The studios are just trying to protect middle man jobs that would go away if they fully embraced the internet.
Since the invention of the DVD, regional restrictions have been the major driver of piracy worldwide, all in an effort to keep media costs high in developed countries.
The #1 thing studios can do to stop piracy is end regional restrictions on their content, but they won't because their contracts (and the bulk of their middle men business) relies on regional restrictions.
The victims are the people around the world that simply want to watch a movie or listen to some music - one that maybe got a lot of press six months ago but because they don't live in the United States they still can't see it, even though they share the same world wide web that we do.
These are the people that get to determine what is ethical and illegal.
Which is why multi-national corporations are probably claiming copyright to works they don't actually own. They know nobody can afford to challenge their claim.
Please explain how radio and brodcast television can thrive on advertising but for some reason that just won't work for streaming music?
Maybe because you're wrong that liberals hate rich people?
So what are New Zealanders doing to protect their own citizen?
The only one making that case about Dotcom is you.
This case has always been about the nefarious actions the U.S. goverment has undertaken to stop him. If anything, they've turned him into a hero. His reputation before all of this was "yeah, he's probably a criminal."
Does not matter what Kim Dotcom did - it's no excuse for the U.S. government to break the law and resort to stealing just to to stop him or any other criminal, and seizing his assets is closer to piracy than anything Dotcom has done.
So who are the real pirates here?
If we did have that level of infrastructure, some other technology would come along to prevent poor and rural people from participating.
You guys just need to get wider screens.
Only elected officials and their appointees can create Freedoms.
If the information is free to be released, then why must it be requested? Why aren't they simply placed in a document repository for anyone to view?
Having to ask the government "pretty please" and hoping they'll comply with the law is ridiculous.
Who would go into politics with a name like Butts?
Then let's just say she's getting screwed the nice way, where she still gets to be rich even though she could be richer.
The dinosaurs are actually incapable of doing it, because of all those contracts.
Taylor Swift isn't getting screwed by the label. It's the 100s of other artists that signed up hoping to be Taylor Swift that are getting screwed over. It's a game where only a few artists win - the ones that make the most money - and everyone else loses everything.
Yes, but my point is simply that it's never been a big concern for the general populace until recently, and now it's everyone's concern.
Re: Terrorists are like artists, apparently
More like terror is like art. You can't know an artist when you see one.