Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260)

• On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything

  

  Karl ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2012 @ 02:18am

  Re: Re: Re:

  murder and rape are 'here to stay' too, so should we simply give up any debate regarding it's right or wrongness ?
  
  Murder and rape are not solely business model problems. Piracy is. It's simply not productive to bring morality into a discussion about business models. Especially not when you have to mold your business model to your customers' moral codes.
  
  And, honestly, you don't want to get into a moral debate anyway, since file sharing is unquestionably a moral act in and of itself. You are essentially creating abundance out of thin air; you are doing exactly the same thing that Jesus did in the parable about the loaves and fishes. When you share art, you are "feeding the soul" of society. Public libraries exist for a reason.
  
  The only time file sharing can even be considered immoral, is when you bring money into the equation. Even here, things are not clear-cut, since making money is not a moral act in and of itself. (Most religions, in fact, consider it evil to some degree, though I don't.)
  
  So, allowing people to "starve the souls" of the masses, solely in order to make money, is not something that anyone would consider moral. Most would (and do) consider it evil. It may or may not be a necessary evil, but an evil it is.
  
  It's also idiotic to compare piracy with murder and rape. Murder and rape both involve physical violence; file sharing does not. Furthermore, though there are certainly evils involved when you enforce laws against rape and murder (imprisoning people against their will is not exactly moral), it is near-universally agreed that society is far better off with that enforcement in place.
  
  Not so with copyright infringement. The actions required to prevent file sharing would unquestionably be far, far worse for society than file sharing is in the first place.

• On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything

  

  Karl ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2012 @ 10:35pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  Only a few megastar content producers make a living off internet content.
  
  Very, very false. YouTube, alone, has created a sizable middle class of video artists that simply could not have existed under the traditional studio model.
  
  Making a living off "internet content" is much more likely, to the average artist, than making money off of "traditional" content. Most won't, but they wouldn't have made any money before the internet, either.

• On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything

  

  Karl ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2012 @ 10:14pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  It doesn't matter how the technology has changed, because when it's no longer economically feasible to produce high end content
  
  The only way it's "no longer economically feasible" is if your only business model is selling copies of the content.
  
  That's not the case now - and it wasn't true before the internet existed. For example, most movies were made before Hollywood even could sell copies of movies. DVD, Blu-Ray, or VHS are all very, very late sources of income for movie studios. Yet most the best movies in history were made without them.
  
  You're also ignoring the fact that the technology also allows content production itself to be immensely less expensive, and that digital distribution is far cheaper than physical distribution. The technology that causes consumer demand to be more discriminating, is the same technology that allows you to meet that demand.
  
  That's why many artists and studios are using that technology in order to make money. Bandcamp, YouTube, Amazon, iTunes, Netflix, etc.
  
  And, of course, file sharing doesn't affect the plethora of other ways that artists and studios have always made money: live/theater performances, advertising, B2B licensing, merchandising (e.g. Star Wars toys), and so on. Historically, these were always bigger sources of income than selling copies.
  
  you will lose exactly what it is that you seek on youtube, on spotify, and the like.
  
  As if "high end content" is the only form of content that people want. That's utterly ridiculous. For example, the music I have been listening to for the past twenty years is mostly produced by musicians who have day jobs.
  
  And most of the popular content on YouTube is produced by people who aren't "high end content" producers. In fact, they're so popular, that there are television shows devoted to YouTube videos. In other words, "high end content" is depending on non-professional artists for their content.
  
  If the current sources of "high end content" disappeared (and there's absolutely no indication that this is happening), it's not like people will stop listening to music, stop watching movies, or stop reading books. They'll just shift to different content - whether it be "amateur" content, or content produced by businesses that are smart enough to use the many, many ways to make money that technology allows.
  
  Your actions are self defeating, the literal eating of the golden goose.
  
  Have you actually read the Aesop fable on which that phrase is based? The goose is valuable because it lays golden eggs for free. That doesn't sound much like "high-end content" industries to me.
  
  In fact, if anyone is killing the goose that laid the golden eggs, it's those "high-end content" industries. You hear things like "stepping over analog dollars to pick up digital dimes" all the time from these industries. This conveniently ignores the fact that nobody is paying "analog dollars" anymore, "digital dimes" or no. So, they try to outlaw "digital dimes," driving away their "analog dime" customers - the golden geese - in the process.
  
  In other words, they're trying to get rich right now, and killing off any chance of earning income in the long run. They're greedily cutting open the goose to get to all the eggs inside, and scratching their heads when they come up empty.

• On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything

  

  Karl ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2012 @ 08:43pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Oh, how we would loved only to have wolves on our heels! They jumped right on our backs, and we had to carry them all the way to school!
  
  Oh, we used to dream of having wolves on our backs! Back in our day, we had to carry dinosaurs on our backs, both ways uphill, barefoot, and our "school" was a damp cave with paintings on the walls.
  
  And you try and tell the young people of today that, and they won't believe you.

• On the post: Wanted: The Truck Driver Who Lost His Job Due To File Sharing

  

  Karl ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2012 @ 09:55am

  Re:

  Let's say that your record label sends new discs each week to stores via UPS
  
  And why is this caused by piracy, rather than iTunes?
  
  Also, your examples don't hold up, because you're assuming that money that would have gone to CD's and DVD's is not going anywhere else. This is false assumption.
  
  The Tower Records where I used to work is now a Best Buy. Do you think any less boxes are shipped because of it?

• On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2012 @ 10:59pm

  Re:

  When you don't give it to us, we take it
  
  Fascinating that none of the students actually said this.
  
  we are the entitled generation
  
  Only accurate if you're talking about publishers. Remember, copyright's purpose is to serve the public good - and if the public is composed of pirates, then your Constitutionally-mandated obligation is to serve the pirates.
  
  Try to spin it any way you like, you're still wrong. And also a douchebag.

• On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2012 @ 09:29pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  if the industry cannot deliver it to them on time, in the format they like at the price point they like, then they have absolutely no issue at all in pirating it.
  
  Of course, that's a mighty big "if."
  
  And saying they don't want to pay is ironic, considering this article was about how they WOULD pay.

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2012 @ 01:48pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Citation? Of course not.
  
  A "citation" would be a link to the original article... which you already posted.
  
  Perhaps you mean "quote." I think I can get one for you. Here's the very first sentence in the article:
  
  I?m not much of a geek, so I can?t pretend to understand the technical minutae of the internet intimately.
  
  What it comes down to, really, is this. The only thing you've shown is that a former newpaper executive (who, incidentally, believes the DMCA safe harbors are "dumb laws") claimed, without citations or direct quotes, that the first time he heard the phrase was when he was talking with "a lesser species at Google" who was quoting (unnamed) engineers.
  
  Uh huh.
  
  Even he does not say that Google came up with the phrase.
  
  And he is not claiming that people used it in the SOPA debate because Google told them to. In fact, nobody is. Because they didn't.
  
  I know what happened.
  
  You "know" no such thing. You weren't there, obviously, and have shown absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up your smear campaign.
  
  But thanks for admitting your relationship with the most evil mega-corporation on earth.
  
  Mike's already gone into his "business relationship" with Google, which is pretty much non-existent. (If you want to see who his clients actually are, there's a link to Floor24 at the top of the page.)
  
  But, seriously, "the most evil mega-corporation on earth?" Really? Worse than BP, Exxon-Mobil, Union Carbide, R.J. Reynolds, Monsanto, or the banks responsible for the economic crisis?
  
  Give me a fucking break. Google isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but society benefits from their presence more than most corporations'. They're certainly better for society than, say, the RIAA or MPAA.

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2012 @ 12:40am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  But they can't let go. Because they can't believe that internet users actually rose up against their plans.
  
  Oh, I'm pretty sure they know that this is exactly what happened.
  
  Google is big enough to be a threat to their monopoly on politicians when it comes to "piracy" and the internet. That's why they're consistently, and repeatedly, using smear tactics against them.
  
  If they can spin the SOPA protests as the result machinations by Google, they kill two birds with one stone. They present the protesters as misinformed patsies, and encouraging politicians to take their word over the public's. And they present their latest Big Enemy as a threat to the public: vampiric, all-powerful, and hiding in the shadows.
  
  It's pretty much the same tactic as McCarthyism, except now instead of "communism" you have "piracy," and instead of the "red menace" you have "Google." And it's just as cynical, just as motivated by political gain.
  
  Or perhaps I'm just too cynical myself, or too incredulous that anyone could be that unbelievably stupid. Who knows.

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2012 @ 10:21pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  And you're a slimy, lying sociopath.
  
  And as proof, you present a personal anecdote from a former executive and IP director for a bunch of news organizations - including Fox News?
  
  Yeah, good one.

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2012 @ 10:01pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  No, it isn't.
  
  You're lying.
  
  He's absolutely right.
  

  The district court concluded that UMG's reading of ? 512(c) was too narrow, wrongly requiring "that the infringing conduct be storage," rather than be " 'by reason of the storage,' " as its terms provide. We agree that the phrase "by reason of the storage at the direction of the user" is broader causal language than UMG contends, "clearly meant to cover more than mere electronic storage lockers." We hold that the language and structure of the statute, as well as the legislative intent that motivated its enactment, clarify that 512(c) encompasses the access-facilitating processes that automatically occur when a user uploads a video to Veoh.
  
  - UMG v. Shelter Capital Partners

  
  

  EMI's reliance on Cartoon Network is inapposite. There, the cable-provider defendant was not an internet service provider and thus was ineligible for DMCA safe harbor protection. In contrast, MP3tunes' online storage system utilizes automatic and passive software to play back content stored at the direction ofusers. That is precisely the type of system routinely protected by the DMCA safe harbor.
  
  - Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes

  
  And in 2010, the District Court of the Southern District of California ruled that as a file-hosting company, RapidShare cannot be accused of copyright infringement, only its users can. (I could not find the actual order, but there are plenty of articles about it around the 'net.)
  
  Maybe you should actually know what you're talking about before you call someone a liar.

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2012 @ 09:19pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  you mean this one ... ;)
  
  Ha, oops, I meant the one about Google being the mastermind behind the SOPA protests.
  
  I actually did take the other sentences, pretty much word-for-word, from what the MPAA/RIAA and their supporters said.

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2012 @ 09:17pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  No, it didn't. It originated at Google.
  
  This is a lie. It originated on Reddit, as you can plainly see from their blog post and SOPA FAQ. You can see that they decided to do it after asking the Reddit community. Notice what is missing from all that? Even the remotest chance that it originated from Google. In fact, most of the community didn't even think Google would get on board.
  
  Just like the phrase "break the internet" did.
  
  Another lie. The "break the internet" phrase may have been hyperbolic, but it didn't originate with Google. As far as I can tell, it originated with an article in the Stanford Law Review by Mark Lemley, David Levine, and David Post.
  
  Their concern about the technical problems with DNS blocking was based on
  a paper by Steve Crocker et al (PDF). But there are more, including a letter from Sandia National Laboratories (PDF), the concerns of 83 engineers who helped create the internet (PDF), and many, many others.
  
  Claiming that Google was behind it is totally, completely, absolutely 100% false.

• On the post: UFC Makes The Awful Decision To Sue Some Of Its Biggest Fans

  

  Karl ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2012 @ 12:14pm

  Re:

  that doesn't change the fact that the UFC are not the ones breaking the rules.
  
  Yes, they are.
  
  Viewing streams is not an infringement of copyright. You're not "pirating" anything. You're not breaking the rules.
  
  On the other hand, if you sue law-abiding people (or, more accurately, threaten them with bogus lawsuits in order to extort settlement money), then you are breaking the rules.
  
  I almost hope they do this, and that those users file countersuits. The users would clearly win, and the UFC would have to pay not only their own lawyers, but the fans' as well. Might teach them a lesson.

• On the post: UFC Makes The Awful Decision To Sue Some Of Its Biggest Fans

  

  Karl ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2012 @ 11:48am

  Re: Re: Re:

  No, that is Mike making a bunch of "supposings" without anything to back it up. Not a single shred of proof there at all.
  
  I don't know how true this is of UFC fans, but it is absolutely true for music and movie fans, as numerous studies have proven:
  
  
  Illegal downloaders spend MORE on music than those who obey the law
  Study finds file-sharers buy ten times more music
  Movie industry buries report proving pirates are great consumers
  
  That's just a sampling; there's a lot more.
  
  Would the guy in his example who sometimes buys the card maybe buy more often if the pirated version is not available?
  
  Possibly. Would he buy less if piracy was not available, because he could watch less fights and thus lost interest, or because he couldn't afford to pay for any fights when he first became a fan, and thus wouldn't have become a fan in the first place? Possibly.
  
  If you're considering one, you have to consider the other. Since there is not even any way to tell empirically which one is more influential, we have to guess.
  
  But one thing is undeniable: in general, pirates are better customers than non-pirates, and if you sue them, you're suing the very people who are currently your best customers.

• On the post: UFC Makes The Awful Decision To Sue Some Of Its Biggest Fans

  

  Karl ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2012 @ 11:01am

  Watching streams is not infringement

  I'd just like to point out something.
  
  In order to infringe on copyright, you need to have infringed on one of the rights in 17 USC 106. If you provide a video stream, you're infringing on the "public performance" right.
  
  However, if you merely watch a stream, you are not infringing on any of the 106 rights at all. You're not infringing on the public performance right (since you're not "performing" anything), you're not distributing anything, and streams are not "copies" for the purposes of 106(1).
  
  In other words, watching a stream is not unlawful. Not even if you knew it was pirated; not even if you paid money for it.
  
  According to the article, Zuffa intends to sue "sue individuals who watched fights for free" (emphasis mine). They're going to have a really hard time of it, since those individuals did nothing wrong.

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2012 @ 01:17am

  Re:

  consider that a file locker doesn't profit from selling hosting (which would be a "service") but rather in selling access after the fact to the content (which is a content distribution business).
  
  That doesn't really follow, since the file locker doesn't "offer" any content itself. Everything on there is posted by users, not anyone associated with the company.
  
  But, no matter what you call it, it's still protected by the DMCA, and if they followed that, then they're not liable at any level.
  
  That's really all the Google brief said. I read the whole thing, and it's rock-solid. The case law is entirely consistent, and explicit in saying that you have to have actual knowledge that specific content is infringing, and that it is solely the duty of rights holders to police the content. As far as the DMCA is concerned, the MPAA simply has no case.
  
  Now, if Hotfile did have actual knowledge of specific URL's and failed to act, that's another story. But if that's the case, it wouldn't affect Google anyway. No skin of their nose.

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2012 @ 10:28pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  ha, sorry, but all those statements are demonstrably true and were proven to be so in numerous articles published after the SOPA protest scam.
  
  None of those statements are demonstrably true. The statement about Google masterminding the SOPA protests is demonstrably false. The blackout idea originated on Reddit, was talked about extensively by Facebook users, and was joined by Wikipedia (through a public consensus) long before Google decided to participate.
  
  Most of the "numerous articles" published after the SOPA grassroots protests were just quoting liars like Chris Dodd and Rupert Murdoch; they weren't "proving" anything, and weren't claiming to. A few raised concerns about Google's increased lobbying presence (still nowhere near the RIAA's or MPAA's), but none of those articles even suggested that Google masterminded the protests.
  
  You are either a liar, or a sucker.
  
  In any case, none of this has fuck-all to do with the Hotfile case or the MPAA's twisting of the DMCA, so I'm going to drop it.

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2012 @ 05:25pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  what is said about Google above is true.
  
  You may not work for the MPAA or RIAA, but you've certainly swallowed their propaganda. All of those statements are laughably false, especially the last one.

• On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

  

  Karl ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2012 @ 05:23pm

  Re: Re:

  I'm sure no one in the government is already aware that Google profits massively off piracy...
  
  If they're "aware" of this, it's because media giants like Chris Dodd and Rupert Murdoch are deliberately pushing this particular talking point, in a smear campaign against anyone who threatens their anti-internet stance.
  
  Never mind that it's a load of bullshit. Take AdSense. None of the major "pirate sites" (Megaupload, Pirate Bay, etc) use AdSense. Google's policies specifically disallow placing ads around unlawful content. And rights holders can issue DMCA complaints for AdSense ads on pages with infringing content.

Next >>