The public is not against copyright. The majority of Americans recognize that downloading a song or a movie that you didn't pay for is wrong. The issue is that Google is training and teaching people that stealing is OK and normal because they make billions of dollars pushing ads on pirate sites and pages.
Facts are stubborn things. Search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs make 10 to 20 times more money than the music and movie industries depending on how you size them. Annual revenues: Google $44B, Verizon $120B,Viacom (Paramount, CBS $14B), WMG $2.4B. The US home video (BluRay, DVD, VOD, PPV, Streaming) was approx. $18B in 2011, down from $25B in 2006. Music was $6B in 2011 down from $12B in 2000. According to Sandvine 18% of US Internet traffic is P2P filesharing (top 10,000 torrents all violate copyright - Envisional) and 5% is used for sites like Megaupload. Meanwhile ISP, search engine and internet ad networks book record profits (Google $14B profit last year - double the entire music industry revenues) and growth on the backs of stolen content. Search engines and internet ad networks make billions from selling ads to point people to these links without compensating content creators. ISPs make billions distributing this content illegally and spend four times as much as content industries in lobbying. At least labels actual paid the creators.
I understand perfectly how internet ad networks work. Google "Katy Perry Download," the most popular keywords related to people searching for Katy Perry music. The #1 link is on isohunt. Clicking on that link displays a page with four ads served by internet ad networks. If you printed a publication that sold ads featuring stolen merchandise, you would get arrested. If these internet ad networks were law abiding businesses, they would prevent their ads from being served on pages that advertise stolen merchandise.
That is not correct. BitTorrent is a protocol and a venture-backed company that has received more than $40 million in capital from groups like Accel Partners.
If the ISP has knowledge of a repeat infringer and DOES NOT terminate them, the ISP is liable for $150,000 in civil damages per infringement. In this case, the copyright owners are agreeing not to sue the ISPs in exchange for their cooperation. In America, downloading movies without permission on BitTorrent is a serious violation of the law no different than stealing the movie from a store.
Because in the United States copying and distributing copyrighted material via BitTorrent is illegal without the copyright owners permission 17 USC 106 and the infringer is liable for up to $150,000 in damages per infringement. If the ISP had knowledge of a repeat infringer and did not terminate them, the ISP is liable for the $150,000 per infringement. Also, when the copyright owner issues a subpoena to the ISP, the ISP must produce the name of the infringer or be held in contempt of court. That is why they reveal the identities. In America, the law sees little difference between downloading a movie on BitTorrent and stealing it from Walmart, its just harder to prove it.
Copyright is in the United States constitution. It is not going anywhere. BitTorrent copies and distributes content without the creator's permission, violating their rights. It would be incredibly easy for BitTorrent to maintain an opt-in list by hash that creators could register when they WANT their work distributed for free. Does Techdirt promote that? No, that would be a move towards innovation and against theft. For the author's opinions on copyright to become reality (that filesharing of copyrighted material without the creator's permission is here to stay and media companies just don't get it), it would take an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the copyright clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. That means that both houses of Congress by a two thirds majority and three quarters of all state legislatures would have to vote to repeal copyright law. Rather than promoting the fantasy of an America with no copyright laws, lets hear about some ideas, some innovation. If Techdirt truly promotes innovation rather than theft, the author would be suggesting ways to work within the laws of the United States to make the Internet work for everyone, not just search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs who make 20 to 40 times more than money the RIAA and MPAA member companies. The search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs make billions distributing content that they pay nothing for.
Copyright is in the United States constitution. It is not going anywhere. BitTorrent copies and distributes content without the creator's permission, violating their rights. It would be incredibly easy for BitTorrent to maintain an opt-in list by hash that creators could register when they WANT their work distributed for free. Does Techdirt promote that? No, that would be a move towards innovation and against theft. For the author's opinions on copyright to become reality (that filesharing of copyrighted material without the creator's permission is here to stay and media companies just don't get it), it would take an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the copyright clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. That means that both houses of Congress by a two thirds majority and three quarters of all state legislatures would have to vote to repeal copyright law. Rather than promoting the fantasy of an America with no copyright laws, lets hear about some ideas, some innovation. If Techdirt truly promotes innovation rather than theft, the author would be suggesting ways to work within the laws of the United States to make the Internet work for everyone, not just search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs who make 20 to 40 times more than money the RIAA and MPAA member companies. The search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs make billions distributing content that they pay nothing for.
Warner Music Group lost $26m just last quarter.
EMI lost billions and was taken over by its creditors.
NBC was valued at zero dollars when sold to Comcast last year.
Meanwhile Google makes $44b a year, Verizon $120B a year distributing WMG, EMI and NBC content and referring people to their content that they pay nothing for.
Warner Music Group lost $26m just last quarter.
EMI lost billions and was taken over by its creditors.
NBC was valued at zero dollars when sold to Comcast last year.
Meanwhile Google makes $44b a year, Verizon $120B a year distributing WMG, EMI and NBC content and referring people to their content that they pay nothing for.
Warner Music Group lost $26m just last quarter.
EMI lost billions and was taken over by its creditors.
NBC was valued at zero dollars when sold to Comcast last year.
Meanwhile Google makes $44b a year, Verizon $120B a year distributing WMG, EMI and NBC content and referring people to their content that they pay nothing for.
Rikuo - Universal and other labels had provided great wealth for thousands of artists and a good living for hundreds of thousands of artists, songwriters, musicians, recording engineers for decades. Try again.
The authors' comparison of open source software to music is flawed like any flawed apples and oranges comparison. Linus CHOSE to make his software open source, as was his right. Tens of thousands of musicians, producers, recording engineers, songwriters, etc. did not choose to let billions of people take their creative work without paying for it. When you download an album on BitTorrent you are violating the rights of the creators just like if someone withdrew money from your bank account online without your permission. It is a job of government to protect those who can't protect themselves. These billion-dollar search engines, ad networks and ISPs making billions on the backs of content creators have become the newest members of the club of corrupt corporate greedmongers. They make far more money as a group than the "evil labels" ever did. At least the "evil labels" actually did pay songwriters and musicians and invest in new artists. The new bosses pay zero, invest zero in content and call it censorship to even attempt to level the playing field.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by copyrightsmatter.
Home video revenue is down
US home video was $25b in 2006 and is down to $18b in 2012 since BitTorrent. That includes ppv vod amazon Netflix blueray.
Its All About Money
The public is not against copyright. The majority of Americans recognize that downloading a song or a movie that you didn't pay for is wrong. The issue is that Google is training and teaching people that stealing is OK and normal because they make billions of dollars pushing ads on pirate sites and pages.
Re: We must act in response to the greased politicians and their corporate lobbying groups.
Facts are stubborn things. Search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs make 10 to 20 times more money than the music and movie industries depending on how you size them. Annual revenues: Google $44B, Verizon $120B,Viacom (Paramount, CBS $14B), WMG $2.4B. The US home video (BluRay, DVD, VOD, PPV, Streaming) was approx. $18B in 2011, down from $25B in 2006. Music was $6B in 2011 down from $12B in 2000. According to Sandvine 18% of US Internet traffic is P2P filesharing (top 10,000 torrents all violate copyright - Envisional) and 5% is used for sites like Megaupload. Meanwhile ISP, search engine and internet ad networks book record profits (Google $14B profit last year - double the entire music industry revenues) and growth on the backs of stolen content. Search engines and internet ad networks make billions from selling ads to point people to these links without compensating content creators. ISPs make billions distributing this content illegally and spend four times as much as content industries in lobbying. At least labels actual paid the creators.
Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
I understand perfectly how internet ad networks work. Google "Katy Perry Download," the most popular keywords related to people searching for Katy Perry music. The #1 link is on isohunt. Clicking on that link displays a page with four ads served by internet ad networks. If you printed a publication that sold ads featuring stolen merchandise, you would get arrested. If these internet ad networks were law abiding businesses, they would prevent their ads from being served on pages that advertise stolen merchandise.
Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
That is not correct. BitTorrent is a protocol and a venture-backed company that has received more than $40 million in capital from groups like Accel Partners.
Re:
If the ISP has knowledge of a repeat infringer and DOES NOT terminate them, the ISP is liable for $150,000 in civil damages per infringement. In this case, the copyright owners are agreeing not to sue the ISPs in exchange for their cooperation. In America, downloading movies without permission on BitTorrent is a serious violation of the law no different than stealing the movie from a store.
Re:
Because in the United States copying and distributing copyrighted material via BitTorrent is illegal without the copyright owners permission 17 USC 106 and the infringer is liable for up to $150,000 in damages per infringement. If the ISP had knowledge of a repeat infringer and did not terminate them, the ISP is liable for the $150,000 per infringement. Also, when the copyright owner issues a subpoena to the ISP, the ISP must produce the name of the infringer or be held in contempt of court. That is why they reveal the identities. In America, the law sees little difference between downloading a movie on BitTorrent and stealing it from Walmart, its just harder to prove it.
Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
Copyright is in the United States constitution. It is not going anywhere. BitTorrent copies and distributes content without the creator's permission, violating their rights. It would be incredibly easy for BitTorrent to maintain an opt-in list by hash that creators could register when they WANT their work distributed for free. Does Techdirt promote that? No, that would be a move towards innovation and against theft. For the author's opinions on copyright to become reality (that filesharing of copyrighted material without the creator's permission is here to stay and media companies just don't get it), it would take an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the copyright clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. That means that both houses of Congress by a two thirds majority and three quarters of all state legislatures would have to vote to repeal copyright law. Rather than promoting the fantasy of an America with no copyright laws, lets hear about some ideas, some innovation. If Techdirt truly promotes innovation rather than theft, the author would be suggesting ways to work within the laws of the United States to make the Internet work for everyone, not just search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs who make 20 to 40 times more than money the RIAA and MPAA member companies. The search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs make billions distributing content that they pay nothing for.
Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
Copyright is in the United States constitution. It is not going anywhere. BitTorrent copies and distributes content without the creator's permission, violating their rights. It would be incredibly easy for BitTorrent to maintain an opt-in list by hash that creators could register when they WANT their work distributed for free. Does Techdirt promote that? No, that would be a move towards innovation and against theft. For the author's opinions on copyright to become reality (that filesharing of copyrighted material without the creator's permission is here to stay and media companies just don't get it), it would take an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the copyright clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. That means that both houses of Congress by a two thirds majority and three quarters of all state legislatures would have to vote to repeal copyright law. Rather than promoting the fantasy of an America with no copyright laws, lets hear about some ideas, some innovation. If Techdirt truly promotes innovation rather than theft, the author would be suggesting ways to work within the laws of the United States to make the Internet work for everyone, not just search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs who make 20 to 40 times more than money the RIAA and MPAA member companies. The search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs make billions distributing content that they pay nothing for.
Warner Music Group lost $26m just last quarter.
EMI lost billions and was taken over by its creditors.
NBC was valued at zero dollars when sold to Comcast last year.
Meanwhile Google makes $44b a year, Verizon $120B a year distributing WMG, EMI and NBC content and referring people to their content that they pay nothing for.
Warner Music Group lost $26m just last quarter.
EMI lost billions and was taken over by its creditors.
NBC was valued at zero dollars when sold to Comcast last year.
Meanwhile Google makes $44b a year, Verizon $120B a year distributing WMG, EMI and NBC content and referring people to their content that they pay nothing for.
Warner Music Group lost $26m just last quarter.
EMI lost billions and was taken over by its creditors.
NBC was valued at zero dollars when sold to Comcast last year.
Meanwhile Google makes $44b a year, Verizon $120B a year distributing WMG, EMI and NBC content and referring people to their content that they pay nothing for.
Rikuo - Universal and other labels had provided great wealth for thousands of artists and a good living for hundreds of thousands of artists, songwriters, musicians, recording engineers for decades. Try again.
The authors' comparison of open source software to music is flawed like any flawed apples and oranges comparison. Linus CHOSE to make his software open source, as was his right. Tens of thousands of musicians, producers, recording engineers, songwriters, etc. did not choose to let billions of people take their creative work without paying for it. When you download an album on BitTorrent you are violating the rights of the creators just like if someone withdrew money from your bank account online without your permission. It is a job of government to protect those who can't protect themselves. These billion-dollar search engines, ad networks and ISPs making billions on the backs of content creators have become the newest members of the club of corrupt corporate greedmongers. They make far more money as a group than the "evil labels" ever did. At least the "evil labels" actually did pay songwriters and musicians and invest in new artists. The new bosses pay zero, invest zero in content and call it censorship to even attempt to level the playing field.