"HERPA DERPA TECHDIRT DOESN'T MATTER!! That's why me and about five other regulars spend all of our time spreading pro-industry propaganda there!"
Like it or not (and clearly you don't), the money being made available is the product of IP, if the IP is violated then that money is less available.
Says who? Stupid threats like this one from the IP commission basically prevent governments from experimenting with IP-free economies, so you have little evidence to suggest they don't work. On the other hand, I could point to a few thousand years of human history prior to the Statute of Anne to suggest that they do.
Right. No streaming or download service would exist without Hollywood movies and major label music.
They're not as irreplaceable as they'd like to think. The continual growth of independent music is proof of that.
I've noticed lately that "IP theft" is the **AAs favorite phrase now. All of their mouthpieces have begun using it every single time copyright issues come up.
I responded to this Nutella story yesterday with a short, but concise video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJjjx0lijF0
Seriously. Do you jizz in your pants when the guys at Taco Bell get your order right?
How unbelievably horrible do you have to be to make Gordan Ramsay seem reasonable?
If I could make "insightful" 10 times, I would.
I guess that's why all those tens of millions of people who commit copyright infringement everyday are hauled into a criminal court, for the crime of theft.
I'd like to see just ONE example of that. Just one.
There's a Special 404 list as well, but nobody knows what's in it because it can't be found.
If this were in Boston, they'd probably be ransacking his home searching for Light Brites with Mooninites on them.
Please explain again what it is that's being retransmitted publicly? I don't see where this is any different from simply renting television antennae.
I care about more than just myself.
Likewise. Which is why, even though I haven't watched a television program in over a year and have no intentions of doing so any time soon, I'm still arguing for what seems unquestionably to be a legal service.
Digital antennas don't require retransmission fees. Cable and satellite services do. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp.
And even, if in some crazy alternate universe, it did lead to the elimination of retransmission fees, then tough shit. It's the networks' fault for tailoring their current model exclusively to that system. It's not the place of government or courts to reinforce their business model, and watching over-the-air television through a digital antenna doesn't suddenly become "piracy" or "stealing" over it, either.
Why? Because he uses plain but aggressive language to voice his displeasure with major media, instead of a rambling, masturbatory treatise about the original purpose of copyright and the nuances of Section 513? I think there's more than enough room for both styles of posting here.
I disagree strongly. I'm not necessarily a copyright abolitionist, but I find more merit in that point of view than in maintaining the status quo, and MUCH more than in expanding it.
Furthermore, a more radical push against copyright in general can always lead to compromise (ie, shortened terms or the elimination of "copyright on creation").
With an attitude like that, of course it's not going to happen.
Let's go ahead and lock all those slaves back up, too.
Guess what? That's not my fucking problem.
Then what are bitching about? Too much data is uploaded to proactively monitor and magically know which uses are infringing and which isn't. If you have a problem with that, then it is your problem, dipshit.
BAHAHAHAHAHA!
No.
Re: Dotcom is guilty and should be locked up after due process.
Remember, the US only got John Dillinger, definitely behind multiple murders, on tax evasion.
The hell they did. They got Dillinger with three rounds of .38 behind the Biograph Theater.