It's one thing to stop digging the hole when you realize its your grave. I don't think that deserves a pat on the back.
I'll be impressed if they actually fix the problem and start disciplining their overly aggressive lawyers.
My feeling is that the answer here lies in the cost of actually doing it legally, meeting regulations, accepting liability, and all of other pesky things that happen when you actually want to run it like a business.
So in an argument about SOPA, which will add tremendous hurdles of regulations and liability to any interactive internet service, your argument to approve SOPA is that the reason legal sites are having a hard time competing is because there's too much regulation and liability?
Really?
Here's a great example: If the people who currently pirate TV episodes instead viewed them from the original sources (network websites), they would increase the traffic to these sites, and make them more obviously useful, perhaps more profitable, and certainly encourage them to do more with it.
I would gladly download the TV shows I'm most interested in watching from the network's website. In the past, I've even given the price I'm willing to pay per episode ($1-2 assuming a weekly show). I'm not a fan of streaming for this type of content. I want to download the show on the night it was broadcast (as well as being able to say, download all of last season too). I don't want it crippled with DRM. And I want it in standard formats so I can use it with the video players of my choice. So, please point me to a network website that allows me to do that, and I'll have my credit card info ready.
Oh, the industry is behind them all right.
With a knife ready to stab them.
So which browser do you use? Google Chrome? Microsoft IE? Apple Safari? A free or "copyleft" open source browser?
I want to apologize to 99% of the reasonable Techdirt community in advance for this post. The anger is solely directed at one particular commenter who does nothing but troll, lie, and ignore everything he's been told hundreds of times over.
You never posted solutions to piracy, Masnick.
Hey asshole, Mike has been posting solutions to piracy for over 10 years.
July 2000, about the shutdown of Napster:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/000728/0159252.shtml
"It would have been far easier to then develop a licensing system with those users, gathered in a central place."
If you're too stupid to listen to all the good advice for the last decade, it's your own damn fault. If you choose to do the exact opposite and things keep getting worse, it's your own damn fault. When those giving the good advice have been proven right hundreds of times over, then stop blaming them and start looking in a fucking mirror.
So can you please show me actual stakeholders, actual people directly invovled in the legal content industry, who would be hurt and won't get their say?
The Techdirt posts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 17 down from this one.
You commented on most or all of them already.
Accessing my property without my permission is illegal.
Here's what it comes down to:
A large number of people do not agree with your view on what your property is.
Ideas, words, sounds, and pictures which can be infinitely copied without destroying the originals do not fit my definition of property that any individual or corporation can own. Those things are parts of culture, which by definition is shared among many or all members of society.
No amount of laws can change that.
I am willing to make certain compromises between my view of property and yours. But those must be real compromises and not ever more draconian edicts enacted by a corrupt process in which my views are ignored.
You're talking about the recording industry, right?
They're the ones that have been whining about internet piracy for the last decade. Before that it was home taping, radio piracy, or phonographs.
As to criminal behavior? Where to begin? Drugs? Payola? Intimidating artists over contracts? Shady or outright illegal accounting practices? Those are all well documented over the last 40 years - longer than the modern tech industry has even existed.
Try again.
Consumer spending on everything was up slightly compared to last year. Even though wages are flat, people have been dipping into savings to start spending again.
And the tide from going out!
fair market value
I don't think this term means what you think it means. You seem to be under the idea that it means retail or asking price, in other words, what the seller wants to sell it at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_market_value
"Fair market value (FMV) is an estimate of the market value of a property, based on what a knowledgeable, willing, and unpressured buyer would probably pay to a knowledgeable, willing, and unpressured seller in the market."
You see that part about what the buyer is willing to pay?
Please, take a basic economics class before you try to post on this stuff.
If you are a politician, you have an opinion and you stick with it.
That's a pretty bad idea.
I want politicians to change their minds, not necessarily because of an opinion poll, but because of evidence and facts. I don't want them swayed by lobbyists and campaign contributions. I don't want them swayed by what their party leader wants them to vote for. I want each and every one to take a hard look at the facts and evidence about every bill they vote for.
Except that if the site in question had taken the time to know who you are as a user,
So I assume you have given Mike your name, address, personal bio, last 3 employers, credit card info, and notarized letter from your 3rd grade teacher that you're a good little boy and don't tell lies or post infringing material?
So they're just as toothless as the penalties for sending false DMCA notices?
If you're insistent that no one would abuse the powers being given to private companies in this bill, why aren't there more explicit and significant penalties?
No, they didn't. They didn't move
You know, I'll actually give you that statement without argument.
They've been consumer hostile since before the phonograph.
How many of the millions of people who use those processors to pay for infringing material
Wait, pirates are paying for content? But I thought all this piracy was a problem because "you can't compete with free."
-They cannot adapt.
-They cheat the people that create their content.
-They cheat their customers and think of them as criminals.
-They corrupt our political system.
-The collateral damage to the rest of society they are causing.
In short, they are unethical to the core in nearly every way you can think of.
While I'm sure there are reasons I missed, that's a few.
Mike, I'm not accusing you of it, but I do think there's just a hint of moral relativism in your view. If you really honestly believe, and have some good reason for believing, that these organizations can become good and upstanding members of society, then that's great. But I don't see it. I cannot think of any circumstances in which that can happen. So for the betterment of society, I think these organizations should fail, and need to fail. I would prefer they fail quickly, so that they stop causing damage to others in their death throes.
It is entirely possible to run a successful company ethically, and to make money doing it. No one is perfect, but that must be a core value built into the business. These groups seem to have dishonesty built into them. The most useful thing I can see coming from these guys, is as a case study for the next generation of corporate leaders, a bit like like Enron.
as this bill targets foreign sites.
Stop lying.
Contradict yourself much? Which is it? Does less than 10% know whats going on (and therefore 90% have no opinion), or are opposition views to this bill the minority?
The question remains, what is the harm in hearing publicly about why this bill is bad?
You're the one shoveling bullshit that no one but bought off congressmen can swallow.
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, outlets like RT and Al Jazeera are practically the only news outlets I trust anymore for US news, seeing as they don't have any reason to suck up to the US government.
Now taking bets on when they will be SOPA'd in the event it passes.