It’s not a lobbying regulation because it doesn’t need to be one. Congressmen can’t chose who speaks to them and lobbying them is protected by free speech – anyone can lobby them. Now when a Congressmen takes a position on an argument, that doesn’t mean he can’t be persuaded to change but it is of course quite unlikely….

Just like mine and your views. If you were a Congressmen that received a $5k donation for an upcoming bill that would benefit piracy, no matter how many lobbyists from Big Media companies contacted you, you are hardly going to change your mind, and naturally, you certainly wouldn’t accept their donations, irrespective of how big they were – right ??

_____________

I obviously don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. I’m talking about innovating the distribution.

Which when it comes to tangible formats, we have already established is NOT their business, so discussing any further would be merely hypothetical.

_____________

Bullshit. When a law (I’m not referring to anything in our discussion) can change overnight, citizens cannot be expected to simply move to the country with the laws of their choice on a day by day basis.

Not overnight of course but, if you REALLY didn’t want people walking around your house whenever they want (that was the example YOU used) it would be an option you would consider VERY seriously. I’ve actually moved countries because I didn’t like the direction one was headed in, it wasn’t actually that hard to be honest.

_____________

Do you even read torrentfreak articles or do you just post blindly, or even better, do you think they just lie?

Of course I read them, I just don’t buy into the one sided BS and twisted logic. I mean seriously, do you expect me to believe the stories of people that actively want the destruction of one set of rights by twisting other rights ? Keeping a free and open internet is a noble idea but, trampling over the legal rights of others is not.

_____________

Now you misunderstood your own analogy. forget it.

I don’t see how.

_____________

equating freedom of speech on the internet to living in a shithole. Nice.

You have an unusual version of freedom of speech. One minute you don’t accept legal lobbying and the next you believe the web should have no constraints on webites that for example might peddle CP.

_____________

That was your assertion, I was just responding to it.

You bought up “lawless real life” not me.

_____________

I think it’s more likely people didn’t have a way of sharing so cheap to the entire world. It was certainly much easier to not get caught because there was no one who cared to enforce it unless there was money involved.

Exactly, sharing quickly, cheaply and anonymously was a real catalyst. People were still prosecuted prior to the online environment however.

_____________

Yes, it may be slower being bigger, but to be extra sympathetic simply because they’re big and make a shitload of profit is not something I think is necessary.

And no one I would wager would expect you to be extra sympathetic. Understanding why an industry as large as entertainment can’t simply perform an immediate right turn and magically materialize solutions would at least mean that you understand why any effort they make to modify their business isn’t instant.

_____________

Yes, but not as many. A reason to pirate (not just because it’s free) while still having netflix would be timely availability, and I know they’re working on that too. Good.

And as always, we’ll just have to see what happens. Because once the excuses run out, it’s going to boil down to entitled cheap assery.

_____________

“It is fair…because one part of Googles business model is ad sales.
And as far as rights-holders are concerned, if its on “your” system, you should be doing something to keep it clean. It seems insane to ask rights-holders who’s job it is to create media, to then have to trawl potentially millions of websites for their own material when the owner of the website could in fact be responsible for keeping his own website clean.
Maybe the Isohunt case will set a precedent :)”

God I hope not. If it’s your job to create, who’s job is it to secure?

Ultimately the creators which will depend on the limitation of what is available to them.

There’s a teenager at the movie theater that doesn’t let me go in for free.

Is he an omnipotent teenager with the power to make you pay ? No ?

There’s a userid and password on netflix that doesn’t let me watch their content for free.

Does it stop someone with a userID/password from screen recording and pirating it so you wouldn’t need a subscription ? No

Movie theaters don’t bribe local law enforcement to stand watch.

They don’t bribe (they pay taxes) but they will call law enforcement them under certain circumstances and their response is swift.

Netflix doesn’t rely on the FBI to prevent non paying users from entering their website.

You are aware I’m sure that there are all manner of reasons that the FBI could be called in to investigate hacking activities on a website like netflix. You are not that naive

Google’s search engine provides links to everything. It’s not “on their system” at all.

They are the handshake that can facilitate infringement.

_____________

I stated this as the “root of the problem” from the beginning. big media is allowed to do this, and as businesses they should take advantage of a profit increasing scenario. This IS an issue I have with my government. I didn’t say it was the fault of big media.

Nothing further here to discuss, media lobbying is clearly not at fault, they are merely doing what the constitution and free speech allows them

_____________

originally I was referring to $5m on lobbying which ultimately will be used by a congressman to smear his opponent. Any other way of spending your money would be more useful than that.

Lobbying is all about presenting a position, therefore disagreeing with an opponents position IS naturally part of politics. Both sides of an argument are going to “smear” (as you put it) the others position, and therefore it is obviously not one sided.

_____________

They could take a lesson on being proactive. Frankly, I don’t depend on any other person or governing body to protect my profits. When/If I would, I would also expect them to act in THEIR own interests, not my own. That would be a very selfish way of thinking. I hear a lot of that coming from you. Are you an only child?

I think big media companies are quite pro-active. Streaming availability, wider syndication, shorter release schedules etc. This in itself produces conflict with the tangible cinema owners for example who now lose their exclusive window but it’s happening anyway. Doesn’t help of course when someone rips it on release day and sticks it on a cyberlocker for profit or lols – that’s whats actually selfish.

_____________

It’s more like a powerless bystander crying to the cops someone did something wrong, and then the cop immediately confiscating the alleged infringed material and keeping it until it’s proven NOT to be infringing.

Why ? Counter DMCA’s are quite quick. You know, I’ve only ever had one of those in over 10 years ;)

_____________

because our global society is very robust.

It’s robust (in the example of the entertainment industry) in so far that the people who create (whatever it is they do create) are not the type to just give up because an element of society see breaking the law as a way to get free media.

$9 for a fountain drink with a strict “can’t bring your own drink” policy sounds like robbery to me, too. It’s not always the element you refer to that robs you blind.

Are you referring to cinema concession prices ? I’m not sure where this fits in.

_____________

The idea that government involvement in private business hurts the economy and democracy is not my idea. I don’t know what the hell you were talking about.

It was your post I was responding to ;)

If I made good money off my apps because I relied on someone allowing it to happen without any control over how it was enforced or how long it would last, then I would not be surprised or upset if any of those factors changed and resulted in me no longer making good money.

The law doesn’t “allow” success, it is meant to merely protect certain abilities of the creator to stabilize a non tangible environment. So people/companies breaking laws to redistribute your works that you create, wouldn’t bother you at all.oooooo k

I would say to myself “I milked that cow while it was here, time to move on”. I would not search google whining about every link to a free version of my app. I would however check how many seeders and good comments there were and make sure to take a screen cap and use it on my resume for my next profitable job.

Of course….if your apps were making millions, you’d just say “ah well, I guess the pirates and cyberlockers won this time, I suppose I should just give up” – that wouldn’t be my solution but it’s yours and a moot point now I guess.

_____________

I’m not very interested in discussing this with you anymore.

I suspected that would happen

All your responses indicate reactive actions to your surroundings, and no amount of me commenting on it will make you any more proactive or independent when it comes to your business.

hmmm, my companies actually in business and making profit and we’re always proactively looking at new ways to approach our business needs. You can’t even give up your day job.

The bottom line is technology will advance, the government will always be behind. The new “digital” age means your industry will have to be on top of technology to continue making profits, because the government will always be two steps behind. You can ignore the fact and keep bitching about it, but it won’t change anything.

I will continue to feel like if I buy a product, I’m not buying the rights to it, I am buying a tangible product. When I bought my nslu2, I unslung it and it now serves many other purposes, when I got my android phone, I rooted it and now it’s much more functional, when I got my wdtvlive, I put custom firmware on it, and it’s much more functional now than ever. I get the most value out of everything I pay money for, including DVDs, which I rip and put on a hard drive for my own personal use. If it’s possible to save my money or someone else’s money because I or someone else figured out how to manipulate a product, after purchasing it, to make it more easily shared, accessible, or functional, then it’s going to happen. Don’t try to get the government to make me or anyone else stop. I already pay their taxes on every dollar I make and every dollar I spend. They should leave me alone once I’ve bought a product.

And you have free will to do that. If you meet any consequences, they’re on your shoulders. As was always the way.

They should also not allow private business to influence their decisions so they don’t have to lay off workers or pay lower salaries.

So government shouldn’t listen to those it governs ??? OK, interesting.

In the future, when you search google for gay porn and all the results have been removed because someone has a copyright on all pictures and videos containing big black cocks, I don’t want to hear about it.

Why do I find it odd that while you’re homophobic on one hand, on the other, you want the online environment to have absolutely no barriers so that (and i’ll quote you here) There should be no line as far as availability is concerned. If you only want “clean” sites, censor your own access using opendns or some shit. In real life, avoid the “bad neighborhoods” where all the evil shit happens. site like CP, rape etc can flourish without question……so very odd.

The discussion was good while it lasted, but going in circles is a waste of time, especially when the person you’re going in circles with has his head up his ass.

Right lol, one of the only people on TF that has a real perspective of both sides of the argument is the one with his head up his ass…..classic TF posting :)

“and we were not talking about distribution, we were talking about innovation.”
I obviously don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. I’m talking about innovating the distribution.

“If it effected me to a point that I couldn’t tolerate it, Id move to where that wasn’t the law.”
Bullshit. When a law (I’m not referring to anything in our discussion) can change overnight, citizens cannot be expected to simply move to the country with the laws of their choice on a day by day basis.

“put away the tinfoil hat.”
Do you even read torrentfreak articles or do you just post blindly, or even better, do you think they just lie?

“It’s hard to believe that your actual claiming that the online environment doesn’t open a wealth (of legal) options and possibilities not even vaguely available in the real world.”
Now you misunderstood your own analogy. forget it.

“Not everyone wants to live in a shithole.”
equating freedom of speech on the internet to living in a shithole. Nice.

“We don’t live in a lawless real world environment though and I’ve no idea why you think we do. ”
That was your assertion, I was just responding to it.

“That maybe true, it’s more likely true however that prior to the online environment, the risks outweighed the rewards for the majority.”
I think it’s more likely people didn’t have a way of sharing so cheap to the entire world. It was certainly much easier to not get caught because there was no one who cared to enforce it unless there was money involved.

“So the incentive for you is very low. The same cannot be said for multi billion dollar industries which employ millions and generate revenues for themselves and the economy, it take time to turn a ship that big.”
Yes, it may be slower being bigger, but to be extra sympathetic simply because they’re big and make a shitload of profit is not something I think is necessary.

“And that model already exists with companies like Netflix, who are syndicating content from the majors etc legally. And people still pirate because they don;t want to pay.”
Yes, but not as many. A reason to pirate (not just because it’s free) while still having netflix would be timely availability, and I know they’re working on that too. Good.

“It is fair…because one part of Googles business model is ad sales.
And as far as rights-holders are concerned, if its on “your” system, you should be doing something to keep it clean. It seems insane to ask rights-holders who’s job it is to create media, to then have to trawl potentially millions of websites for their own material when the owner of the website could in fact be responsible for keeping his own website clean.
Maybe the Isohunt case will set a precedent :)”
God I hope not. If it’s your job to create, who’s job is it to secure? There’s a teenager at the movie theater that doesn’t let me go in for free. There’s a userid and password on netflix that doesn’t let me watch their content for free. Movie theaters don’t bribe local law enforcement to stand watch. Netflix doesn’t rely on the FBI to prevent non paying users from entering their website. Google’s search engine provides links to everything. It’s not “on their system” at all.

“Nice try. my beef is that rich people are more likely to get their “free speech” actually heard by someone who can make a difference.
Thats something to take up with your government representative and has nothing to do with big media.”
I stated this as the “root of the problem” from the beginning. big media is allowed to do this, and as businesses they should take advantage of a profit increasing scenario. This IS an issue I have with my government. I didn’t say it was the fault of big media.

“smartass. $5m on bendy straws would be more useful to society than a well funded smear campaign.
ok, we’ll have 0.016 of a bendy straw each. It’s not a smear campaign in any event, there are real issues effecting millions of workers.”
originally I was referring to $5m on lobbying which ultimately will be used by a congressman to smear his opponent. Any other way of spending your money would be more useful than that.

“Laying the blame on them for the actions of others breaking the law is basic scapegoating.”
They could take a lesson on being proactive. Frankly, I don’t depend on any other person or governing body to protect my profits. When/If I would, I would also expect them to act in THEIR own interests, not my own. That would be a very selfish way of thinking. I hear a lot of that coming from you. Are you an only child?

“Today…the DMCA generally offers the same deterrent as a cop catching you speeding, stopping you and saying “don’t do that again” before letting you go.”
It’s more like a powerless bystander crying to the cops someone did something wrong, and then the cop immediately confiscating the alleged infringed material and keeping it until it’s proven NOT to be infringing.

“Piracy forces you to work on your business.
In the same way that burglars force you to buy home security. Why is it that an element of society prefers to drag everything into a shithole. ”
because our global society is very robust. $9 for a fountain drink with a strict “can’t bring your own drink” policy sounds like robbery to me, too. It’s not always the element you refer to that robs you blind.

“It’s not my idea. I just think it’s a good one, and I’m sure as hell not the only one.
The general public are naturally going to think the sharing copyrighted works is a good idea, it doesn’t directly effect them. It’s easy to be short sighted. If you we’re earning real money from your apps, you’d probably think differently too if someone just gave them away, deprived you of rights to sell and distribute and headed off with the money (along with the cyberlocker, ad companies etc). You’d probably be thanking Google for showing everyone where to get free versions of your apps too ;)”

The idea that government involvement in private business hurts the economy and democracy is not my idea. I don’t know what the hell you were talking about.

If I made good money off my apps because I relied on someone allowing it to happen without any control over how it was enforced or how long it would last, then I would not be surprised or upset if any of those factors changed and resulted in me no longer making good money. I would say to myself “I milked that cow while it was here, time to move on”. I would not search google whining about every link to a free version of my app. I would however check how many seeders and good comments there were and make sure to take a screen cap and use it on my resume for my next profitable job.

I’m not very interested in discussing this with you anymore. All your responses indicate reactive actions to your surroundings, and no amount of me commenting on it will make you any more proactive or independent when it comes to your business. The bottom line is technology will advance, the government will always be behind. The new “digital” age means your industry will have to be on top of technology to continue making profits, because the government will always be two steps behind. You can ignore the fact and keep bitching about it, but it won’t change anything. I will continue to feel like if I buy a product, I’m not buying the rights to it, I am buying a tangible product. When I bought my nslu2, I unslung it and it now serves many other purposes, when I got my android phone, I rooted it and now it’s much more functional, when I got my wdtvlive, I put custom firmware on it, and it’s much more functional now than ever. I get the most value out of everything I pay money for, including DVDs, which I rip and put on a hard drive for my own personal use. If it’s possible to save my money or someone else’s money because I or someone else figured out how to manipulate a product, after purchasing it, to make it more easily shared, accessible, or functional, then it’s going to happen. Don’t try to get the government to make me or anyone else stop. I already pay their taxes on every dollar I make and every dollar I spend. They should leave me alone once I’ve bought a product. They should also not allow private business to influence their decisions so they don’t have to lay off workers or pay lower salaries. In the future, when you search google for gay porn and all the results have been removed because someone has a copyright on all pictures and videos containing big black cocks, I don’t want to hear about it.

The discussion was good while it lasted, but going in circles is a waste of time, especially when the person you’re going in circles with has his head up his ass.

That is not a lobbying regulation.

And of course congressmen will ultimately choose their potion on legislature (after all, you can’t be pro life and pro choice at the same time for example) but they can’t prevent people from contacting them with their position.

So, they let big business lobby them who state their claim. When the congressman votes in their favor, that congressman or whoever than receives millions in “donations” for his upcoming election.

Lobbying is one method for addressing the government and it needs to be fixed, not abolished.

No system is perfect which is why there are strict regulations regarding lobbying. Strict enough that you can end up in jail.

That doesn’t mean that reform isn’t warrented (on many things incidentally) but, what is right for you will never be right for someone else and vice-versa. Theres is no one solution that will fit all.

“costs more is better” works a lot of the time, but it shouldn’t work that way when addressing the government of a nation that prides itself on everyone being free and equal. fyi, $5m in lobbying for RIAA alone in 2012. sony – $3.2m, comcast – $14.7m, MPAA – $1.9m. that can buy a lot of influence.

Maybe it does maybe it doesn’t – sopa and pipa for example still didn’t pass. There are no guarantees with lobbying.

______________________
______________________

Goddammit! They decide who distributes their shit. Stop avoiding that fact.

You said “Big Business does innovate” which obviously isn’t specific as to the industry you are referring too. and we were not talking about distribution, we were talking about innovation.

______________________
______________________

The MPAA is a tight knit band of industry leaders who help set and maintain similar pricing. Don’t act like you don’t know what the fuck is going on.

When you say what you did……”there is very little competition in media” you do realize how insanely broad that is right.

And your answer has got very little to do with what is available to the consumer and what the consumer chooses to spend their money or time on. Even if products from the majors were priced at a certain level, we aren’t in 1950′s anymore. The consumer has so much product to choose from all manner of creators that competition for their time and money from media creators or all types and sizes couldn’t be more fierce and diverse than it is right now. So I have to disagree

______________________
______________________

No. copyright is the only one of the three that tries to protect an intangible object, which makes it alone much different than the other two.trademark is simply a “signature” of sorts and patent protects an actual product from being copied.

Incorrect, Trademark: is a word, phrase, symbol, and/or design (product / service) and almost all are intangible and protect-able under trademark (this is why you don’t see 5000 companies using “Just do it” only Nike).

Patent is usually machine but can also be “process” which is intangible. Copyright we already know about.

The 3 exist to protect which is what I said and in fact all 3 can actually protect intangibles…..these are the irrefutable facts and saying “no” isn’t going to change what anyone can research on countless websites that fully backs my statement. Apples is apples my friend and these are all apples.
______________________
______________________

whatever. I didn’t fucking say that. I said exactly what I meant:
“Copyright enforcement methods fuck with technology (file sharing methods) and the public’s access to information (valid internet search results being censored).”
copyright ENFORCEMENT fucks with legal file sharing. stop wasting my time.

Well if you meant legal you should have said legal in the first place. And copyright would have very little effect on legal file sharing if many of those same file sharing website businesses didn’t rely heavily on copyrighted media and induce it’s users to upload said materials.

Just like the German judge said….it’s called rapidshare, not rapidstore….websites of that nature “should” not be able to turn a blind eye to it’s users activities or induce those users to infringe copyrights for their survival.

You know what would be an impressive business model of cyberlockers….if they could syndicate and create content themselves, then give it away for free with the option of a premium memberships….but naaaah why spend all the money creating stuff when you can just infringe on everyone elses.

______________________
______________________

file sharing is part of a free and open internet.

Not actually an important part though because the survival of the online environment isn’t dependent on it. And file sharing is exactly what will cause massive changes to that environment not the creation of media products.

______________________
______________________

In a perfect democracy all laws exist for the right reasons. In reality, the law should evolve and stay in line with what the citizens believe. I can disagree with a law. To blindly accept a law I didn’t agree with would be very anti-american.

No one lives in a perfect democracy, such a utopia is likely to only exist with one person living on their own island. And you don’t have to agree with all laws obviously and naturally you have free will to break them providing you can accept consequences. If you don’t like them, get active in change and reform or if you don’t want to be that person and it’s still important to you, reside where the laws suit you better.

______________________
______________________

If a law was passed allowing your neighbor to walk around in YOUR house, would you let him?

If it effected me to a point that I couldn’t tolerate it, Id move to where that wasn’t the law.

______________________
______________________

not if you count all the censorship. where have you been?

There has barely been a drop of censorship online when you look at the vastness of the environment. I think you should put away the tinfoil hat.

______________________
______________________

you, sir, must live in a bubble. What people don’t like about the internet is it’s like the town hall in your example is everyone’s next door neighbor.

I don’t agree. The online environment is so much more open regarding its framework, communication and available information than what is available or possible in the real world. It’s hard to believe that your actual claiming that the online environment doesn’t open a wealth (of legal) options and possibilities not even vaguely available in the real world.

______________________
______________________

There should be no line as far as availability is concerned. If you only want “clean” sites, censor your own access using opendns or some shit. In real life, avoid the “bad neighborhoods” where all the evil shit happens.

Well, all I can say is that I’m glad that a more sensible approach is being taken by those with the ability to shape the online environment. Not everyone wants to live in a shithole.

______________________
______________________

sorry, a “lawless” real life involves life threatening situations. We’re talking about an industry crying about their profit margin. spats and disagreements are not exclusive to the internet. talking to someone could be life threatening too.

We don’t live in a lawless real world environment though and I’ve no idea why you think we do. Although it seems that you would prefer the online environment to be exactly that.

______________________
______________________

the only reason copyright law has not been in question by the public before now is because it was never enforced. When you don’t enforce a law, the public tends to forget about it.

That maybe true, it’s more likely true however that prior to the online environment, the risks outweighed the rewards for the majority. Prior to the explosion of piracy (easy and quick duplication, broadband, inducements, cheap hosting, cheap storage, etc etc) piracy was generally confined to exchanges only allowable with in a certain locale. You couldn’t copy something once flawlessly and distribute it to millions at 0 cost. It wasn’t that there was no enforcement (people used to be prosecuted for selling tangible pirated copies all the time), it was that the cost and effort to do so barely made it economical considering the risks. The consequences were also swift. People knew that they could get away with sharing a copy with a friend etc. on the other hand, they also knew that setting up a piracy enterprise on a commercial scale would likely end up with large fines and jail time.

i think you know it’s a little different now.

______________________
______________________

I actually think I was quoting benjamin franklin, or maybe the original text of the law? “Genius” – smart people documenting the smart shit they figured out. “Useful discovery” – inventors telling everyone about the cool stuff they invented. That’s my interpretation.

I know what it means, I’m disagreeing that copyright stifles either

______________________
______________________

Nope, it does not make a difference. That’s why it needs DRM or something along those lines, but you can’t pretend a law is going to fix it.

DRM didn’t fix it and everyone knows that. One approach to a problem is never going to be better than multiple. Rights-holders are choosing multiple approaches.

______________________
______________________

I don’t have examples. I only know I’ve read about legit sites being taken down. I won’t know if search results are missing, and that bugs me.

Feel free to come back when you’ve researched then.

______________________
______________________

good one! All I need is 1% of what they spend on lobbying congress and I’d be all over it!

Sure you would ;) Simply take your ideas to a VC and if it’s a good idea with potential profit, you’ll get the financing. Failure is guaranteed if you don’t even try….;)

______________________
______________________

Yes! Close the market! This would take the assumption you can copy a DVD and give it to a friend (because it’s so fucking easy) off the table, because it won’t be possible. People want easily accessible media and standard formats because it makes sharing and viewing the media so much easier. The media companies contradict themselves because they want to please their customers, but they don’t want them to take advantage of the easy access and standard formats.

You can’t have it both ways. Pirates especially are always saying ….I want it on all formats and no drm or I wont buy . So you get that and you still won’t buy it. Why ? because you move the goalposts again….I want it released the same time as it airs in the origin country, I want it to cost $1. I suspect that media companies err on the side of their customers and it’s not that they don’t want to heavily protect their are product but, as we know it only takes one copy (and pirates will bypass the protections anyway) so I suspect they are looking at a variety of methods to slow piracy, not one.

______________________
______________________

I know, I’m saying they NEED to expand into the electronics market and bypass the electronics companies until they get off their asses and manufacture something worthwhile. Sony continues to innovate for themselves.

Who knows, I’ve already said (and long thought) they should do this. However, I also appreciate the reasons why it’s either not realistic or wont happen overnight. I think anyone with common sense knows that adding an electronics division isn’t something you can do quickly.

______________________
______________________

I don’t agree. Sony failed with their memory card. They tried to create a standard and they lost. However, they wouldn’t budge on BluRay, their OWN creation so everyone dropped HDDVD and went with BluRay. Do you think Sony would have changed their format even if no one else followed? No way! Not to mention their copy protection research is really quite amazing.

I doubt they would, sony have certainly had a few format innovations that didn’t catch on – I bought a sony Minidisc in the early 90′s lol….

But back to the original point of that part of the debate, which was distribution …..electronics companies are not distribution companies. It makes no difference what format an electronics company makes per-se, those are the ones available to media companies and the gateway into a wide consumer market. They choose to manufacture on the most popular formats so as you can see, the electronics companies have nothing to do with distribution.

______________________
______________________

Large sums of money? piracy or not, everyone’s still getting paid pretty well.

I don’t know any business that just rolls over and says “yeah, we’re being taken advantage off and potentially losing a lot of business, but it’s ok, we’re getting paid pretty well, we’ll just let it slide”

______________________
_____________________

I don’t believe it is.

You don’t believe it’s what ? “not new or creative” or “not insulting” ?

______________________
______________________

I do a little of everything. I don’t expect the applications I develop to not get pirated. It’s not worth my time to try to protect against it. So, I make sure it’s not my sole source of income until someone (myself included) comes up with a better protection method.

ok, so you already know that solving your own issues is not straight forward and it doesn’t sound like you make the kind of money you want to actually care to solve them. So the incentive for you is very low. The same cannot be said for multi billion dollar industries which employ millions and generate revenues for themselves and the economy, it take time to turn a ship that big.

______________________
______________________

I know they didn’t invent it, but it’s a good model.

It’s a reasonable model if you own the rights to what you’re giving away. It’s a model for douhebags with criminal records like KDC when you don’t.

It’s one media creators should consider modifying to fit their needs.

They already have….the difference, they have all the upfront costs to create the media. Everyone else infringing their rights and giving it away doesn’t.

If someone made a really good movie, and you could only get it from a specific site, and then you could only play the file on special hardware, people would buy the hardware, and go to the site, and download the file. charge at each avenue and you have your profit.

Possibly…..or someone will screen record it and stick it on rapidgator. And that model already exists with companies like Netflix, who are syndicating content from the majors etc legally. And people still pirate because they don;t want to pay.

______________________
______________________

That’s not a fair statement. I think google has good intentions at its core, but it doesn’t care that your business model is broken. Your broken model should not cost them money. All their search engine does is index the internet. So, yeah, they’re against censorship of any kind. It slows down their indexing process.

It is fair…because one part of Googles business model is ad sales.

And as far as rights-holders are concerned, if its on “your” system, you should be doing something to keep it clean. It seems insane to ask rights-holders who’s job it is to create media, to then have to trawl potentially millions of websites for their own material when the owner of the website could in fact be responsible for keeping his own website clean.

Maybe the Isohunt case will set a precedent :)

______________________
______________________

No, but it does motivate the content creator to come up with some new ideas either for new content more often or for protecting existing content more effectively.

Through your own efforts with apps you know how difficult that actually is. Like I said, it seems that media companies are taking a multi pronged view of the situation, I know I certainly am so I guess we’ll see what happens.

______________________
______________________

I posted my lobbying numbers way above. I’m thinking R+D for a new format would cost more than $2m in a years time, but that all depends on who’s working on it and what they charge.

R+D for new formats cost way more than that. I would actually urge media companies to do away with physical formats and simply do a type of encrypted digital download straight to a box.

______________________
______________________

Nice try. my beef is that rich people are more likely to get their “free speech” actually heard by someone who can make a difference.

Thats something to take up with your government representative and has nothing to do with big media.

______________________
______________________

smartass. $5m on bendy straws would be more useful to society than a well funded smear campaign.

ok, we’ll have 0.016 of a bendy straw each. It’s not a smear campaign in any event, there are real issues effecting millions of workers.

______________________
______________________

I don’t download shit. It’s not a point of view, it’s a fact.

I guess I’ll just have to believe that for now

______________________
______________________

It would be great for the economy by way of motivation. if copyright law ceased to exist (hence eliminating the government variable) content distributors would have the motivation to come up with some up-to-date methods of distribution that weren’t so easily copied. Until that happens, it’s a real bitch.

They are already motivated….in the business that they have always been in, content creation.

Laying the blame on them for the actions of others breaking the law is basic scapegoating.

______________________
______________________

So you’re saying your customers are your problem. Your customers should be your solution. Your business model should include the potential and historical behavior of your customers.

No I’m saying the ability to “break the law” (which has less to do with actual customers who in essence are people who purchase, not merely consume or share freely) is easier and they simply do not reflect or met the challenges of the online environment as it did (more or less) when it was penned in late 90′s. Legislators did not have a crystal ball and therefore could not predict the speed at which cheap storage and hosting or broadband (which really took off in 04) would materialize. They had absolutely no idea that the online environment would move as quickly or in the directions that it did. Today…the DMCA generally offers the same deterrent as a cop catching you speeding, stopping you and saying “don’t do that again” before letting you go.

______________________
______________________

Business models come and go, art, culture and intellectual works aren’t going anywhere. How to profit from them is what should change.

They sure do go, but very rarely when one business model was allowed to simply take the others product, duplicate it and resell it. When was the last time that happened ?

it should be evolve or die in the business world, because like it or not, creating culture isn’t what gets you paid, it’s selling it that pays the bills, pure business.

Which is interesting since you support a business model that isn’t pure business in the slightest.

Piracy forces you to work on your business.

In the same way that burglars force you to buy home security. Why is it that an element of society prefers to drag everything into a shithole. Its like chaos is some great business model as long as it doesn’t effect me lol….In any event it actually forces me to be creative in areas that can’t be pirated. And this is the difference between me and you I think…where you are unable to take your product further than a little extra income while doing your day job…I’ve released media during 10 years of the worst piracy period in online history, still make money and have further diversified to keep it that way.

Is it all the extra work that makes you so upset?

Not at all, I probably work a little less now and have other people do the work I used to do. Diversifying has left me in a similarly profitable situation.

Maybe creating culture won’t pay as well from now on. Maybe it’ll have to be a side job to working at McDonald’s.

For some people it obviously is. And it just goes to show that even though pirates are always bleating about access to culture, that when it comes down to it, you kinda don’t give a shit about it.

Writing applications doesn’t pay all my bills, so it’s more of a hobby. I’ve accepted it.

Good for you. I don’t even know if your apps are (or were) any good to have enabled you to do this as a full time occupation, maybe they are, I don’t know. But it appears that you’ve decided that perusing it is not for you so I’m guessing not. Better luck next time I guess.

Why do you get a pity party resulting in the government “cracking down” on making sure you get paid?

Pity party ? Online piracy has existed pretty much since the dawn of the internet and has merely got larger over time, we’ve managed to deal with it so far while watching scumbags rips us off, but we’re still creating. the government appears to share our b

______________________
______________________

It’s not my idea. I just think it’s a good one, and I’m sure as hell not the only one.

The general public are naturally going to think the sharing copyrighted works is a good idea, it doesn’t directly effect them. It’s easy to be short sighted. If you we’re earning real money from your apps, you’d probably think differently too if someone just gave them away, deprived you of rights to sell and distribute and headed off with the money (along with the cyberlocker, ad companies etc). You’d probably be thanking Google for showing everyone where to get free versions of your apps too ;)

“I guess we should assume that you’re referring exclusively to the media industry here.”
Goddammit! They decide who distributes their shit. Stop avoiding that fact.

“And why do you think there is no competition in media”
The MPAA is a tight knit band of industry leaders who help set and maintain similar pricing. Don’t act like you don’t know what the fuck is going on.

“Not exactly, all three exist to protect. The main difference (apart from term etc) between the three is “what” they protect”
No. copyright is the only one of the three that tries to protect an intangible object, which makes it alone much different than the other two. trademark is simply a “signature” of sorts and patent protects an actual product from being copied.

“File sharing technology isn’t dependent on copyrighted media though is it.
Are you saying that file sharing can only exist because of copyrighted media ?”
whatever. I didn’t fucking say that. I said exactly what I meant:
“Copyright enforcement methods fuck with technology (file sharing methods) and the public’s access to information (valid internet search results being censored).”
copyright ENFORCEMENT fucks with legal file sharing. stop wasting my time.

“I would disagree that file sharing is whats important but a free and open internet is whats actually important. ”
file sharing is part of a free and open internet.

“In a similar way that in the real world, we enjoy freedom within the boundaries of the laws that exist.”
In a perfect democracy all laws exist for the right reasons. In reality, the law should evolve and stay in line with what the citizens believe. I can disagree with a law. To blindly accept a law I didn’t agree with would be very anti-american.

“As an example, we are free to move about, express ourselves etc etc but we are not free to walk into our neighbors house and merely decide to start living there.”
If a law was passed allowing your neighbor to walk around in YOUR house, would you let him?

“Freedom of speech and expression already applies and exists online….in spades. Id wager it exists online more than in real life environments.”
not if you count all the censorship. where have you been?

“I suspect the majority of citizens would not set up a public forum at the local town hall regarding “Easily constructed explosives using items from around the home” for example.”
you, sir, must live in a bubble. What people don’t like about the internet is it’s like the town hall in your example is everyone’s next door neighbor.

“Personally I think this level of freedom regarding speech is incredibly irresponsible but where exactly does one draw the line.”
There should be no line as far as availability is concerned. If you only want “clean” sites, censor your own access using opendns or some shit. In real life, avoid the “bad neighborhoods” where all the evil shit happens.

“people have actually died as a direct result from surfing related activities (online spats and disagreements moving into the real world environment)”
sorry, a “lawless” real life involves life threatening situations. We’re talking about an industry crying about their profit margin. spats and disagreements are not exclusive to the internet. talking to someone could be life threatening too.

“I think you might be asking the impossible there. The internet is not a separate plain of being where real world laws and consequence do not apply.”
the only reason copyright law has not been in question by the public before now is because it was never enforced. When you don’t enforce a law, the public tends to forget about it.

“I think the main problem with copyright is term. I don’t agree however that it stifles genius (I think you mean innovation) or useful discovery (please explain that, I’m not sure why something copyrighted cannot be discovered).”
I actually think I was quoting benjamin franklin, or maybe the original text of the law? “Genius” – smart people documenting the smart shit they figured out. “Useful discovery” – inventors telling everyone about the cool stuff they invented. That’s my interpretation.

“Be honest now, does it actually make any difference to pirates that any media has rights attached ?? Personally, I think not.”
Nope, it does not make a difference. That’s why it needs DRM or something along those lines, but you can’t pretend a law is going to fix it.

“”ANY subject” is incredibly broad and doesn’t actually prove your point.”
I don’t have examples. I only know I’ve read about legit sites being taken down. I won’t know if search results are missing, and that bugs me.

“Additionally, you are in the field of computers, not media creation, so you are in fact in the perfect field (potentially) to bring a workable and profitable alternative to the marketplace. So lets hear it :)”
good one! All I need is 1% of what they spend on lobbying congress and I’d be all over it!

“A closed market essentially begin because some people can’t accept the rights of creators either online or offline”
Yes! Close the market! This would take the assumption you can copy a DVD and give it to a friend (because it’s so fucking easy) off the table, because it won’t be possible. People want easily accessible media and standard formats because it makes sharing and viewing the media so much easier. The media companies contradict themselves because they want to please their customers, but they don’t want them to take advantage of the easy access and standard formats.

“Unless it’s non tangible distribution, like streaming or syndication. Unless media companies expand into the electronics market, they are limited to what the electronics companies manufacture. I can only say that so many times.”
I know, I’m saying they NEED to expand into the electronics market and bypass the electronics companies until they get off their asses and manufacture something worthwhile. Sony continues to innovate for themselves.

“Firstly, the US is a managed economy. There’s little anyone capitalist or socialist can do about that bar full revolution.”
I don’t agree. Sony failed with their memory card. They tried to create a standard and they lost. However, they wouldn’t budge on BluRay, their OWN creation so everyone dropped HDDVD and went with BluRay. Do you think Sony would have changed their format even if no one else followed? No way! Not to mention their copy protection research is really quite amazing.

“What are the incentives then ?”
Large sums of money? piracy or not, everyone’s still getting paid pretty well.

“File sharing didn’t do that….they used existing products of creators and gave them away for their own financial gain. That is not a new or creative business model. And it’s a little insulting that people believe it is”
I don’t believe it is.

“So I think you need to be a little more specific.”
I do a little of everything. I don’t expect the applications I develop to not get pirated. It’s not worth my time to try to protect against it. So, I make sure it’s not my sole source of income until someone (myself included) comes up with a better protection method.

“The advert based revenue model was around long before file sharing. File sharers didn’t invent ad based revenue or innovate it further. They merely exploited an over looked loophole in the law. And it actually matters to many that they don’t care about there actions”
I know they didn’t invent it, but it’s a good model. It’s one media creators should consider modifying to fit their needs. If someone made a really good movie, and you could only get it from a specific site, and then you could only play the file on special hardware, people would buy the hardware, and go to the site, and download the file. charge at each avenue and you have your profit.

“Yes Google, who are the biggest beneficiaries of piracy online today. You think they staunchly support Safe harbor provisions because they support innovation and creativity? That’s kinda funny actually”
That’s not a fair statement. I think google has good intentions at its core, but it doesn’t care that your business model is broken. Your broken model should not cost them money. All their search engine does is index the internet. So, yeah, they’re against censorship of any kind. It slows down their indexing process.

” The replication of something that already exists doesn’t forward innovation at all.”
No, but it does motivate the content creator to come up with some new ideas either for new content more often or for protecting existing content more effectively.

“Well maybe you should find out.”
I posted my lobbying numbers way above. I’m thinking R+D for a new format would cost more than $2m in a years time, but that all depends on who’s working on it and what they charge.

“It’s a constitutional right and is protected by free speech. So, whats your beef with free speech ?”
Nice try. my beef is that rich people are more likely to get their “free speech” actually heard by someone who can make a difference.

“Hmmm a guarantee, aren’t death and taxes the only real guarantees….anyway, id like to hear more about this guarantee of yours”
smartass. $5m on bendy straws would be more useful to society than a well funded smear campaign.

“I can’t help that you don’t want to hear something. I’m not going to butter up replies because you have a different point of view.”
I don’t download shit. It’s not a point of view, it’s a fact.

“Government involvement in business is detrimental to the US and Global economy.
That still doesn’t answer my question, which was “The sites that you think are innovative, don’t create anything and their revenues don’t filter into the economy of the products they pirate. They are pirating everything and creating nothing….how good do you think that is for an economy?”
It would be great for the economy by way of motivation. if copyright law ceased to exist (hence eliminating the government variable) content distributors would have the motivation to come up with some up-to-date methods of distribution that weren’t so easily copied. Until that happens, it’s a real bitch.

“The component fails only because there exists an ability to flaunt the law more easily online and people are prepared to do it regardless of consequence.”
So you’re saying your customers are your problem. Your customers should be your solution. Your business model should include the potential and historical behavior of your customers.

“What I see is an industry that actually creates culture, employs millions and distributes substantial revenue sources by way of billions in taxes and salaries (which flow back into the economy) under attack from an old business model (that of piracy) that creates nothing and gives no benefit to the countries who’s product they infringe. A business that creates wealth for a very small group of people at the expense of many”
Business models come and go, art, culture and intellectual works aren’t going anywhere. How to profit from them is what should change. it should be evolve or die in the business world, because like it or not, creating culture isn’t what gets you paid, it’s selling it that pays the bills, pure business. Piracy forces you to work on your business. Is it all the extra work that makes you so upset? Maybe creating culture won’t pay as well from now on. Maybe it’ll have to be a side job to working at McDonald’s. Writing applications doesn’t pay all my bills, so it’s more of a hobby. I’ve accepted it. Why do you get a pity party resulting in the government “cracking down” on making sure you get paid?

“It’s an incredibly short sighted approach which is more likely to backfire horribly than achieve what you desire.”
It’s not my idea. I just think it’s a good one, and I’m sure as hell not the only one.

No problem, I like specifics as opposed to ambiguity which I felt your post was.

________________________
________________________

Anyone can lobby, but rich people and large companies can lobby more effectively because they have more money. The regulations are piss poor and result in an uneven playing field. It is significantly abused by the rich.

Which regulations are piss poor ? I like examples and reasons over the broad-stroke “is piss poor” because that wont satisfy making any point in a debate.

Lobbying as you’re no doubt aware is free speech and therefore naturally protected by the constitution. Are you saying that addressing your own government for changes in legislature should be abolished ? Or are you merely upset that in the process of lobbying for example, person (A) hires a more expensive lawyer to argue their position than person (B) – because it would be a fallacy to assume something that costs more is better, as I’m sure you know.

I think you need to clarify your position here.

________________________
________________________

Big business does innovate, I didn’t say they don’t, but when they’re so big they can lobby better (more money) and currently have no true competition, then they no longer need to innovate, IF they choose not to. They don’t need to evolve in order to continue to profit.

I guess we should assume that you’re referring exclusively to the media industry here.

Ok, lets look at that…What innovations do you think that they have failed to address within their industry (Which is of course media creation, not electronics remember) ?

And why do you think there is no competition in media – do the public not have free will and more media (choices thanks to the breadth of the online environment) than at any point in history ?

________________________
________________________

copyright law is different from patent and trademark… apples to oranges…

Not exactly, all three exist to protect. The main difference (apart from term etc) between the three is “what” they protect – for example: A creative work/A name/An Invention. They are like 3 different apple types…not apples and oranges

________________________
________________________

Copyright enforcement methods fuck with technology (file sharing methods) and the public’s access to information (valid internet search results being censored).

File sharing technology isn’t dependent on copyrighted media though is it. Are you saying that file sharing can only exist because of copyrighted media ?

________________________
________________________

File sharing is very important for those of us who think information should be free and shared. If this technology is interfering with a business’ profits, then that’s for that business to deal with. I’m not referring to pirate sites, either.

I would disagree that file sharing is whats important but a free and open internet is whats actually important. And by free I don’t mean that the creative works of others should be free but that the environment itself should be as free as possible without trampling over the rights of others.

In a similar way that in the real world, we enjoy freedom within the boundaries of the laws that exist. As an example, we are free to move about, express ourselves etc etc but we are not free to walk into our neighbors house and merely decide to start living there.
________________________
________________________

Yes, I’m saying that. Freedom of speech and expression should apply to the internet as well.

Freedom of speech and expression already applies and exists online….in spades. Id wager it exists online more than in real life environments.
________________________
________________________

Do you think the real world is not a wild west cesspool… of information?

I don’t think it is at all. The real world has real world (often immediate) consequences regarding information, what it is and how it spread.

I suspect the majority of citizens would not set up a public forum at the local town hall regarding “Easily constructed explosives using items from around the home” for example. Online however, there are such places and worse of course. Personally I think this level of freedom regarding speech is incredibly irresponsible but where exactly does one draw the line.
________________________
________________________

wild west? surfing the web is not life threatening…

It has nothing to do with being life threatening. The wild west was essentially lawless. And without wanting to put a fly too deep in your ointment, people have actually died as a direct result from surfing related activities (online spats and disagreements moving into the real world environment)

________________________
________________________

watch your analogies. All information, even the most horrifying is available in the real world, and it should be even more available, in greater quantity and more immediate on the internet.

I don’t think I even need comment here on how truly horrifying that statement is.

________________________
________________________

No. The enforcement of laws off the internet is not allowed to interfere with people’s civil liberties. That’s all I don’t want. If they don’t have a way of enforcing the law without doing that, then they shouldn’t be enforcing it.

I think you might be asking the impossible there. The internet is not a separate plain of being where real world laws and consequence do not apply.

________________________
________________________

copyright law has evolved into a beast that it was never meant to be by way of lobbying and government incompetence. copyright is supposed to encourage genius and promote useful discoveries. It still does to an extent, but in its current state it can now be abused to maximize profit while limiting (by way of improper enforcement) the exchange of non copyrighted materials and information (false dmca requests, blocking domains, taking down entire websites because of the content of user submitted comments).

I think the main problem with copyright is term. I don’t agree however that it stifles genius (I think you mean innovation) or useful discovery (please explain that, I’m not sure why something copyrighted cannot be discovered).

Terms are too long and essentially they have an effect on everyone, from me and you, to the media companies themselves funnily enough. But apart from that, very little real world changes have taken place.

The beast (as you put it) however would have been exactly the same now irrespective of whether file sharing existed or not because prior to file sharing as we know it today, the copyright term was still life plus 70 years.

Would it have made any difference if it were life plus 50 years? 40 years? 30 years?…life only maybe ? how about…28 years, 10 years ?

Be honest now, does it actually make any difference to pirates that any media has rights attached ?? Personally, I think not.

________________________
________________________

when copyright interferes with the effectiveness of research via the internet on ANY subject, I have a problem with it. Here are some alternatives to copyright law… oh wait, I’m not in the “arts creation and distribution” industry, so I don’t need to come up with alternatives.

“ANY subject” is incredibly broad and doesn’t actually prove your point. Additionally, you are in the field of computers, not media creation, so you are in fact in the perfect field (potentially) to bring a workable and profitable alternative to the marketplace. So lets hear it :)

________________________
________________________

They make a shitload off their “intellectual rights”, enough to come up with their own alternatives.

But as we have already established, their business is media creation. What you’re suggesting here actually has further reaching implications that effect all media. A closed market essentially begin because some people can’t accept the rights of creators either online or offline

________________________
________________________

THEY ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF CREATING AND DISTRIBUTING THEIR WORKS. You can’t take the “distributing” out of the equation, because they NEED that to make a profit. If they ONLY created, they wouldn’t make any money and this would be a non-issue. No one besides the creator, can copy something if it’s not distributed to the public… but then you can’t profit from it either.

Unless it’s non tangible distribution, like streaming or syndication. Unless media companies expand into the electronics market, they are limited to what the electronics companies manufacture. I can only say that so many times.

_______________________
________________________<P

If that means the actual creators are handing their creations off to someone else to distribute, then the creators have the RIGHT to NOT give it to a distribution company that does not have an effective way of limiting someone’s ability to copy it. If enough people DID’T pay the distribution company, then the distribution company would have to come up with a better distribution method in order to get customers and have content to distribute… in order for THEM to make a profit. Do I really have to explain how free market works??

Firstly, the US is a managed economy. There’s little anyone capitalist or socialist can do about that bar full revolution.

_______________________
________________________<P

Yes, that’s what I’m saying, although, to say there is little incentive for creators to create is, well, laughable!

What are the incentives then ?

_______________________
________________________<P

If they are taking a slight profit loss in the current state of things, just think what a little innovation could get them. In free market awkward periods arise where either new businesses move in with new profitable ideas or old businesses come up with better ones.

New business traditionally replace old business because they have invented something that improves on the old. If I remember buggy whips and the motor vehicle is an often quoted example amongst file sharers.

The main difference of course is that, the car manufacturer didn’t identically copy the buggy whip, they invented and developed a whole new idea.

File sharing didn’t do that….they used existing products of creators and gave them away for their own financial gain. That is not a new or creative business model. And it’s a little insulting that people believe it is

________________________
________________________<P

Let’s just say I’m in the “computer” business. All my knowledge is easily attainable online by anyone and I still manage a profit quite well (and legally, I’d like to add). I believe you that I would be badgered in the future if not answering this question right away, so there ya go…

It doesn’t really answer my question> Being in the computer business means your work be anything from working at Geek Squad to designing the next wave of computer processors. One means your work doesn’t depend on creativity and the other does. I’m in media creation, therefore it’s self explanatory why I favor rights over my works. So I think you need to be a little more specific.

________________________
________________________

You didn’t agree with “Indirectly, those sharing sites are creating a need for innovation.” They created a successful ad-based profit model for distributing works. It doesn’t matter if they don’t CARE about what they did. They did it and others can learn from it. They INNOVATED and now the media companies are forced to do their OWN innovations to protect and distribute their own products more effectively.

The advert based revenue model was around long before file sharing. File sharers didn’t invent ad based revenue or innovate it further. They merely exploited an over looked loophole in the law. And it actually matters to many that they don’t care about there actions

________________________
________________________

Isn’t there some other company that provides free services and makes profits via ad-based methods?? Hmmm… I can’t think of the name right now, but they’re pretty big…

Yes Google, who are the biggest beneficiaries of piracy online today. You think they staunchly support Safe harbor provisions because they support innovation and creativity? That’s kinda funny actually

________________________
________________________

the point is, MORE of that would be better for the economy and the world…

Sure innovation is always good, true innovation however doesn’t involve duplicating works identically. The replication of something that already exists doesn’t forward innovation at all.

________________________
________________________

Yes, lobbying is cheaper than R+D but could potentially yield a similar profit (I don’t know exact numbers).

Well maybe you should find out.

________________________
________________________

I don’t blame the companies for doing it, their business is to make money. I blame the government for allowing it.

I don’t know how much the $5m in lobbying saves them in profit, but I guarantee if the option wasn’t there, they would sink that money into something more useful to society as a whole.

Hmmm a guarantee, aren’t death and taxes the only real guarantees….anyway, id like to hear more about this guarantee of yours

________________________
________________________

I said don’t refer to me as that. You’re just stating more things I don’t want you to refer to me as. Come on!

I can’t help that you don’t want to hear something. I’m not going to butter up replies because you have a different point of view.

________________________
________________________

Government involvement in business is detrimental to the US and Global economy.

That still doesn’t answer my question, which was “The sites that you think are innovative, don’t create anything and their revenues don’t filter into the economy of the products they pirate. They are pirating everything and creating nothing….how good do you think that is for an economy?”

________________________
________________________

In this particular scenario the government is aiding a business model with a large FAILING component.

The component fails only because there exists an ability to flaunt the law more easily online and people are prepared to do it regardless of consequence.

________________________
________________________

Free market solves these problems and fixes them itself. the media companies staying in business is not essential for a good economy, them EVOLVING in order to stay in business, however, IS essential for a good economy. see the difference?

What I see is an industry that actually creates culture, employs millions and distributes substantial revenue sources by way of billions in taxes and salaries (which flow back into the economy) under attack from an old business model (that of piracy) that creates nothing and gives no benefit to the countries who’s product they infringe. A business that creates wealth for a very small group of people at the expense of many

It’s an incredibly short sighted approach which is more likely to backfire horribly than achieve what you desire.

________________________
________________________

Anyone can lobby, but rich people and large companies can lobby more effectively because they have more money. The regulations are piss poor and result in an uneven playing field. It is significantly abused by the rich.

Big business does innovate, I didn’t say they don’t, but when they’re so big they can lobby better (more money) and currently have no true competition, then they no longer need to innovate, IF they choose not to. They don’t need to evolve in order to continue to profit.

copyright law is different from patent and trademark… apples to oranges…

Copyright enforcement methods fuck with technology (file sharing methods) and the public’s access to information (valid internet search results being censored). File sharing is very important for those of us who think information should be free and shared. If this technology is interfering with a business’ profits, then that’s for that business to deal with. I’m not referring to pirate sites, either.

“So what you’re saying is it’s in the best interests of the citizens for the online environment to be a wild west cesspool.”
Yes, I’m saying that. Freedom of speech and expression should apply to the internet as well. Do you think the real world is not a wild west cesspool… of information? wild west? surfing the web is not life threatening… watch your analogies. All information, even the most horrifying is available in the real world, and it should be even more available, in greater quantity and more immediate on the internet.

“Where anything illegal is tolerated and anything possible is ripped off.”
No. The enforcement of laws off the internet is not allowed to interfere with people’s civil liberties. That’s all I don’t want. If they don’t have a way of enforcing the law without doing that, then they shouldn’t be enforcing it.

“Laws are not for the sake of a single industry you know. Every industry that innovates and uses copyright has a legal right to protect their products online or offline.”
copyright law has evolved into a beast that it was never meant to be by way of lobbying and government incompetence. copyright is supposed to encourage genius and promote useful discoveries. It still does to an extent, but in its current state it can now be abused to maximize profit while limiting (by way of improper enforcement) the exchange of non copyrighted materials and information (false dmca requests, blocking domains, taking down entire websites because of the content of user submitted comments).

when copyright interferes with the effectiveness of research via the internet on ANY subject, I have a problem with it. Here are some alternatives to copyright law… oh wait, I’m not in the “arts creation and distribution” industry, so I don’t need to come up with alternatives. They make a shitload off their “intellectual rights”, enough to come up with their own alternatives. “those in the media business are in the business of creating media, Not the next platform or streaming program” THEY ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF CREATING AND DISTRIBUTING THEIR WORKS. You can’t take the “distributing” out of the equation, because they NEED that to make a profit. If they ONLY created, they wouldn’t make any money and this would be a non-issue. No one besides the creator, can copy something if it’s not distributed to the public… but then you can’t profit from it either. If that means the actual creators are handing their creations off to someone else to distribute, then the creators have the RIGHT to NOT give it to a distribution company that does not have an effective way of limiting someone’s ability to copy it. If enough people DID’T pay the distribution company, then the distribution company would have to come up with a better distribution method in order to get customers and have content to distribute… in order for THEM to make a profit. Do I really have to explain how free market works??

“So basically, your solution is that media companies should embrace anarchy regarding intellectual property so there is very little incentive to create but society gets to freeload.”
Yes, that’s what I’m saying, although, to say there is little incentive for creators to create is, well, laughable! If they are taking a slight profit loss in the current state of things, just think what a little innovation could get them. In free market awkward periods arise where either new businesses move in with new profitable ideas or old businesses come up with better ones.

Let’s just say I’m in the “computer” business. All my knowledge is easily attainable online by anyone and I still manage a profit quite well (and legally, I’d like to add). I believe you that I would be badgered in the future if not answering this question right away, so there ya go…

You didn’t agree with “Indirectly, those sharing sites are creating a need for innovation.” They created a successful ad-based profit model for distributing works. It doesn’t matter if they don’t CARE about what they did. They did it and others can learn from it. They INNOVATED and now the media companies are forced to do their OWN innovations to protect and distribute their own products more effectively. Isn’t there some other company that provides free services and makes profits via ad-based methods?? Hmmm… I can’t think of the name right now, but they’re pretty big…

“R+D is already costly and already employees hundreds of thousands of intelligent workers. Your point ?” –the point is, MORE of that would be better for the economy and the world…

“The average annual spend on lobbying is under $5m
The average annual R+D budget for a good sized electronics company is $ 1.5 billion.
300 times more.”
Yes, lobbying is cheaper than R+D but could potentially yield a similar profit (I don’t know exact numbers). I don’t blame the companies for doing it, their business is to make money. I blame the government for allowing it. I don’t know how much the $5m in lobbying saves them in profit, but I guarantee if the option wasn’t there, they would sink that money into something more useful to society as a whole.

“Please don’t refer to me as a pirate fighting for my right to copy and distribute freely (like you have in past comments)… that would be an assumption…
Rights to copy and freely distribute the creations of another (who has rights) do not exist and they haven’t existed without penalty for over 200 years. if you were actually fighting for your right, you’d be lobbying.”
I said don’t refer to me as that. You’re just stating more things I don’t want you to refer to me as. Come on!

“How is it detrimental to the US and Global economy – you know in reality ? The sites that you think are innovative, don’t create anything and their revenues don’t filter into the economy of the products they pirate. They are pirating everything and creating nothing….how good do you think that is for an economy?”
Government involvement in business is detrimental to the US and Global economy. In this particular scenario the government is aiding a business model with a large FAILING component. Free market solves these problems and fixes them itself. the media companies staying in business is not essential for a good economy, them EVOLVING in order to stay in business, however, IS essential for a good economy. see the difference?