If you can't get what you want through the legal or democratic route, just use a 'trade' agreement to force through the desired changes/laws, with none of that 'legal challenge' nonsense getting in the way.
That might actually just make things worse actually, as one of the commentors on the YT vid embedded in the article noted, it's possible 'Davey' has problem getting it up and is lashing out against porn in jealously.
I'll start out by suggesting that you might want to read my comments again, as you seem to be mistaking my position for the one I'm criticizing with your later replies.
So... a streaming service, followed by a purchase option elsewhere? What's your problem with the first part of that?
Hassle and more work than I care to deal with. I don't really care for signing up to a service just to listen to music, when I can skip the first step by going elsewhere. As for the 'free' tiers, if I was a fan of ads, I'd listen to radio. If I want to listen to music, I want to listen to just music. Sure this does limit what I listen to and am exposed to, but I'm willing to accept that as a trade-off for being able to listen as I want. If other people are willing to accept dealing with ads scattered about their music, good for them, but it's not something I personally care to deal with.
So, you hate radio as well? Are you also opposed to people borrowing friends' CDs, since they're listening without paying? Where's the line?
And this is where I feel that you mistook my position with the one I was criticizing. I see nothing wrong with radio myself, even if I don't listen to it myself. Nor with borrowing CD's or what have you.
Rather, my comment, and the one I was replying to, was criticizing those that do have a problem with that sort of 'free' listening, by pointing out that it's short-sighted at best, and likely to cut down on future dollars in exchange for pennies now.
That's true. So, what's your problem with services that allow people to access music legally before they decide to buy?
See above answer. I don't have a problem with such services, rather I have a problem with those criticizing them, as I consider them either greedy and/or short-sighted for doing so.
Distract with one hand while you act with another.
While it's possible that this is really all about porn, I can't help but think, what would be the 'best' way to ensure that children can't access porn sites? Clearly just asking for birth-dates doesn't cut it, they can lie about that.
You can tie an account to something that you generally have to be(or have the cooperation of) an adult to have, like a credit card, but that only works for pay-sites, doing nothing for the free sites, of which there are massively more than paid.
Wait, I know, how about an online identity, tied to your real identity through some means(driver's license, ID card, something like that), that was required to browse at all(because you can't always know ahead of time when you'll run across porn, and some sites may not flag their content appropriately).
However, setting up such a system would be a real hassle, and to make sure it works on all sites, and was done properly, it would probably be best if the ever so helpful government stepped in and set up and ran the system, you know, just out of the goodness of their hearts.
Yes indeed, that would seem to fix the problem. And, purely by accident I'm sure, also allow real time tracking of what people do online, what sites they visit, what searches they make, what comments they leave, and anything else they do online.
But hey, a complete destruction of online privacy is a small price to pay to make it slightly more difficult, for a week or so, for underage individuals to get access to porn, right?
If you know the positions and talking points of the people on the other side of the table, you can research them ahead of time and prepare effective counter-positions and arguments. If you know that they're willing ahead of time to give ground on one matter, contrary to their public claims otherwise, if it means concessions in another matter, then you can use that against them. Knowing how to push and where are of enormous value when it comes to diplomacy and politics.
I used to feel that way, until he sold out the public regarding the 'trade' deal by voting for FTA. Now I see him as just another politician, who cares about what benefits him first and foremost, and if that happens to score him some PR points with the public by making it look like he cares, then all the better.
This is the problem with authoritarian retards - just because it is legal does not make it moral.
Name calling, classy...
Anyway, with that attitude, I trust that you also hold deep contempt for the major labels, who, using their position force artists to sign incredibly one sided deals which allow the label to scoop up all the money, leaving the artist nothing until they 'recoup'(paying back what was 'loaned' to them several times over in the process, if they ever manage it at all)?
The labels who screw the artists in streaming deals by grabbing the majority of the proceeds, leaving the artists a cut in the single digits(before they grab that too), and then try and blame the streaming service, as though they were the greedy ones for daring to want to make enough money to stay afloat?
The labels who love to play words games regarding whether or not a digital purchase is a 'sale' or a 'license', depending on what allows them to pay the least to the artist?
I take it then you hold the labels in contempt for all of the above, and the myriad other tricks they use to hose over the poor saps signed with them? After all, 'just because it's legal does not make it moral'.
Nonsense, it's iTunes or nothing! If they weren't able to offer their music on iTunes, then there is absolutely no other possible way for them to sell their music, since iTunes is the sole way to listen to and/or buy music. /s
I'm not, however unless you're claiming that Apple was able to force them to keep their music on the service, it doesn't matter how much cloud Apple had in the fight, the artists could still pull their music if they didn't like the terms and go elsewhere.
If Apple did have that ability, perhaps thanks to a one-sided contract they signed to be able to offer their music on the service, well maybe don't sign such one-sided contracts, given there are other options nowadays. They may not be as 'good', but as long as artists are willing to sign away everything, then they're going to continue to get the short end of the stick, because the ones writing the contracts know that they'll always have suckers lining up to sign.
'If you don't like the terms, do without' as the saying goes, it's just this time it was being used against the artists, rather than the customers.
"You don't actually own what you just 'bought', you've only 'purchased' a small set of limited rights that we reserve the right to change at our whim. Don't like it, do without."
"You don't have the right to format shift or break the cumbersome malware/DRM in order to back up your 'purchase'. You don't like it, do without."
"You're only allowed to listen to your 'purchase' on select devices, and unlike physical CD's, you're prohibited from selling your music should you wish to. You don't like it, do without."
"We're going to be running a promotional event in order to draw in new listeners and hopefully increase the number of paid listeners. During this event neither you nor us will be getting any money from music played during the duration, but we believe the short term loss will be offset by long term gains. You don't like it, do without."
How ever so terrible that they got to see what it's like on the other end of the 'You don't like it...' deal for once. /s
Nice cherry-picking there, can't possibly imagine why you only posted part of it(and of course your doing so is made even funnier by the '...rather than quote the original' line later in your comment).
Now, let's see what the whole thing says...
'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8'.
As should be fairly clear by how it's written, in particular the 'To' and 'by' parts, the benefits to 'authors and inventors' are the means, not the goal. The goal is 'to promote the progress of Science and useful Arts', the exclusive rights is just the method to achieve that.
If it was found that no copyright whatsoever, or copyright that lasted all of one week accomplished the goal better, then it would be fully consistent with the copyright clause to make those changes, no matter what that meant for copyright owners.
If it wouldn't do so much damage, I would almost hope that it did pass, because the perfect form of protest against it is so obvious, and would be hilarious.
If they're not going to define 'terrorist activity', then companies/sites would just need to report everything. Every post, every comment, every reply, every single thing. New ad showing up? Report it. Someone makes a comment? Report it. Someone replies to that comment? Report it. Cat picture? Report it? Funny video? Report it.
Forget 'needle in a haystack', watching them be forced to sift through basically every website in or available in the US would be all sorts of funny.
Why? Why? Why pay a legal team to spend a ton of time and money fighting for a mark that doesn't threaten you, that has become generic, and that has been employed the entire time your own mega-popular convention has become insanely successful. Why are we doing any of this?
Lawyers and idiot examiners.
Lawyers for conning their clients into thinking that if they don't file for a trademark someone else will, and they'll be forced to stop using the ludicrously generic 'Comic-con' name, leading to tons of billable hours no matter what happens, and idiot examiners for not doing 30 freakin' seconds of research and noticing that the two words are used everywhere, meaning it is well past the point where anyone should get a trademark on it.
Yeah, I do not, and never plan on, signing up for a streaming service. Why would I want to pay money for the opportunity to maybe listen to music that I might like, but will never own?
I'll stick with listening, for free, to music and then buying it if I think it's worth my money, all legally. The 'You're free to pay money to listen, but you'll never actually own anything' people/services can get bent.
However, that's going off on an unrelated tangent, as neither the original poster, nor my reply, had anything to do with that. What they, and I, were talking about was the people who rail against actual free listening, whether that's a free trial in this case, or any other form of listening without paying.
They noted, and I agreed, that such stances are decidedly counter-productive, as very few people are going to be willing to buy any music that they haven't heard before, which means cutting down on the people listening just because they're not paying right that second also means you're cutting into the people who might have bought the music later on.
Someone listening for free now may not be paying now, but someone who never listens at all is never going to pay at all.
It's easy really, since listening to music without paying for it is piracy, you're supposed to buy, unheard, anything you might listen to. Sure this will lead you to wasting a ton of money on crap music or music you don't want, but you don't want to be a filthy pirate do you?
Apple was the one giving away the artists' music, the artists didn't have a choice.
Yeah, no. Unless they were locked in via contract, they absolutely had a choice, they could have simply pulled their music from iTunes. If those free listens were so very harmful, then pull the music, problem solved. Also, as I'm constantly hearing, 'If you don't like the terms being offered you, do without.'
Apple was willing to take a short-term hit, much like the artists would experience, because they expected the new subscribers to the service to allow them to come out ahead in the end. Swift apparently couldn't see long-term, and only thought of the short term, 'I must get paid now, even if it means less pay over time', and unfortunately others bought into it.
Malibu Media will suddenly remember that they left the oven on, forgot to turn off the lights, left the spinklers on... basically whatever it takes to get out of the case as fast as possible.
If they are guilty of what they're being accused of, they absolutely cannot have that come out in court where it can and will be brought up in future cases, so odds are good they are going to run as fast as they can write the letter dropping the case.
The second to last one might have really screwed up. Sending fraudulent, even blatantly fraudulent DMCA claims is one thing, the courts basically ignore those completely, but pretending to be a federal agent while doing it? That is much more likely to get some attention.
If the [French regulator's] proposed approach were to be embraced as the standard for Internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the Internet would only be as free as the world’s least free place.
While an excellent point, it's also wasted effort. I have no doubt that, even if they never admitted it, the kind of people pushing for such draconian restrictions on the internet, forcing local laws or rulings to be applied globally see absolutely nothing wrong with other countries doing the same, even if it would mean all but destroying the internet as it currently exists.
As long as they get to force their idea of 'what should be' onto everyone else, they don't care one bit about what happens when other countries or governments do the same.