Carl - you have to think about the ecosystem, not cable boxes. If you are concerned about ISP competition, you need to introduce ISP competition.
The point about the price of a cable box ignores the fact that the box is a part of a complete system, and there are expensive lobbyists both pushing FOR and AGAINST this proposal. If ISPs are really monopolists, then post regulation, they would have given the boxes away free and charged more for the cable programming bundle. It's really no difference to an ISP.
On the other hand, impose new regulations requiring that the cable system allow third party boxes, and third parties are going to give away the boxes (or incorporated the technology in another device), but sell advertising against content they don't pay for. Cable operators pay billions for content - wouldn't it be great to sell ads and not have to pay? And on top of it get more $$$ for viewing data, and selling Search Engine Optimization services to cable programmers? And perhaps steering viewers to their own services?
The proposal would have been a massive transfer of value to different monopolists and would have accelerated the decline of the cable ecosystem.
Sure OTT is coming fast - not fast enough for the big tech companies which get a cut of every click, view and search online.
Anti investor means anti public. The problem is that these proposed rules reduce disclosure and therefore make it easier to hurt people. She doesn't want her legacy to be a lot of people who have lost money to crooks. Isn't that what thinking about your legacy supposed to do?
turns out zazzle took this down on their own - thinking them trademark infringement; Viacom has let them know that they don't want these items removed. By now, theyshould have been reposted. If anyone hears any takedowns that don't look right, Viacom has a link on their website and are quick in reviewing them and reposting (or giving a reason).
folks - knowledge eliminates the DMCA defense. Read the language of 512(c).
Right and ability to control (filtering and/or human review of at least widely viewed clips) plus financial benefit (have to assume Google did not pay $1.6 billion for YouTube for charitable reasons) also (and independently) eliminates the DMCA defense.
YT is a media company - just like napster built on knowing the facilities would be used to infringe and building an advertising business on that - while doing everything they can to pretend to avoid knowing it. The DMCA would protect them only if they were a common carrier storage busienss not built on attracting eyeballs to content that others store, but built on providing the storage facilities for their customers. Google is a search company - so why do they pretent not to know what is on their own website when so many other folks can do video search so well?
Masnick's arguments are the same old rationalization of piracy.
Start with the position that in addition to home grown content, there is a place for professional. It costs a lot of dough - some movies cost $200 million - and people like to go to the movies. If the professional stuff is stolen, it won't get made. Even if the amateur stuff is stolen, it is a hobby, and not a trade.
But Mesnick doesn't suggest any alternatives to Dauman's - he just rationalizes piracy. Just a few of his points:
Dauman doesn't say that low cost distribution increases the cost of distribution, he says it increases the amount of piracy. In fact, he says that if piracy were in check, these tools that empower so many to make low cost content that it would result in an explosion of creativity. Right now, instead, people are complaining that their cool video is up on YouTube and they aren't getting paid.
As to pissing off customers: no one gets pissed off that they can't take candy out of the store for free and no one thinks that the fact that their house has a lock means they are accusing their neighbors of being theives. Unfortunately, antivirus protection, popup blockers, and DRM are necessary evils to allow safe transactions online.
I'm completely mystified by the idea that enforcing property rights (internationally or domestically) is the same thing as economic regulation (net neutrality). One is freedom to contract - I'll sell you my car if we can agree on a deal. In contrast, net neutrality is substantive regulation: you must sell the car in this fashion and can only drive it on sundays. In the former, the government's role is limited: if someone takes your car without a deal, the government finds them (you hope) and prosecutes. There is no inconsistency to asking the government to enforce the freedom of individuals to contract and for the government to protect their property, and asking the government not to intervene and set the terms of the deal.
The Pirate Bay (which sponsors such sites as "oscartorrents.com") is clearly rationalizing copyright infringement, knowingly providing the tools, and overwhelmingly devoted to it. Check out their site and tell me that they are the same thing as email or webhosting.
Does the author have an alternative way to compensate people for their creations? Or does he just like listening to free songs and watching free movies, and doesn't really care about whether any new ones are made?
Folks - viacom manually reviewed more than 1.8 MILLION clips on YouTube and sent more than 150,000 takedown notices. About 150 were in error. As soon as Viacom became aware of ANY errors, it sent retractions to YouTube - usually within the day. Not sure how anyone could be more careful than that.
In the short run, in small doses, infringement makes everyone happy. In the long run, in large ones, songs stop getting recorded, television shows stop getting made. Viacom can protect itself, but the principle Viacom is defending protects artists and creators big AND small. YouTube sells ads and makes money on the site. Copyright owners without a Youtube deal don't. It seems simple to me that it's entirely unfair to allow YouTube to profit and not protect against the damage.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by pixelm.
Great Scott has it righ
Carl - you have to think about the ecosystem, not cable boxes. If you are concerned about ISP competition, you need to introduce ISP competition.
The point about the price of a cable box ignores the fact that the box is a part of a complete system, and there are expensive lobbyists both pushing FOR and AGAINST this proposal. If ISPs are really monopolists, then post regulation, they would have given the boxes away free and charged more for the cable programming bundle. It's really no difference to an ISP.
On the other hand, impose new regulations requiring that the cable system allow third party boxes, and third parties are going to give away the boxes (or incorporated the technology in another device), but sell advertising against content they don't pay for. Cable operators pay billions for content - wouldn't it be great to sell ads and not have to pay? And on top of it get more $$$ for viewing data, and selling Search Engine Optimization services to cable programmers? And perhaps steering viewers to their own services?
The proposal would have been a massive transfer of value to different monopolists and would have accelerated the decline of the cable ecosystem.
Sure OTT is coming fast - not fast enough for the big tech companies which get a cut of every click, view and search online.
Anti investor means anti public. The problem is that these proposed rules reduce disclosure and therefore make it easier to hurt people. She doesn't want her legacy to be a lot of people who have lost money to crooks. Isn't that what thinking about your legacy supposed to do?
story was false
turns out zazzle took this down on their own - thinking them trademark infringement; Viacom has let them know that they don't want these items removed. By now, theyshould have been reposted. If anyone hears any takedowns that don't look right, Viacom has a link on their website and are quick in reviewing them and reposting (or giving a reason).
Misstates the claim completely
folks - knowledge eliminates the DMCA defense. Read the language of 512(c).
Right and ability to control (filtering and/or human review of at least widely viewed clips) plus financial benefit (have to assume Google did not pay $1.6 billion for YouTube for charitable reasons) also (and independently) eliminates the DMCA defense.
YT is a media company - just like napster built on knowing the facilities would be used to infringe and building an advertising business on that - while doing everything they can to pretend to avoid knowing it. The DMCA would protect them only if they were a common carrier storage busienss not built on attracting eyeballs to content that others store, but built on providing the storage facilities for their customers. Google is a search company - so why do they pretent not to know what is on their own website when so many other folks can do video search so well?
Time to Get Real
Masnick's arguments are the same old rationalization of piracy.
Start with the position that in addition to home grown content, there is a place for professional. It costs a lot of dough - some movies cost $200 million - and people like to go to the movies. If the professional stuff is stolen, it won't get made. Even if the amateur stuff is stolen, it is a hobby, and not a trade.
But Mesnick doesn't suggest any alternatives to Dauman's - he just rationalizes piracy. Just a few of his points:
Dauman doesn't say that low cost distribution increases the cost of distribution, he says it increases the amount of piracy. In fact, he says that if piracy were in check, these tools that empower so many to make low cost content that it would result in an explosion of creativity. Right now, instead, people are complaining that their cool video is up on YouTube and they aren't getting paid.
As to pissing off customers: no one gets pissed off that they can't take candy out of the store for free and no one thinks that the fact that their house has a lock means they are accusing their neighbors of being theives. Unfortunately, antivirus protection, popup blockers, and DRM are necessary evils to allow safe transactions online.
I'm completely mystified by the idea that enforcing property rights (internationally or domestically) is the same thing as economic regulation (net neutrality). One is freedom to contract - I'll sell you my car if we can agree on a deal. In contrast, net neutrality is substantive regulation: you must sell the car in this fashion and can only drive it on sundays. In the former, the government's role is limited: if someone takes your car without a deal, the government finds them (you hope) and prosecutes. There is no inconsistency to asking the government to enforce the freedom of individuals to contract and for the government to protect their property, and asking the government not to intervene and set the terms of the deal.
The Pirate Bay (which sponsors such sites as "oscartorrents.com") is clearly rationalizing copyright infringement, knowingly providing the tools, and overwhelmingly devoted to it. Check out their site and tell me that they are the same thing as email or webhosting.
Does the author have an alternative way to compensate people for their creations? Or does he just like listening to free songs and watching free movies, and doesn't really care about whether any new ones are made?
Just the Facts
Folks - viacom manually reviewed more than 1.8 MILLION clips on YouTube and sent more than 150,000 takedown notices. About 150 were in error. As soon as Viacom became aware of ANY errors, it sent retractions to YouTube - usually within the day. Not sure how anyone could be more careful than that.
In the short run, in small doses, infringement makes everyone happy. In the long run, in large ones, songs stop getting recorded, television shows stop getting made. Viacom can protect itself, but the principle Viacom is defending protects artists and creators big AND small. YouTube sells ads and makes money on the site. Copyright owners without a Youtube deal don't. It seems simple to me that it's entirely unfair to allow YouTube to profit and not protect against the damage.