I used to use Amazon's streaming service. They recently stopped supporting my smart TV, despite the frankly-negligible cost of doing so, but "helpfully" offered me a discount on one of their worthless and unwanted FireTV sticks.
It doesn't take a genius to realise they're just trying to sell me crap I don't want, so I cancelled my subscription. I know when I'm being sold shite and Amazon can fuck right off.
This appears to be more of the same. All it does is prove beyond a doubt that FireTV is unmarketable bollocks that nobody wants.
"For all that it shares the same name, what came into being as a result of the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 bares little resemblance to modern copyright."
"For all that they share similar names and terms, what came into being as a result of Mary's Stationers Monopoly and the subsequent Licensing of the Press Act 1662, bare little resemblance to modern copyright."
Techdirt and the edit button. When will they ever meet?
It's the same move repeated over and over again by the industry: rather than figure out how to make use of the technology that fans like in order to do more, they attack the technology and then don't understand why people get pissed off and no longer want to give them any money any more.
This interpretation is far too kind. The RIAA - as with all the big media associations - has a single, unified strategy which has been very clear to all for a very long time now:
• target and accuse anything or anyone that might have a competitive impact in the same medium, but isn't affiliated to the RIAA; • pay for lots of basically-fake evidence to "prove" massive damages against their affiliates; • take vast amounts of money off the victims in ratcheting license agreements until they can't pay any more; • when they can't or won't pay, sue them; • make sure the lawsuits last as close to forever as makes no odds - the victim will always run out of cash first; • generously allow the victim to fold, in return for everything they possess; • if they can induce a law-enforcement agency into shutting the victim down for them, it's a cheap and easy victory.
The RIAA aren't confused, they're fraudsters - and obvious fraudsters, at that. The only reason the RIAA and MPAA's senior management aren't in prison cells is because the DoJ is directly accountable to the politicians - who are all on the fraudsters payroll, often quite openly.
The big lawsuits aren't designed to stop piracy, they're designed to stop competition. They attack fair use and the public domain at every turn, despite being perfectly lawful, by definition. They wrecked Megaupload not because of piracy, but to stop Kim Dotcom from continuing the legal music creation and distribution side of his business. Now it seems they're getting ready to hit BitTorrent, Inc in the exact same way - and once again, it's the authorised, legal distribution of music they're really aiming for.
As I understand it, in earlier times, it allowed legitimate publishers - the ones who had proper legal agreements and paid royalties to authors - to prevent the commercial book pirates of the day from completely hammering the market with unlicensed copies.
Back then, this meant the difference between authors benefiting financially from their work and authors - in some cases - dying in poverty.
It's debatable - and I doubt anyone can honestly put figures to it - but I'm reasonably certain it incentivised the creation and publication of new work, provided a legal framework for the creators to be identified as such and provided creators with the chance to make a living from doing so, just as it was supposed to do.
These days, of course, the same middleman companies are now aggressive multinational corporations, synonymous with rampant abuse of copyright, with actual content creators and the general public being screwed over at every turn.
But that abuse doesn't take away from copyrights ancient past, where it served as a positive force for the public good - and it's a damn shame that corporate greed has so thoroughly destroyed both copyrights credibility and it's ability to serve for the good of us all.
Okay, It's Donald Trump, nobody outside the US cares, I wasn't going to comment at all, I really was going to just pass this one by, but...
Jesus H Christ, where in God's name did Trump find this man? Couldn't he have hired someone less horrifying, like a war-criminal or a freshly-released serial-killer?
I can't help but feel sorry for Cohen's wife and family. From this time forward, every single person they know is going to look at Mrs Cohen like she's being raped on a daily basis. Surely she can do better than this appalling, mindless thug.
Lawyers are the very definition of people who need to think before they open their mouths, regardless of the provocation.
It speaks directly to Mr Cohen's credibility - on every possible level - that he could not do so, before causing such damage to himself, his business and his family in this manner.
I don't imagine Mr Cohen has much of a future anywhere - and I don't imagine anyone who knows him now will miss him very much.
For anyone confused, this article is related to the previous ruling, on whether the government had basically done all its legally-required paperwork before changing the law. The government hadn't, so the judge invalidated those changes, as the law requires.
At this point, it's safe to assume that the right to private copying was deliberately implemented in a way that breaks other law precisely so that the labels could shoot it down in court.
The promised right can now safely be forgotten as the meaningless pre-election public relations nonsense it always was.
When the right to private copying was originally announced, I wondered why the government were suddenly so intent on fighting a recording industry that gives them so much money, especially on something so trivial. Most out of character, I thought.
Well, now we know: the entire law change and subsequent debate was meaningless - if immensely expensive - PR fluff, fully intended to ultimately fail, but in the meantime convince the more gullible voters that the Conservatives and Lib-Dems are our friends.
If you voted for either party, you have now reaped exactly what you deserve. If only the rest of us didn't have to pay such a steep price as well, this would almost be a victory. :/
It's not precisely on point (it's rather tangential, in fact), but considering this issue, it occurs to me that perhaps we - either directly or via our representatives - should think again about the questions we ask of intelligence agencies.
It seems to me that we tend to ask questions like "has [persons or entities [of xyz nationality]] ever been subject to surveillance by [whatever agency] under [whatever programme]".
This gives answers (when it doesn't result in boilerplate, which is the normal response for GCHQ), but not always meaningful answers, or answers which might serve as a metric of the surveillance state, or answers which might provide a basis for further action.
Perhaps more appropriate questions to focus on these days might be "are there any [persons or entities] within [whatever agency]'s reach which are not subject to surveillance", "what percentage of [the UK's companies, etc] are under surveillance" and "are there, in practise, any analytic criteria that would not result in [persons or entities] not being subject to further monitoring".
Very conceivably, this being the intelligence community, they might try to redefine "surveillance" to mean inserting cameras into the subject's nostrils, or some other sleazy truth-avoidance tactic, but it's a place to start that shouldn't result in vast imponderables, if and when we do get a coherent answer.
The best way for trolls and trolling organisations to win an argument is to control both sides, usually by posting something emotive and inflamatory that shuts down critical thought.
Failing that, crapflooding the page with nonsense also seems to be a win for them - if the "argument" happens at the top of the thread, all the reasoned debate gets knocked out of view, minimising the number of people who will see it and maximising the number who see only semi-literate idiocy.
While there will always be a few genuine commenters who respond to troll posts, it's quite likely that some, most or even all of these replies are themselves by paid shills, who will post reasonable comments some of the time to look legit, but are really only there to reply to trolls when it counts.
They don't need lecturing, they need to be banned forever.
"Rightscorp sent Defendant 288 notices via their ISP Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. from December 14, 2014 to May 12, 2015 [...]"
My maths is rubbish, so maybe someone will correct me if I'm wrong: That's - what? - 288 notices over about 150 days? Or one notice every twelve hours or so? Or one notice every three office hours?
That's not a notification system carefully designed to get people to stop infringing, it really isn't. That's a notification system carefully designed to get blocked by every spam filter in the western hemisphere.
Regardless of one's feelings towards copyright, I'm pretty sure deliberately manufacturing unresponsive plaintiffs isn't the way things are supposed to be done, even in a US copyright case.
I can't blame anyone for misreading what Wheeler was going to be like. All signs pointed to yet another corporate cock-knocker who would grease the wheels for big business as far as he could get away with.
That this hasn't happened is astounding and part of my brain is still expecting him to say "oh, wait, I made a mistake, lets have these rules instead", followed by a big, juicy helping of freshly-butchered consumer rights.
It seems like we all got the man wrong. Kudos to Karl Bode for acknowledging this. Even more kudos for Wheeler, the best man for the job - and a far better man for it than anyone expected. :)
If this were reversed - say, the MPAA speaking at an event before and alongside judges who might soon have to rule on important copyright matters - I would interpret this as low-to-moderate-grade evidence of institutional bias. If I regard it as wrong on that side, I must regard it as wrong on this one. The judges did the right thing.