As arguments go that's beyond ridiculous. Because anything created is under copyright whether you want it to be or not you should avoid creating anything if you don't agree with the idiocy that is the law?
There's a difference between copyright law, and things that happen to be covered by it(that being everything since the colossally stupid change to 'copyright by default'). Creating something that happens to be covered by the law because the one creating it has no choice in the matter is hardly 'subjecting' people to copyright, and you're seriously stretching to try and claim that it is.
Only if what's being scaled up is part of the business model being used, and not something they're being slapped with after the fact.
Were Google/YT in the 'pre-screening video content' business then yes, they would be to blame if they set things up such that they couldn't handle the increased load of what they had to go through, but since they're not it's not a 'business model problem' at all. Youtube hosts videos, that's it's business model, saying they should have to pre-screen everything first isn't a matter of scaling up something they've always had to do, it's adding something new on top of what they already do, something that the scale of the problem would make insanely expensive and bring the service to a crawling halt if they were required to do, contrary to your claims otherwise.
On a semi-related tangent, but your mention of how Google is big so it's not a problem has me again wondering, do you hold others to that same standard? Do you think that the movie and recording industries should likewise hire 'a room full of people' to personally vet every DMCA claim they send out to avoid false positives? They make billions too after all, surely it would be just as easy if not easier for them to pre-screen DMCA claims as it would be for Google/YT to pre-screen videos, so does that standard of yours apply to everyone, or just Google?
Funny thing about the example you went with even beyond the fact that 'steal' is still not the right term to use, unless the seat infringer takes the seat home with them when they leave. As you yourself note the 'seat infringer' might pay, not for the seat but perhaps food or something else. You've got their attention, and with that you still have a chance to get their money as well.
The person who 'does without' in that example though? The one who sees the price and decides that nah, that's not worth it, and as a virtuous upstanding citizen decide against the 'free version'? They aren't paying squat. They aren't paying for the seat, they aren't paying for the food, they're not paying for a shirt. They've moved on with their attention, meaning the chance of you getting any of their money has likewise gone.
The difference between someone engaged in copyright infringement and someone 'doing without' is that while neither are giving you money now, the latter is drastically less likely to give you any money in the future thanks to their attention having moved on to other things.
This is why I always find it funny when people respond to copyright infringement with 'If you don't like the terms/price do without!', as neither group is paying now, but the 'do without' group is even worse when it comes to possible future sales, making it a counter-productive argument.
What may be 'simple' for a few videos is anything but when you scale it up to that level, so you're not talking about 'a room full of people' but a massive system requiring various levels of review of enormous amounts of content.
There's also the problem of false positives, something that already plagues ContentID, a black or white 'Does X match Y?' system. Make the question a subjective one, 'Does X count as 'extremist' content?' and things would be even more insane.
Along those lines, the recording and movie industries also make billions in profits, which means they too can certainly afford to 'hire a room full of people' to review DMCA claims before sending them out to make sure that they don't flag something erroneously.
If they can't manage that, then perhaps their business models are broken.
I mean it's not like a star has ever been used for anything not related to communism, so of course any use of a star is commie related.
I gotta say, it's almost admirable how honest they are with their corruption. Flat out admits that the attempt to punish Heineken is related to the legal spat with a local brewery, like it's no big deal. If gross corruption was a trait to be proud of they'd have a lot to be proud of.
Given they would have been lying either way, I'm not sure how effective their damage control would have been had they been more proactive.
Sure they would have been able to get their version/lies out first, allowing them to better shape the narrative, but so long as the leaks still happened they still would have been dealing with evidence that contradicted what they were saying, as I don't imagine they would have been any more honest going first rather than reacting. The leaks were bad enough PR for them on their own, but their response to the leaks, doubling down and getting caught out on lie after lie after lie really did a number on their credibility, and I don't see that changing either way it went down.
The extracted data includes irrelevant personal information, prosecutors said, so they’re seeking an order from the court that would prohibit defense lawyers from copying or sharing information unless it’s relevant to defend their client.
Not mentioned: Any steps taken to keep the police from looking through that 'irrelevant personal information', but hey, I'm sure they're being very careful to narrow the scope of their searches and immediately deleting any data unrelated to the investigations that they stumble upon on accident during their narrow searches.
As for the bulk trials, if the judge gives that abomination of the legal system a pass they might as well resign on the spot and just let the prosecution hand out convictions as desired, because allowing something like that will have indicated that they don't give a damn about even the most basic tenants of the legal system, 'Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law', where the prosecution has to demonstrate guilt of the accused, not just guilt of the group the accused might have been lumped into.
... followed by continuing to beat up that strawman Mike in your head, despite the fact that anyone who cares to can check the three links in my above comment to get an idea as to Mike's actual position on copyright.
But hey, enough about Mike's position on copyright, let's talk about yours.
With your 'I made it, it's mine' mindset, should copyright ever lapse, or should it be treated like a house or car, where you own it perpetually?
Do you support the idea of Fair Use, a clear 'violation' of the copyright owner's 'Mine!' right, and if so to what extent should it be allowed?
If copyright is a 'property' right like what people normally think when they hear the term, should it be taxed like one as well?
What do you feel is the purpose and goal behind copyright law, is that goal being satisfied with the law as it currently stands, and if not what would you suggest could be changed to make it better fulfill it's goal?
Inquiring minds are curious as to your stance on copyright law.
To be fair, that's hardly something that started under the current administration, and has been true for many years now at this point. 'Terrorists' don't actually have to do anything anymore, just making threatening noises is more than enough to have governments tripping over themselves to sacrifice public rights 'for the protection of the public'.
Careful there, keep saying Socialist and the ghost of Marx is going to be summoned to your closet to rattle chains and decry the dastardly Capitalists. Lenin of course is already under your bed and ready to make a grab for your ankles if he can, so make sure to jump to and from your bed to avoid that.
I have to say, it's almost impressive to watch you come up with this convoluted conspiracy 'to keep the capitalists down' to explain why people aren't taking you seriously and reporting and/or marking your comments as funny.
By all means, if your claims are 'facts, plain and simple', then you should have no problem with a [Citation Needed].
You know, the funny thing about making public claims like that is that those of us who've been around on TD know that they're full of bunk, and based upon the strawman Mike/TD that's been kicking around in your head for years now.
Or put another way, if you're going to lie it helps your case if you're not surrounded by people who know that you're lying and aren't even remotely interested in Mike's answers so long as they continue to differ from what the shadow-Mike you've got in your head believes.
Mike has stated his position on copyright, quite a few times. Likewise his position on piracy, he's been pretty consistent and clear about it, you just don't like his answers and so insist that he didn't actually answer and demand that he give what you think his position is.
Given he left the previous place after simply being asked to, I'd say pretty high. Shouting at him with a bullhorn, and given how trigger happy they were I really doubt that they didn't mention how many guns were pointed out the house, in his shoes I might not have been too keen to risk it either.
I think the really messed up thing is the idea that they trashed his house by using the excuse for a 'training exercise' is the less insane option.
The alternative is that they are so incompetent, so incredibly trigger happy with their toys that they were completely incapable of showing even the slightest bit of self-restraint in apprehending the fiendish homeless person that they totaled his house by accident.
When sociopathic corruption is the better option, you know things are all sorts of wrong.
A quick search gave me this, which if accurate suggests that the older the person the less likely they are to read ebooks, though the ranges aren't too big when compared to the stats listed in this article.
Younger(18-29) people read slightly more(35%) and are slightly less likely to engage in ebook copyright infringement(41%), while older(30-49) people read slightly less(32%) and are slightly more likely to engage in ebook copyright infringement(47%).
The differences in ranges aren't too big, at 3% reading and 6% infringement, but given how they're reversed from what you might expect(with the younger demographic engaged in less, rather than more copyright infringement) the article seems to be accurate.