend real (as opposed to imaginary) property, there are ways to react to copyright infringement that are allowed in law and there are ways that clearly are not.
For someone who likes to scream and shout about the illegal activity of people you don't like, you seem quite happy to justify the MPAA trying to do the same.
"You demand proof that this capability is needed, but then set an impossible standard for that proof - show us a case where you couldn't break the encryption on a phone, but whatever was on the phone was vital to solving the case."
Fair enough, let's flip it around. Law enforcement keep banging on as if they're losing something important to them, but this is a fairly recent change from Apple and Google so there must be a history they can present where having access to phones solved lots of horrible crimes. But I don't see any of those stories being talked about. Instead we get weak hypothetical scenarios that are easily shot down. Doesn't seem like they have a strong case at all.
"These officers just did what their supervisor told them to do. They are pawns in a chess game."
You're wrong. They may or may not have had approval or encouragement from supervisors, but they did want they did because they wanted to and thought they could get away with it. No decent human being would follow orders to do what they did. They're thugs with no respect for the laws they've been entrusted to uphold. This incident reflects terribly on the processes for vetting police candidates and monitoring ongoing behavior.
Re: I blame pirates while Techdirt blames creators. But then I'm reasonably moral, not a pirate who gains the unearned and whose thefts create the very problems that they then use to justify more piracy.
"It's always decent people who pay the price for thefts by moral lepers."
Ignoring your obvious ignorance of leprosy and resulting failed analogy, there is simply no good reason why there needs to be a tax on the possibility of infringement occurring. This method does absolutely nothing to benefit content creators; it is simply a money grab by people with absolutely no claim to any moral high ground.
"Why are services that simply retransmit the OTA broadcasts of others so "new and innovative" that they should be excused from violating the rights of creators?"
What orifice did you pull that strawman argument out of? Did you completely miss the bit where Aereo agreed to pay rebroadcasting fees and were still killed off? And just because broadcasters have the legal right (i.e. government-granted privilege) to act as a rebroadcasting gatekeeper, doesn't actually make it right or even smart.
"Why are you so opposed to innovations that actually take the rights of others into mind?"
This implies Mike has voiced opposition to innovative services that you support. Can you name them and point to Mike's comments on them?
Don't worry, we know you're a hypocrite who won't answer.
Re: It's the same move repeated over and over again by pirates: rather than pay the producers a pittance, they use technology to evade clear law and then don't understand why people get pissed off and try to stop their thefts.
"Now, I've provided a button nearby for pirates to click so they can make clear their intent to continue stealing."
I looked but couldn't find it, so I just hit 'report' instead.
"Instead of answering free speech with more speech, just censor away, kids."
The long list of comments answering you bears a striking resemblance to "more speech"...
"Yes, but you seem to be taking this from the attitude that every Web site should have comments."
I disagree, I think the criticism here is aimed squarely at the lame and disingenuous claims of improving the community by killing comments. I don't see anything above saying websites must have commenting.
Re: @ "Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders"
"It's faith-based teachings not actualities, let alone the clear simple morality that creators own their creations and have sole control of copies -- yes, SOLE control: media only licenses you to read/view the content."
If you want creators to have sole control of copies (yes, SOLE control!) of their creations, perhaps you should turn your attention to the fact that the first thing most creators have to do when publishing their work is to completely relinquish that control to industry gatekeepers. There are few "actualities" in your claims of creator control.
"Yeah, it's so hard to find actual infringers that they must be making it up."
No, it's hard to profit from actual infringers, which is what these clowns are trying to do. Try to look beyond your usual "dirty pirates!" schtick and take note of the fact that this purely abuse of the copyright system for profit. If you're really so sure copyright is the only thing preventing total cultural meltdown then you should be equally outraged against it's abuse by people who have zero interest in actually protecting artists or their output.
Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.
"Brooks is right in fact about used CD sales, that's how should be, but is not law any more than is with books. I'd go for a tax on both those, because re-sellers have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations, but that's a whole 'nother topic, eh?"
So do you think people selling houses or cars or every used item on eBay have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations either? Would you like to tax every single person selling something they bought? You're right that's another topic, but one you'll never discuss because you know such sheer idiocy would have you mocked clean off the internet.