So what you're saying is that you have a vested interest in the promotion of stupid, over-broad, excessively long copyright restrictions that are so complicated and devoid of common sense that high-priced 'specialist' lawyers are required for practically all interactions between producers and consumers of content. Basically the exact opposite of what the public needs or wants. Good for you...
This is one reason why any moral argument made by studios against movie piracy falls flat on it's face. You simply cannot claim the moral high ground on piracy while at the same time committing a level of fraud that would most likely be found illegal if it were properly exposed in a court of law.
"I'll put my name on this as soon as you put the name of your source on your article - the name of the Sony employee who leaked the e-mails."
Ooh, that's clever! Make revealing your vested interest dependent on Mike providing info he couldn't possible know.
"But I also see that you are convinced you've uncovered some "shocking truth" about MPAA deception. There is none."
On that I'm sure we all agree. Nobody is shocked that the MPAA is being deceptive by publicly claiming one thing while telling politicians and trade reps the opposite in secret. At this point we'd be surprised if they weren't doing that. But that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy or worth reminding people of.
It's hilarious how articles critical of the MPAA bring out the low-quality trolls like you. If these are the strongest responses you can come up with, it shows clearly you have no serious defense of their position to offer.
"The idea isn't to make it impossible for them to fight the legal system, it makes it only that they have to fight the legal system without a bucket load of money they made by stealing or skimming from others.
Kim Dotcom is learning this lesson in a most massive way."
The first line is disproved by the second. Dotcom is learning that the DOJ will do anything in its power to make it impossible for him to fight the legal system. They have tried to confiscate all his wealth, despite the fact that will will take a long and expensive court process to determine what if any proportion of the money earned from MegaUpload can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be from infringement.
It amazes me that there are people who confuse government control of the Internet (not what's happening) with government control of ISP's (what's actually happening). It's not like there's a subtle or confusing difference between the two, or this something that hasn't been discussed to death. It's a wonder you can tie your own shoes...
< \/>"I'll tell you to fuck off every day and twice on Sundays."
This is the attitude of the music industry that wants us to give them money! This is a "representative" of artists who claims to be working in their best interests, while crudely insulting anyone who disagrees with them from the safely of anonymity. Is it any wonder there is so little public respect or support for these people.
"The European Union should regulate Internet platforms in a way that allows a new generation of European operators to overtake the dominant U.S. players..."
So he doesn't just want European companies to be able to compete fairly (which they already can), he actually want's to make sure they beat the US companies via legislation. How can he not see the massive hypocrisy of wanting this outcome from anti-trust measures?
How did you make the leap from anti-trust to tax avoidance? They're two completely different issues. Google's tax avoidance is typical of many massive companies from all over the world, and they should ALL be dealt with the same way, but I don't hear you squawking about them.
"I think the Sheriff did the right thing based on the terrible attitude of the teen."
If you think this teen's actions rise to the level of "terrible" compared to the sort of things most teens do during a period of incomplete emotional growth, then you must be seriously lacking experience with actual teens.
It would appear it be that way if you assume that copyright laws are written by and for artists. But they're not. They're written by and for movie studios, record labels, book publishers, etc, not to mention their armies of lawyers, who all have a massive financial interest in stronger copyright laws and longer terms.
You can ask average_joe, out_of_the_blue and Slonecker what their financial interest is, but honest answers to that question are hard to come by.
"How could what a person creates be anything other than THEIRS? It's self-evident as that you own your body."
Nearly the entirety of human history is proof that you are wrong.
"Creators are not obliged to take consumers into any account whatsoever."
If they have any desire to be given money for their creations, they absolutely do have to take consumers into account.
"If you don't want to take THEIR deal on their terms, you've no moral basis for forcing it on them."
If you want to talk about the terms of the deal, shall we have a discussion about the whole limited control for a limited time deal that was originally made? The copyright industry broke that deal years ago, so you can't get all upset about the public ignoring it too.