It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites

from the give-'em-an-inch-and-they'll-ask-for-a-foot dept

If we’ve learned one thing in watching the RIAA and the MPAA over the years it’s that nothing will ever be enough for them in their neverending war against providing people what they want. With Friday’s surprise announcement that Google would start filtering searches based on the number of DMCA notices sites got — something both the RIAA and MPAA have been asking for for ages — both organizations made it clear that, while they appreciated this step in the right direction, they wanted more.

First, the RIAA’s statement:


“Today Google has announced a potentially significant change in its search rankings that can make a meaningful difference to creators: sites that are the subject of large numbers of copyright removal notices may be ranked lower in search results than before. This should result in improved rankings for the licensed music services that pay artists and deliver fans the music they love. This change is an important step in the right direction — a step we’ve been urging Google to take for a long time — and we commend the company for its action.

“As Google itself has acknowledged, this is not the only approach, and of course, the details of implementation will matter. Moreover, there are many more actions that we hope Google will take. But by taking this common-sense step and treating copyright in a way that’s consistent with the search firm’s approach to other forms of activity on the Internet, Google has signaled a new willingness to value the rights of creators. That is good news indeed. And the online marketplace for the hundreds of licensed digital services embraced by the music business is better today than it was yesterday.”

And the MPAA’s statement:


“We are optimistic that Google’s actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online, and away from the rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites, and other outlaw enterprises that steal the hard work of creators across the globe. We will be watching this development closely — the devil is always in the details — and look forward to Google taking further steps to ensure that its services favor legitimate businesses and creators, not thieves.”

Google may think that such moves will quiet down the complaints from legacy companies who don’t want to innovate, but they may find that, like feeding trolls, it just brings out even more requests…

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: google, mpaa, riaa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
343 Comments
Nathan Fsays:

Re: Re:

I don’t think even all of the major music labels and movie studios combined have the funds to ‘invest’ in Google to any meaningful amount. To make matters even more fun Google, Facebook et al, are forming up their on PAC and I foresee a lot of political lobbying going on in the coming years.

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Exactly. While the clueless around here like to believe that Google is the little guy, it has a market cap that’s several orders of magnitude larger than the biggest content creators. Seriously. It’s one huge market cap.

So really when Google lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube or when Google blithely links to the pirate sites, it’s the huge bully kicking sand in the face of the little guy.

But no one around here will ever believe that.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Exactly. While the clueless around here like to believe that Google is the little guy, it has a market cap that’s several orders of magnitude larger than the biggest content creators. Seriously. It’s one huge market cap. “

What does that have to do with anything? Google isn’t a content creator. It’s not in the same market as the record labels/Hollywood.

“So really when Google lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube or when Google blithely links to the pirate sites, it’s the huge bully kicking sand in the face of the little guy. “

So even with Google going far and above what the law says they must do…you’re still not happy. They’re still evil. Even though all of this copyright policing costs Google a ton, the RIAA/MPAA are still not happy and will not contribute a single penny towards the cost of policing.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I’m just responding to the point that the content creators don’t have the money to “invest”. They’re too small.”

If by “creators”, you mean individual artists, then you’re (mostly) right.
If you mean the studios (who are actually owners, not creators), then you’re dead wrong, boy.

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Google doesn’t have common carrier status and it doesn’t want it. If anything, Google is trying to claim that their search results are full of their own editorial genius and thus eligible for 1st Amendment protection. In other words, they don’t just connection everyone to everyone, they decide what is best for you.

And if they’re decision is constantly showing piracy then they’re complicit in the same way that a business might be if they were constantly reselling items that “fell off the back of a truck.”

Face it. It’s a RICO suit waiting to happen.

DannyBsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Leave it to you to mischaracterize.

Google’s argument against the ‘SEO’ companies (those who want to manipulate search results, as does the RIAA/MPAA) is that Google’s results are protected by 1st amendment. Although mechanically generated, those search results are why people come to Google — because they value Google’s opinion on what is relevant to what they were searching for.

The ‘mechanically generated’ part means that they do not exercise editorial control. In fact, the lack of editorial control is why people trust Google.

When Google starts exercising editorial control is when they will lose that trust. Look at Bing when it first started. It favored Microsoft and disfavored competitors to Microsoft, even if that was what the user was searching for.

I find it amusing that you (mis) describe Google’s argument for why others should not be able to manipulate its results, as a reason why your dark masters should be able to do so.

Rapnelsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No Bob. We’re the fucking little guy. Got that? Not Google, not the artist and definitely not the MAFIAA folks. Us. You, me and your sister’s nephew’s cousin.

Quite simply – they’re not making readily available the things that are readily available – in a manner consistent with technology.

To hell with ALL the middle men. They’re all a little last decade. Put it up, charge reasonable admission (FROM ANYWHERE, ON ANY PLATFORM, AT ANY TIME) and … profit??

Pirate “sites” are, how do I put this.. obsolete. Not entirely unlike some folks’ thinking on matters of entertainment and educational media.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“While the clueless around here like to believe that Google is the little guy, it has a market cap that’s several orders of magnitude larger than the biggest content creators.”

Studios and labels aren’t “creators”.
They’re “owners”.
Artists are “creators”.
Get your facts straight, boy.

Trollfinder Generalsays:

Re: Re: Re: Next troll please.

So really when Google lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube or when Google blithely links to the pirate sites, it’s the huge bully kicking sand in the face of the little guy.

And like all old bullies, the mafiaa thinks it invented bullying and can scream “prior art!”.

Meet the new bullies – same as the old bullies.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If by ‘content creators’ you mean ‘copyright owners’ which aren’t the same thing thanks to adhesion contracts and copyright law which allow copyrights to be transfered to individuals and corporations who played no part in the creation of the works.

Lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube? ContentID? Maybe you’ve heard of it? I guess not. When it blocks legitimate content created independently on bogus copyright grounds that’s as close as anything gets to ‘kicking sand in the fact of the little guy.’ The little guy being the actual creator, not the groups you mistakenly identify as creators above who are the ones doing the sand kicking.

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

While the clueless around here like to believe that Google is the little guy

Find one person here who thinks Google is the “little guy”. I dare you.

So really when Google lets anyone post pirated stuff on YouTube

You mean the same Google who is so heavy-handed about policing for copyright violation that they take down legitimate content?

Google blithely links to the pirate sites

Please. First, not every agrees as to what a “pirate” site exactly is except for a handful of clear-cut cases. Aside from that, neither Google nor anybody else has figured out an automated way to determine what sites are “pirate” sites or not.

That’s not being “blithe” at all.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I don’t think even all of the major music labels and movie studios combined have the funds to ‘invest’ in Google to any meaningful amount.”

Oh, please.
Disney could easily buy Google, but other studios would cry “foul” (and rightfully so), believing that Disney would skew search results to favor their properties.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually, I would much suspect that is the other way round, that Google could simply buy Disney (and a flock of the other legacy players) and make it the biggest place on the internet for accessing content along with silencing the constant whining of these players. Instead, the giant folds to the smaller guys. Go figure.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Actually, I would much suspect that is the other way round, that Google could simply buy Disney (and a flock of the other legacy players) and make it the biggest place on the internet for accessing content along with silencing the constant whining of these players.”

Really?
They why doesn’t it simply do so and end all this mishigas?

The eejitsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, mostly because it’s not entirely sure how to run a studio or label without biasing its acquired products without someone yelling “Antitrust!!!”?

The fact of the matter is that, were Google to actually turn all its assets into cash, it could buy outright the entirety of the RIAA’s major contributors. From a business perspective, that’s the rational thing to do. However, doing so would in all likelihood destroy its core business: searching the web and displaying rsults in order fo significance.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“The fact of the matter is that, were Google to actually turn all its assets into cash, it could buy outright the entirety of the RIAA’s major contributors.”

And if any one of the RIAA’s major contributors were to “to actually turn all its assets into cash, it could buy Google easily”, boy.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That ship may have sailed, but there’s a difference in buying a ticket as a passenger and owning the ship, captaining it to underdeveloped countries, and enslaving its people.

In the navy of evil, Google occasionally passes on the wrong side or drops a beer can in the water. Disney drops nuclear waste into international waters, blows up oil rigs for fun, and drains the waters from the worlds oceans to fill its private aquariums so it can charge you to look at it.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

At great cost? It sure works well. Every time I look, it seems like YouTube is full of tons of pirated material.

Yeah, but it (ContentID) lets your shadow industries take to task culturally devastating pirates like NASA and ornithologists the world round.

At least Google hired a few humans, which is more than we can say for the former content industries whose automated takedowns illustrate very well the true formula behind their plan for “dealing with piracy”:
Loose content match + hits = Corporate Ownership

Add that now well-known fact of transparent abuse of DoJ connections in the Megaupload case, and we can pretty much go ahead and turn Burbank into a virtual parking lot for independent creators.

Hell, this past weekend my faux news reading brother was bitching about DHS copyright cops and DoJ abuse by the content industries.

In case they don’t already suspect, that’s a very, very gloomy anecdote if you’re a legacy gatekeeper.

Gwizsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

At great cost? It sure works well. Every time I look, it seems like YouTube is full of tons of pirated material.

Once again your lack of knowledge as to what Google actually does is tripping you up bob.

When YouTube’s content ID system finds something it recognizes as copyrighted by a known rights holder it pays the rights holder ad revenue, regardless of who uploaded the video.

So even though you see “tons of pirated material” which may have been uploaded without authorization, YouTube is automagically paying the rights holder for those anyways. This is all above and beyond anything legally required of them.

But, yeah, Google doesn’t do much at all, do they?

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Google might take that step but they don’t because they realize just how preposterous it would make them seem. If anything, the content creators could simply ask that Google treat the YouTube uploaders in the same way and ask them to turn in signed affidavits proving they’re the copyright holder.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

So in other words, screen all user-content.

We’ve already established that something like that simply CANNOT be done. Youtbe gets what? more than 60 hours of content uploaded every minute? Who’s going to check all of that?
You’re seriously arguing for someone to go to a lawyer, pay for an affidavit before speaking online.
No bob. No.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

First of all, it’s not something Google would take as a step it’s something the law already requires but Big Content isn’t actually doing. They’re violating the law as it was written. Second, Google already asks that of content posters.You must digitally sign such a thing every time to post a video.

Try again, bob.

AzureSkysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

bob, you are, without a doubt one of the biggest idiots I have ever come across, and that saying alot, I have worked at computer shops that catered mostly to mac users…..

google bought motorola because it was for sale, the wanted a way to make their own handsets since HTC nolonger is making handsets for 3rd parties.

motorola as a company is crap, they do not update their phones properly(support on many of their android phones was 1-2 updates then abandoned.)

they are patent trolls(something your in favor of)

the way I and many others see it, google should have taken direct control of motorola operations and forced them to stop the patent nonsense as well as forcing them to properly update their devices, they however didnt do that and instead let motorola keep running itself into the ground….

I hope this leads to google producing their own line of android devices to show most other makers how it should be done!!!

Nathan Fsays:

” But by taking this common-sense step and treating copyright in a way that’s consistent with the search firm’s approach to other forms of activity on the Internet, Google has signaled a new willingness to value the rights of creators.”

Google has already been taking a “common sense” and “consistent with other forms of activity on the Internet”, if a search term is being used more often by users then Google tends to push it to the top. If you want your result to always be displayed at the top of the results you can take out an advertisement slot for a sponsored link.

PaulTsays:

“Moreover, there are many more actions that we hope Google will take”

Such as? Seriously, what can Google do that the RIAA can’t do more effectively in the first place? Hiding “pirate” sites doesn’t do a damn thing to stop them. They can completely delist every site that even mentions MP3s and free downloads, and that wouldn’t suddenly stop piracy. If the legal options remain restricted, overpriced and poor quality, what exactly can Google do?

“We are optimistic that Google’s actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online”

You’d have to allow them to be offered to the majority of the online population to begin with, morons. Then stop trying to make them a 3rd tier quality solution in terms of the catalogue size and other aspects. Maybe then people will start using them instead of looking for better alternatives. As it stands, the legitimate ways to access content are either crap or completely unavailable, and that’s by your design.

bobsays:

Re: Re:

Then why is Google so devoted to defending these pirate sites? They blacklist sites all of the time when it suits their needs. They have no trouble blacklisting innovative sites that hurt their bottom line. So why are they so devoted to these scuzzball sites that add nothing to society but bleed the content creators dry?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The answer to that was ad revenue and boosting the overall popularity of their brand. Now they want to become content distributors and ultimately produce original content themselves. This is the price of admission. Google does what’s good for Google. They’ve done the math and determined that what’s good for Google is becoming a player in content delivery and ultimately creation. Does anything think they care who they have to shit on to do this?

Robertsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

That’s right Bob, your company is laying off 800 000 people per year, based upon the upper echelon from a 1986 counterfeit worse-case estimate report applied to the entire US economy (which was not a per-year number).

Gotta love how your bosses get their information, distort it and pump it like it was the truth.

Hell, we should stop death because what will florists do? If no one dies then florists will be out of money. Just like they are used in the numbers, along with caterers, when Hollywood claims jobs would be lost.

Because we all know caterers only cater to Hollywood studios, no one else, no other companies. Just like florists only cater to funerals.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

You will just twist anything to suit your insane agenda won’t you? Get it through your thick, Luddite skull: Motorola’s phone business has been unprofitable for 14 of the last 16 quarters and lost $233 million in its first six weeks under Google. They weren’t a profitable company before, they need to be restructured. They did it the right way but starting at the top and working their way down.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Neither is Google. All Google employees are safe and working. The ones who are being laid off are Motorola employees. Which is because Motorola has really dropped the ball as far as making smartphones goes, and now they’re going to restructure and cut back and focus on making quality products.

This happens with any and all businesses. But because Google owns Motorola (mainly for patent reasons) you’re barking up a storm trying to make it into something bigger and more sinister.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hold on, so if you assert that google is failing so badly that they’re laying thousands of people off, how can you also assert that they’re making massive profits from piracy? It can’t be both.

Even though you’re mistaken about your argument when facts are presented (as always – see the comments above mine), it’s not even logically consistant with your other claims.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Then why is Google so devoted to defending these pirate sites?”

Citation needed, your usual conspiracy theories don’t count.

“They blacklist sites all of the time when it suits their needs.”

Delisting or downgrading a site that’s abusing either their own algorithms or ad system is slightly different from acting as a police force when their search results are inconvenient to another’s business model, don’t you think?

“They have no trouble blacklisting innovative sites that hurt their bottom line.”

Citation needed.

“So why are they so devoted to these scuzzball sites that add nothing to society but bleed the content creators dry?”

They’re not. Why are you so devoted to the scuzzball corporations who would rather destroy free speech and useful technology than accept that 1992 business models don’t work in 2012?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

” Hiding “pirate” sites doesn’t do a damn thing to stop them”

Paul, you are the master of ignorant, short term thinking. As always, you have your nose pressed firmly into Mike’s ass, to the point that you can’t see a thing past his virtual cheeks.

Plain and simple, if consumers are presented with two options (pirate and non-pirate), they may choose either one. Presented with more of one choice than the other, they are more likely to choose that over the other.

The widespread “acceptance” of piracy is in part built on ubiquity – there are plenty of indications out there that people “trust” Google, and if they think piracy is okay, then this must be the acceptable way to get this content.

No, Google’s change won’t STOP piracy. It will however have an influence in changing the views on piracy, and changing the number of “undecided” consumers who have been guided to piracy in the past courtesy of Google.

Don’t think of it has trying to slam a door shut. Think of it more as the campaign against smoking. It’s taken a long time to get to the current results, and still, there are people willing to kill themselves for a smoke. No, piracy won’t go away… but changing public acceptance of it is the point.

Perhaps you need to get out and think for yourself for a while. Does being locked up in Spain screw you up that bad?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“if consumers are presented with two options (pirate and non-pirate), they may choose either one. Presented with more of one choice than the other, they are more likely to choose that over the other.”

Wrong, boy.

If offered five “legitmate” choices that take six steps each and result in poor quality
or
a so-called “non-legitimate” choice that takes two clicks and a vastly-superior product
guess which one they’ll pick, even if the so-called “non-legit” one costs more?

Quality counts.
Provide it and we’ll buy it.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You’re assuming without any cause at all that the reason consumers choose one source of content over another is based on how much of each choice is presented instead of the differences between the choices. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

You’re also assuming without cause that the cause of some significant portion of copyright infringement is some kind of metaphorical stamp of approval from Google. That also doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

And you continue to ignore the main reason individuals resort to copyright infringement in the first place. Just to refresh your memory they are: Ease of Use, Quality of Service, and Availability. When legit sources compete on those three points they usually do quite well (unless big content prices them out of the market with stifling licensing costs that is).

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“You’re also assuming without cause that the cause of some significant portion of copyright infringement is some kind of metaphorical stamp of approval from Google. That also doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”

If I am your average informed surfer, and I want a copy of Cars2, and I am willing to pay – but the first 20 links all take me to free downloads, perhaps I am going to take the free download just to see. Right there, Google has cause some portion of the population to move from paying customer to piracy. I don’t think it’s their intention, but more and more it’s becoming clear that this is what happens.

Pirates will be pirates. Smokers will be smokers. You don’t think the smoking rate would be higher if it was glorified, and we essentially stuck a pack in ever teenagers hand and lit the first one for them? Oh wait, that’s what the 30s, 40s, and 50s looked like. See what happened? When we stopped glorifying it, and started pointing out the ill in it, things changed. It might take a couple of more generations, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see smokers as rare as can be within my lifetime.

Changing piracy from easy and glorious to harder work and grubby may change the way SOME people look at it. Will it be a trend?

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

You’re comparing the scientifically proven health hazards of smoking…to Google supposedly glorifying copyright infringement?

You’ve lost the argument.

“Changing piracy from easy and glorious to harder work and grubby may change the way SOME people look at it. Will it be a trend?”

The only way that can truly happen is if all computers and computer like devices are extremely locked down, user content generated sites don’t exist, and as bob suggested, you have to get an affidavit to post a video online. That is why I am against copyright, because the cost of enforcing it would damage society far more than the trumped up harm parroted by the copyright cartel.

RadialSkidsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

but the first 20 links all take me to free downloads, perhaps I am going to take the free download just to see. Right there, Google has cause some portion of the population to move from paying customer to piracy.

You’re aware the ranks are based on popularity, right? The pirate sites aren’t listed at the top because Google puts them there, they’re listed at the top because they’re what people want.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

“If I am your average informed surfer, and I want a copy of Cars2, and I am willing to pay – but the first 20 links all take me to free downloads, perhaps I am going to take the free download just to see”

You’re missing the reality of the situation, of course, but god forbid you should base your arguments on that. Reality is too complex for your ilk.

Go on, try a tiny piece of research before typing for once, and you’ll see. Search in Google for Cars 2. Go on. What do you see? No illicit downloads are there? There’s trailers, copies of the DVD and Blu Ray, iTunes downloads, official merchandise, the video game, even other companies unrelated to the movie that happen to have those characters as part of their name. I just tried, and I don’t see any illegal downloads in the first 10 pages. The very first result is Disney’s official movie site.

You won’t see easy links to pirate downloads until you start modifying the search to include them. Do you see the problem now? People aren’t suddenly downloading movies for free because Google tell them to – Google is telling them that they exist AFTER they start looking for them. At that point, Google simply returns the most relevant sites for their search – they aren’t instigating the search itself.

There’s your problem. Instead of finding why people are searching for the illegal downloads, or offering additional ways for them to obtain the movie legally, you wish to make Google’s search results less relevant and try to trick them into consuming the content in the way you want them to. That’s just not going to work until you address why they’re looking for alternatives in the first place. That, of course, would involve something other than scapegoating a 3rd party and might even involve real work as well as addressing the reality of the marketplace, so no surprise you won’t do that.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The only explanation is because Google is the biggest player. They seem to have real tunnel vision when dealing with this kind of issue, and they presume that if they remove the biggest player that they can perceive, then the problem will go away. That’s why they keep playing whack-a-mole – if only they can get rid of Napster/Limewire/Kazaa/Suprnova/Mininova/Pirate Bay/whatever then piracy will also go away. If only they can control Google, then people won’t be able to find the pirate sites…

Of course, they miss the fact that there’s serious underlying problems that lead to infringement in the first place. People don’t pirate just due to convenience (although that’s part of it, and something they could offer if they chose to). If they manage to get Google to play their game, they’ll just find another scapegoat when that fails to reduce piracy in any meaningful way, and the game will continue.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let’s take a look at those 20 first links shall we?

disney.go.com/cars/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216475/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cars_2

pixar.wikia.com/Cars_2
trailers.apple.com/trailers/disney/cars2/
http://www.amazon.com/Cars-2/dp/B001HN6922
http://www.disney.co.uk/cars/

http://www.facebook.com/PixarCars
movies.yahoo.com/movie/cars-2/
http://www.moviefone.com/movie/cars-2/33555/main
http://www.fandango.com/cars2_119583/movieoverview

Now what do you see when you look at these? Not a single pirate site and not a single legal site. The downranking of dmca’d sites might be in effect but why the hell is there not a single site I can go to and buy the movie from? -.-

Untill there is the mpaa has no right to complain about piracy.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Making piracy harder to do–if that’s what Google pushing down some search results actually does, which is far from proven–might reduce piracy.

But unless there are legitimate offerings that are as fast, easy, and simple to use, they won’t increase use of legitimate sources. Because you know what else piracy is? A remarkable laboratory for content delivery. The sites that make it onto the MPAA & RIAA’s myopic radar are the ones that have risen to the top of an enormous stack because they have the best interface or the widest selection.

Absolutely nobody cares whether an artist is signed to one major label over another. We just want to be able to easily find the music we want. Same with movies and studios, or TV shows and networks. If we have to jump from one service to another to another to yet another for the same media, just because none of the rightsholders will give up an iota of control for the chance of actually getting a sustainable customer base, we’ll give up and find what we want on a convenient torrent site.

But that’s not even the real horror scenario for you lot. For that, ask your local phone company how many twentysomethings–not living with mom & dad–pay for landlines. The only thing I watch on TV anymore is sports, and all the games I care about are also streamed on the web. That means no cable bill for me, either. So what do I do for my entertainment? Games, mostly. Steam, you see, makes it easy to get what I want, when I want it. So much so, in fact, that I’ve hardly gotten time to play half of my Steam library.

So you can take your movies, and your music, and your TV shows, and follow the landlines and buggywhips into oblivion, while I play my war-themed hat simulators. Or you can quit whining and actually compete for our precious ears and eyeballs. The choice is yours.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Paul, you are the master of ignorant, short term thinking. As always, you have your nose pressed firmly into Mike’s ass, to the point that you can’t see a thing past his virtual cheeks.”

Wow, direct with the attacks and an irrelevant attack on Mike to top it off. Sorry, dumbass, I’m quite capable of formulating my own opinion. Why not try addressing that rather than your usual ad hominems and lies?

As for short-term thinking? No, I’m just repeating the same argument I’ve been making for the last decade and a half while you assholes have failed so miserably at even reducing overall piracy rates. If only you’re get it through your thick skulls that you have to address the demand end of the curve before you attack the supply….

“No, Google’s change won’t STOP piracy. It will however have an influence in changing the views on piracy, and changing the number of “undecided” consumers who have been guided to piracy in the past courtesy of Google.”

Yes, because nobody thinks anything without Google telling them to. Is this really what you believe? That nobody would find The Pirate Bay if Google didn’t tell them it existed? That piracy only happens because of search engine results? How stupid are you?

“No, Google’s change won’t STOP piracy. It will however have an influence in changing the views on piracy, and changing the number of “undecided” consumers who have been guided to piracy in the past courtesy of Google.”

Piracy existed decades before Google existed, and will exist decades afterwards. The only way to reduce it is to offer people acceptable legal solutions. If you’re convinced that all modern piracy has something to do with Google, you’re as stupid as you are arrogant, which is not something to be proud of.

“Perhaps you need to get out and think for yourself for a while. Does being locked up in Spain screw you up that bad?”

I do get frustrated at people like you lying about me and others instead of offering legal solutions to the 60 million people who live here without any such options. I only tell you what reality’s like. But you are a total idiot who can’t listen to any sort of fact not paid for by some corporation, and apparently a xenophobic one at that. What difference does it matter what patch of dirt I reside on? My arguments have been exactly the same in the past when I’ve lived in other countries.

Try laying off the personal attacks and listen to reality. It will help you stop failing miserably at every argument you attempt.

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It will however have an influence in changing the views on piracy, and changing the number of “undecided” consumers who have been guided to piracy in the past courtesy of Google.

Pure speculation. My opinion is different — I don’t think it would affect piracy rates one bit.

The biggest factor in making piracy seem OK to the average person is the MPAA, RIAA, etc., themselves more than Google.

These groups are widely perceived as being (to use the parlance) evil. Although it’s not correct, a huge percentage of people justify piracy by the “two wrongs make a right” argument.

Another huge percentage of people justify piracy because they have a choice between piracy or not being able to access the content in a manner that is remotely useful to them. Again, this is not ethically correct, but the thinking is that even if they don’t pirate, they’re still not going to buy the movie (or whatever) because there is no acceptable alternative.

If the industry actually addressed just those two points (i.e., if they stopped being evil and they started making the content widely available in a convenient manner), piracy rates would plummet.

JMTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“The widespread “acceptance” of piracy is in part built on ubiquity…”

I would strongly argue that the ubiquity of piracy is in part built on widespread “acceptance”.

People have realised the artificial limitations are no longer in place, and have defaulted back to mankind’s millennia-old position on sharing culture.

Robertsays:

DMCA abuse

How about lowering the rankings of sites who abuse the DMCA – almost everyone has a site these days, that is, everyone issuing DMCA takedowns. So if you submit too many takedowns, your own site gets a lower ranking.

That way when people search for RIAA/MPAA/CRIA/IFPI/etc.. they’ll find articles exposing them for their true nature first.

If you’re going to lower rankings of sites receiving lots of DMCA’s, you clearly know who’s sending them, so lower their own site rankings if they are abusing/trolling with DMCA’s.

Can we add a new term? Takedown Troll?

bobsays:

Re: Re: DMCA abuse

Sure. I’m fine with that too. Do you really think there’s much abuse? The last time I spoke with folks from Google, they bragged about taking down millions of pages a day from DMCA requests. Yet they could only point to a few difficult edge cases.

DMCA abuse is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of valid DMCA requests.

Not that you want to hear this.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse

“DMCA abuse is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of valid DMCA requests. “

Yeah, I don’t get that. It’s like Nuclear bombs. One nuclear bomb is just a tiny, tiny fraction of a country’s arsenal, and yet, people get all anal when, say, North Korea threatens to use one.

/end sarcasm

One erroneous DMCA takedown can do a lot more damage than 1000 pirate sites.

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse

What planet are you living on. Many pirate sites distribute thousands if not millions of copies. Filing a counter-DMCA notice is just as difficult as filing the original DMCA notice. If a takedown is wrong, a site/link can be back online in minutes.

(And I’m sure that Google is aching to have more examples of these.)

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse

” Filing a counter-DMCA notice is just as difficult as filing the original DMCA notice.”

Uh…no, its not. To file a counter-DMCA notice (especially on Youtube) you have to be willing to fight it in court. Very few people wish to do that, because the people filing the original DMCA notices have more or less unlimited legal funds to draw upon. Famous artist Dan Bull released a video explaining just that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-pT1CMy0EU&list=UU1hkAIJnb2CSmm7SPJaPR-A&index=4&feature=plcp

The eejitsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse

no, there is a one-to-many relationship between a file and torrenting. One set of bits goes to many people, who receive another set of bits, until the file is completed.

Moreover, you forgot that part where, in the counter-notice, you accept liability and open yourself to lawsuits. If that isn’t an effect designed to reduce counter-notices, I don’t know what is.

Ninjasays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse

Your world is quite fantastic. Do you have ponies there? It takes some basic searching to find quite a few examples on how it’s amazingly hard to counter a dmca notice and how it can take weeks to get stuff back online (unless there’s public outcry). Sometimes it takes months as we’ve seen from dajaz1 case.

Oh bobby, you are still our favorite moron even though you are a moron 😉

Robertsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse

How very anecdotal of you, have you any data to back up the “millions” of takedowns?

A few difficult edge cases? I’ve heard a lot more than a few just with YouTube alone. I wouldn’t call a label taking down a band’s own video a “difficult case” as in the case of Roger O’Donnell. His solo work isn’t even massively popular but his label issued a DMCA takedown, meanwhile it was HIM uploading HIS song on HIS YouTube channel.

Right, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of valid DMCA requests.

Here’s Google’s take on that which counter’s your claims:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2033134126.shtml

Oh right, it’s from TechDirt, so how about Google themselves?
http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/feature/93FEDCEF6636CF90CC25757A0072B4B7
(since I doubt you’ll follow the links provided by TechDirt).

Here’s the actual numbers since 2011:
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/

*NOTE: Letters, faxes, YouTube, not included! What was the most common form of contact from lawyers to accused infringers? Electronic? No, letter!

So even this data is incomplete.

However here’s a nice report for you, refer to Figure ES-4

Examining the characteristics of the targets of the notices?the alleged infringers?we found that 41% of all Google notice targets can be classed as competitors of the complainants. Fig. ES-4. This is particularly significant for Google 512(d) complaints regarding links in the index, where 55% of all notices relate to competitors. A significant percentage of the 512(c) and (d) notices sent to Google?21%?target hobbyists, critics, and educational users.

So the majority of the DMCA’s have been against competitors.

And even more interesting:

A surprising thirty percent of the notices present claims that fall into this category.10 As a rule of thumb, we tried to capture notices where a genuine dispute related to copyright infringement or defenses would clearly arise. Examples range from the clearly problematic?for example, recipes, prices and metatag information, which are unlikely to be covered by copyright?to instances of very thin copyright claims, such as website HTML ?structure.? We also included notices where the target was likely to have a fair use defense. A much smaller number of notices in this category were counted due to other substantive concerns, such as questions regarding the ownership of the copyright in question: for example, a small number of notices appear to be sent not by the copyright holder or a representative, but by a party with some other interest in the material, such as the subject of a photograph. Among notices sent to Google, at least one type of flaw was apparent in 220 notices, or 30% of the Google set. Among the self-reported notices, 43, or, again, 30%, had at least one flaw.

In other words Bob, your data is not as simplistic as you, or the RIAA/MPAA/David Lowery/etc… would have it be.

Happy reading!

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA abuse

“The last time I spoke with folks from Google, they bragged about taking down millions of pages a day from DMCA requests.”

bob, you’re full of shit. If you’ve EVER spoken with any folk from Google, then I’m actually a well known author with a vast amount of best sellers under my belt. (Hint: I’m not.)

Mr. Smarta**says:

Giving it up

“Google has announced that further steps were taken by handing over the entire company to the RIAA and the MPAA. The two will now be taking over the entire company along with all assets and complete control. From here on out, the RIAA and MPAA now fully own, operate, and control the company.”

“While this may sound like a lot, the two expect Google and its employees to go a step even further to combat piracy by handing over their homes, bank accounts, fillings from their teeth, hard drives, laptops, electronic equipment, video game consoles, cars, SUVs, farm animals, donkeys, shaved yaks, farming equipment, CDs, phonographs, wheel barrows, wives, husbands, children, furniture, organs, and anything else the two organizations deem necessary to combat piracy.”

Yeah…

Dark Helmetsays:

Creating Bigger Pirate Sites

“With Friday’s surprise announcement that Google would start filtering searches based on the number of DMCA notices sites got — something both the RIAA and MPAA have been asking for for ages — both organizations made it clear that, while they appreciated this step in the right direction, they wanted more.”

I can’t believe they haven’t thought of the unintended consequences of a move like this. All this influencing of searches is going to do is make the already most-popular torrent sites even MORE popular. You’re no longer going to search Google for what you want, you’re going to search your torrent site of choice. This will create a few big players, who will only gain more power and influence. Those sites will then be even more difficult to deal with than they are now….

DannyBsays:

A modest proposal

Google downranking sites with too many “valid” DMCA notices is a fantastic idea! We must protect valuable IP. Here is my proposal.

Google should not just downrank them, but really seriously downrank them practically into non-existence. Now if you search for something like the name of a song or movie, the authorized versions would appear at the top of the very first page. Yea!

The non-authorized versions would appear at the bottom of the very last page. Just click the “last” page button to get to the end of the list of 158,390,194 zillion search results. As you can see, by downranking the non-authorized sites, they will become impossible to find. 🙂

Problem solved. Everyone happy.

Robertsays:

Licensed...

” improved rankings for the licensed music services that pay artists and deliver fans the music they love.”

Too bad those services are ranked lower than pirate sites because pirate sites work better, maybe? Yah think?

Do pirate sites include region locking? Nope.

Do pirate sites display “We’re sorry, this video is not available in your region”? Nope.

Do pirate sites make it easy to access content, anywhere, any type? Yup.

Will the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/Etc… ever clue in and give consumers what they want? Nope.

Hey RIAA/MPAA, you’ve heard of wheels on mice right? Know what they are for? Scrolling over things, especially non-consumer friendly services. (Trolls: that does NOT necessarily mean “free”, it means free of restrictions on use).

Sonjasays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Licensed...

Really? I think his points are still valid. Why do I have to jump through hoops to get them to take my money. Its nice within the US bubble, not so nice outside, especially if you are in an insignificant country. But alas. I have to admit that I am finding very good indie people to support lately which I might not otherwise have looked for. Indie people 1. Archaic content creators 0

Rapnelsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Licensed...

Stop completely missing and misconstruing the point.

Apple and Amazon both suck – they’re band-aids, stop-gaps and “this will do – this is all we can do” distribution. They’re just another brand for sale accompanied and encumbered by the same old restriction sets with the same catalogs licensed from the same people for the same, approximate, costs. Yeah, sure, we win.(/s)

They’re squeezing the teet and, yet, there is no more milk that’s going to come out of it – cow is dead.

I wonder what the future holds.

In other words – the only “casualty” from Google’s actions are those having their legit shit squashed. (Gee, I wonder who cares)

Google is just an index – filter it however you please – any way you can – put alll the good shit up top. So.. what now?

Robertsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Licensed...

Well Bob, perhaps if in 2003/4 when I WANTED to purchase what I WANTED (ie song not album) where was iTunes for me then? Oh right, only in USA, not in Canada, right across the f–king border buddy, we’ve even had Free Trade and yet they can’t negotiate a fair license?

When music from the US is labeled “import” and charged 1.5-2x the regular price, I call bullshit price fixed cash grab.

So sorry, there ARE restrictions up the ying-yang and there will be with “licensed” services until the labels/studios get it through their heads that people will pay when it works, no restrictions, no price differences.

AdamBv1says:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Licensed...

Actually, both Apple and Amazon sell nice versions with few restrictions if any. So your claim is moot. You can now start paying for things again through them instead of holding up this long false argument.

Yeah, try again.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/download/ref=atv_sr_download2

“Download to a Windows PC

Install the Amazon Unbox Video Player to download movies and TV shows to your PC. Then you can watch your videos on the go–whether you’re online or not.”

So in other words I have to use either their crappy streaming service or their crappy video player to watch a movie. Plus it only works on Windows so Linux, Android and Mac are out in the cold. How on earth can you actually say that right there is “few restrictions”?

Until I can download a DRM free copy that will work in any media player on any OS I want then there is no reason I should give them my money. I’m not paying for a crippled product.

Rapnelsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

translated:
six strikes : anonymous encapsulation
payment processor industry agreement = wait, people payed?
ad network best practices : click and win?
burial at sea : we never saw the body
judicial oversight : sovereign immunity

Nobody has lost anything of any consequence.
And the only thing missing is your boat.

Is it just me or have you completely over-fucking-looked just who is doing the fucking sniveling?

bratwurztsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

DNS? Surely you mean series of tubes (and not a truck). If you don’t understand – these tubes can be filled and when they do, your messages will have to wait in line. DNS blocking would solve that waiting like Homeland Security solved US, well, homeland security! And why not mess with the Internet – it is property od USA! (Al Gore made it by himself.)

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“added components of due process”

Uh, no. If you’re talking about SOPA, that bill was all about AVOIDING due process. It was all about a site receiving multiple accusations (not convictions) of copyright infringement, and then being blacklisted from payment processors. And all without a way of fighting back.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That is simply untrue, but not surprising that you parrot it that way. My biggest beef with the opposition is that they lied about what the bill said and stooges like you accepted it and never actually read the bill themselves. Any sanction (such as severing from payment processors) was entitled to judicial review and could ONLY be ordered by a court. An accused rogue website operator had the same rights under the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure as any other litigant.

READ THE FUCKING BILL!!!!!!!! It’s all in there.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well this is what YOU GET FOR LYING ABOUT ALL THE FUCKING BILLS ANYWAY… WRITE THE BILL EXACTLY AS INTENDED, INSTEAD OF YOUR BULLSHIT WEASEL WORDS and then maybe we will FUCKING LISTEN…. YOU DONT GET TO SCREAM that anyone played unfair when you are the ones doing it bigger and more than anyone else… you lost a round (which should tell you your ideas where SO OUT OF FUCKING PLACE that nobody would support you, even if the truth was stretched)

STOP FUCKING BITCHING

Rapnelsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Riiight.

“got this instead”… that’s kind of the point. nobody is actually “getting” anything. Certainly not who you think will get something. They’ve achieved enough getting something for nothing for quite some time now don’t you think?

Everything they’re doing, apart from actually making media, is imposing they’re outdated will on said media. Not gonna work anymore. Technology has rendered such an attempt as untenable. What once was hidden is now seen.

I’m a pirate apologist because pirates do it better. The way you appear to prefer these things get done is to subscribe/submit/remit to “Copyright Authority” a.k.a. cunts anonymous.

How about some authorization? Seems a bit overdue.

Keroberossays:

We are optimistic that Google’s actions will help steer consumers to the myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online, and away from the rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites, and other outlaw enterprises that steal the hard work of creators across the globe.

This is their problem right here. They already think that there are “myriad legitimate ways for them to access movies and TV shows online“. There isn’t. You can’t just go to Hulu or Netflix and watch any movie or TV show you want when you want, they don’t have them all, or they are region restricted or windowed. Until this happens the “rogue cyberlockers, peer-to-peer sites, and other outlaw enterprises” will always provide the better service.

bobsays:

Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Mr. Masnick doesn’t want to talk about solutions– his only solution is to let Big Search do whatever it wants. If a clever web site comes up with a neat, new DRM solution, that’s always horrible because it cuts Big Search out of the loop. DRM is never considered “innovation” even though it takes much more sophisticated science than the repurposed FTP servers run by Techdirt heroes like Megaupload.

And don’t waste your breath arguing. In other contexts, Masnick and Co. love to slag off Hollywood for producing too many big budget movies that play to the crowds by giving them exactly what they want. Hollywood is rarely right — unless it’s the part of Hollywood where Kevin Smith runs his paywall.

Remember that Mr. Masnick is just part of Big Search’s astroturfing corp. I’m waiting to see if he comes clean when Google has to report their paid blogging staff to the Judge in the Oracle/Google case.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

“And don’t waste your breath arguing.”
In other words, you’ve already made up your mind, and no matter how evidence anyone shows you to the contrary, you’re going to stick to your beliefs.

It’s not enough in 2012 to make a movie that people want. You ALSO have to deliver it in the way people want. Hollywood could release the greatest movie of all time, one perfect in every way, but it would still be hampered by being forced to be in the cinema first, then a delay before home video release. And don’t get started on online availability – if you’re not in the right country, then too bad.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

I’m here, credit card in hand, wanting to pay for at the very least a stream if not a downloadable copy of Dark Knight Rises…and for some reason, you have the balls to call me out for feeling like I am entitled?

That comment you just put up proves everything Mike says. Here I am, a customer willing to pay, and you DON’T want to fulfill that demand?

Lowestofthekeyssays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

All right then, Hollywood can wait to get my money.

In the mean time, since I don’t wish to waste my hard earned cash on crappy music or movies, I’ll try out the media through torrents, and if I like it enough, I’ll buy it off of itunes or purchase the DVD.

silverscarcatsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

“Tough titty. Wait, you’ll live. It’s just entertainment asshole not a blood transfusion.”

And thus, you prove WHY piracy continues to exist.

Guess what?

The people paying for the entertainment also pay the bills for those who make the entertainment.

If they don’t want to make it available…

Well, then they don’t need my money, do they?

JMTsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

This comment is proof that your argument has nothing to do with making money or being financially successful. To you it’s all about the control and your obsessive need for it. Given the choice between receiving money (profit!) or making people wait (no profit!), you choose the path of stupidity. If the company I work for repeatedly made the same brainless choice it’d be dead in months.

Rapnelsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Hm. I actually like this question. It indicates quite clearly that not only are folks petulant on “both” sides but one side, exporters, are only interested in making money their way. They’re implying that they have every right in the universe to “do things their way”. Fact is, they do and they do. The other fact is they seem to be the only ones that like it. Heat and pressure.

Once you can get out of your silly little heads that control is not, any longer, where the good money is then I think we’ll be on a better path towards mutual satisfaction.

Set the bar lower, not higher. Be your own partner for once and perhaps you can learn to please yourself on the path to discovering how to please others.

The eejitsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

I’m here, with payment ready and available, for the entire The Booth at the End series. the entire Nickolodeon Avatar franchise and the entirety of a numb er of animated series.

Which aren’t available due to geo-locational bullshit. I can’t watch two of ym favourite shows without resorting to things that are apparently criminal offences, because these things are not evailable due to geo-locational bullshit (for reference, the Daily Show and the Colkbert Report).

So, remind me again how I’m supposed to get these programmes legitimately?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Maybe you can’t. Too bad. Watch Benny Hill run around slapping Jackie on his bald head instead. It’s not my fault your country produces dogshit no one wants to see. And it doesn’t entitle you to illegally obtain the creative output of another country just because you want it.

Robertsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Steal any Korean or Japanese films lately there USA?

What you said has nothing to do with quality and if you were running a store you’d be losing customers.

What you totally miss is these people are PAYING customers who WANT to buy (ad supported or actually pay for it at a reasonable price), but your country’s infinite wisdom prevents people from legally accessing it. So you try to stop them rather than provide an affordable means to do so.

Way to alienate too, you MUST be a douche at Hollywood.

I’ve got news for you, just because you have more TnA and explosions than anyone else (not just your military attacking countries for corporate control)does NOT mean you get to police the world.

You sir, and the way your laws are written, are a prime example of ignorance and stupidity.

I would NOT generalize all US citizens to be like you, just the ones who work for entertainment industry lobby groups, some corporate execs, and a large number of your Members of Congress.

And let’s not forget the UK’s influence on US culture!

Lowestofthekeyssays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

“Sometimes it’s legit, sometimes I think it is to provide evidence of their so-called “independence” from their paymaster, but it is not uncommon.”

“sometimes I think it is to provide evidence of their so-called “independence” from their paymaster.”

I think

He’s not lacking a chromosome, he is just confused, like the majority of us, that you would represent your opinion as a fact about Google.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Uh, yes I’m sure. I’ve looked in a mirror recently. In case you don’t know, Down’s Syndrome people have very distinctive facial features, which I lack.
Oh, and I’m not in the UK. Close though.

So, wanna try again at hurling an insult my way that actually works and makes sense?

Robertsays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Wrong analogy, are you restricted against buying fireworks in another state and bringing them to your own? Are they 3x the price in your state compared to other states?

Were those fireworks locked up because they could not negotiate an extortive price or was it for safety reasons?

When you go to another state or town to buy them, does your own state come after you and arrest you? When you drink in another town, does the dry town police come after you and charge you?

No, again, wrong analogy.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Actually, you can’t bring fireworks into the state- they are illegal to possess, but they’re perfectly legal across the state line a half hour away. And, though not in my state there are other states that stake out wholesale liquor/tobacco shops near their (higher state tax) border and follow them back into their home state and arrest them for importing more than the legal amount. So it’s close enough dipshit. The point which raced right past you is that I’m not entitled. If I can’t get something I want, when I want it I substitute or do without. You really should look at your sense of entitlement and fixation on US entertainment. It can’t be healthy. Fortunately for you, I believe your country has socialized medicine and you can probably get needed psychiatric treatment for free.

bratwurztsays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

You are comparing tangible goods with untangibles? And dangerous fireworks with copyright infingements?

And can’t you be more civil? All of your dipshits and dogshits… you do love your shit.

Let me introduce you to Reality – what Hollywood produces lately is not what we PIRATES (Argh!!!) download. We find quality content through other means and I surely wouldn’t waste my bandwidth (hint, it’s broadband in real sense of the word, not “broadband” you have in US, so yeah, I can only waste time) on some hollywood remake of some shitty remake of some dudes getting drunk.

The only entitlement is coming from industry of middlemen. Come on – in US you made “taking a cut that’s bigger than cake” into an art form.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Hollywood movies are the most pirated because people are tired of wasting their money on crap.

Hollywood continues to lose favor with their consumer, which is not dependent on what the consumer does, but what Hollywood does to bring the consumer in.

bratwurztsays:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

You see – I’m not stealing – I am copying. It is hard to get that through your skull, I know, but bear with me while I try to explain astrophysics of sharing:
1. I find something I like
2. I share it

You see – education is not a democracy. Ideas that are most popular are not necessarily the best. So just because some stupid Hangover movie is most downloaded movie – that does not make it the best. Most of these movies suck hairy balls of ebola infested monkeys. Now THAT is pretty pathetic.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Clap clap clap.

No, wait, I shouldn’t be congratulating you. What you just said is completely retarded, and I would say is more indicative of what a Down’s Syndrome person would say if I didn’t actually have Down’s Syndrome friends & relatives and didn’t want to inadvertently insult them.

The reason the sale of fireworks and alcohol is restricted in certain US states is because they are DANGEROUS. Physically dangerous, as in, if you misuse fireworks or alcohol, you could end up hurting or killing someone.

You just spewed that out without thinking through it.

Dumbass.

Lowestofthekeyssays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

You’re completely missing the point. For example, some states repealed blue law to satisfy consumer want and boost the economy (http://www.cnbc.com/id/39404735/States_and_Cities_New_Stimulus_Strategy_Booze_Sales).

Hollywood has the opportunity to do the same things and they won’t do it.

That’s stupidity and bad for business when you can take advantage of a bigger market and won’t. For the fact that you support that, makes you an idiot.

Togashisays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

No, nobody in your home state can sell fireworks. You’ve been to towns where they can’t sell you a drink. There is an important difference.

If the (MP|RI)AA were forbidden by law to sell to people outside of the US, you would have a point. Instead, you have people coming up to them on the internet, where it is perfectly legal to sell their goods and physical location does not matter for distribution, and being turned away.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

You miss my point entirely. I note that for WHATEVER reason a product is unavailable to me at a given time and place. My response is to do without or substitute. Your response is to say that unavailability is an excuse to obtain the product illegally. That is called entitlement.

Ninjasays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Holy crap you are one hardcore troll. Congratulations.

Comparing items forbidden by law with creative content is by far the dumbest analogy I’ve seen.

It’s not called entitlement. Entitlement is what the copyright industry feels when they put artificial barriers around their content. And frankly, I’m glad there are ways to destroy those barriers that end up harming many artists and creators, depriving the public of the ability to enjoy their productions.

It’s comparable (in a much, much smaller scale) to medicine. There are artificial barriers and overpricing issues that made the Governments revoke the patents in many places around the world. Sure entertainment content isn’t nearly as vital but if you put artifical barriers around content ppl want, they will break those barriers down.

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

“Your response is to say that unavailability is an excuse to obtain the product illegally”
Not an excuse, a reason why some people do it. Especially given that the legal alternative may a) never be available and b) may be a worse product due to DRM or similar restrictions.
I note you’re still unwilling to consider why depriving your potential customers might be a bad business model in the first place?

Togashisays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Wow, where did I ever say that piracy is OK? All I said is that your example was completely bass ackwards.

If I had fireworks, and someone came up to me to buy them, I could not sell them by law. That is a valid reason to answer them in the negative.

However, say I’ve written an original story. I’ve already sold copies of the txt file to other people in my state for $10 (yeah, we’re assuming it’s a DAMN GOOD story). If someone in California wants to buy a copy of the txt file for $10, I’m free to sell it to them. I’m also free to tell them no. But if I do answer them in the negative, all I’m doing is depriving myself of money. No matter whether they do without or go find someone else who I did sell a copy to to tell them the story, I’m out $10 that I could have had with little effort.

Personally, I wouldn’t want them to pirate my story. If they don’t value it that much, I’d rather they found something they did value enough to pay for. But if they’re willing to pay me for it, then they might also be willing to try to get it for free, whether I think that’s wrong or not. So why not go ahead and sell it to them?

silverscarcatsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

“Maybe you can’t. Too bad. it doesn’t entitle you to illegally obtain the creative output of another country just because you want it.”

Yes it does.

Free market, boyo.

If it doesn’t provide what I want, I’ll get it, whether by hook or crook.

And since I can’t get it legally, I’ll get it illegally.

THAT is the truth of the free market.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Because access to culture is an entitlement.

Bullshit. We live in a world where food, clean water, medical care and education are not viewed as entitlements and you make a statement like that? And as often as not, this claim is being made by foreigners who are largely talking about access to American culture because their’s is so numbingly dull. It sure reveals how pathologically obsessed you freeloaders are. It’s mind-boggling that so much is made of free access to entertainment with all of the legitimate want in this world.

Robertsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

“their’s is so numbingly dull” or maybe you don’t appreciate it, but you mean it’s not your cup of tea.

I find it rare when the US releases something in the theatres that’s unique and interesting, then I find out it was stolen from one of those “numbingly dull” countries you refer to. Or written by an author from one of those countries.

Yes, you’ve created lots, just like everyone else, but you’ve overhyped it. Sorry to break it to you.

And stop coming off like an arrogant ass, it’s really doing the decent people in your country a huge disservice.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

So if the material or creator has been appropriated from another country, why are most other countries film industry largely moribund or commercial failures? Why isn’t that product made in that country. What is so wrong with foreign motion picture economies that they drive creative people to Hollywood? And what does that do to that country’s own culture?

Maybe you should be more concerned about that than why you have to wait to see Dark Knight.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

So rather than address my point, you’re going to ask a completely unrelated question?
My point still stands, whether or not its the Dark Knight Rises specifically I want to see. Even if a film service were to appear tomorrow, with non-Hollywood movies and offering them to deliver them in ways I and others want, Hollywood would still go thermonuclear war on it.

Robertsays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

You define commercial failure because it has not “made it” in the US? Perhaps you have not investigated manifest destiny much? Just how respectful has the US been towards other cultures?

They don’t “drive” people to Hollywood, Hollywood buys them on the promise of lots of money and “making it” in the US. They promote bullshit lifestyles of Hollywood’s rich and famous and tell them “that could be you.”

And that’s not reality, with the exception of a select few.

It says NOTHING about the country’s own culture, only that Hollywood was successful at exploiting someone else’s work for greed, by lighting a greed fire inside that person. Then reality comes into play and for most cases, those exploited artists/producers/writers are tossed aside and have to travel back to their homeland TO MAKE MONEY TO LIVE.

That’s assuming Hollywood even bothered to give the creators anything or even invite them for the “lottery” that is Hollywood.

I’ve already seen The Dark Night and The Dark Night Rises, thank you very much.

I’ve also seen the subtitled versions of The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, My Sassy Girl, The Lakehouse, Dark Water, The Ring (this one they actually brought the guy over because we know Hollywood would have fucked it up), etc..

I guess for Americans like you it needs to be Americanized without subtitles because reading is just too much work?

RadialSkidsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Bullshit. We live in a world where food, clean water, medical care and education are not viewed as entitlements

Says who? You?

It sure reveals how pathologically obsessed you freeloaders are.

I’m not a “freeloader,” you arrogant ass. The culture I enjoy is already free. But I am a sympathizer with those you do classify as “freeloaders.” Why? Because, quite simply, they’re the enemy of my enemy.

Make the materials available worldwide to those who wish to see it. Stop whining because someone has the AUDACITY to view it for free, instead of having the “morals” to say, “Gee, even though it’s right there on the internet available to me and I really want to see it, I should just not watch it because the retail system will never offer it here.”

silverscarcatsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

DRM…

Oh! You mean that stuff that doesn’t work, pirates don’t bother with and only punishes paying customers?

Ah, yes, bob’s solution to everything…

Punish legitimate customers for the actions of others.

It’s like, if someone took a cookie from the cookie jar, instead of going after the kid with crumbs on his lips, all the other children get spankings and get no cookies later.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Remember that Mr. Masnick is just part of Big Search’s astroturfing corp. I’m waiting to see if he comes clean when Google has to report their paid blogging staff to the Judge in the Oracle/Google case.

I think there’s little doubt that Masnick slops from the Google shill-though along with lots of other little piggies. The question is how he spins it and whether he pre-empts the announcement with one of his own.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

If Mike is being paid by Google, then why does he write articles CRITICISING Google?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120810/10465419988/google-caves-to-hollywood-pressure-will-now-punish-sites-that-get-lots-valid-dmca-notices.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120808/12301619967/how-googles-contentid-system-fails-fair-use-public-domain.shtml

Those are just the articles from this month.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

“DRM is never considered “innovation” even though it takes much more sophisticated science than the repurposed FTP servers run by Techdirt heroes like Megaupload.”

That’s a very interesting argument.

I’ve used (and implemented) quite a few DRM solutions, and I am definitely interested in hearing what kind of bleeding edge technology you think is involved in such a system.

I’ll be waiting for your reply with heightened interest.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

I agree that DRM shouldn’t be considered synonymous with “bad”. Unless you’re a copyright abolitionist and believe that intellectual property rights shouldn’t exist (a growing club) then DRM should be viewed as a valuable tool.

I think what most people rail against- and here I agree with them- is the abuse of those technologies and the lack of safe harbors in the law. Yes the DMCA provides for exceptions and the case law that has developed in the United States over the past decade or so had enriched our understanding. However, here in Canada, our government has just enacted a law that prohibits the circumvention of TPMs, even for lawful purposes. The exceptions tot he rule are incredibly narrow (dealing with things like encryption research and reverse engineering for product compatibility).

Events like the Sony Rootkit fiasco don’t help either. Fact is that DRM has acquired a bad name, not because it’s inherently bad, but because it’s abused by the content industry and over-protected by legislation.

Bottom line, DRM has to get a little friendlier.

Masnick has to tone down the opinion and strive for a little more objectivity. You’re borderline distorting facts…as was the case in your assessment of the 7th circuit decision in MyVidster…A LITTLE OBJECCTIVITY…PLEASE

Simple Mindsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

DRM should be viewed as a valuable tool.

The problem with DRM is that it can always be circumvented. Thus, the only people that have to put up with the restrictions imposed by a DRM scheme are legitimate paying customers. Your paying customers should be the ones getting the best experience from your product, not the worst. Thus, DRM is in fact synonymous with “bad”.

What needs to replace DRM is trust. Media companies should make everything as freely available (ie. no DRM) as possible and trust that people will pay for it if they find value in it. They also need to create ways for people to pay that include varying cost. When I was young, I valued music very highly and was willing to pay a lot for it. When I hit 30 something switched off in my brain and I stopped listening to music or caring much about it. Now I might value a song a 5 cents that they want me to pay $1 for, so they get $0 from me and I do without.

On the other side, in exchange for media producers trusting us, society needs to adopt an attitude that it is not ok to get something you value and pay nothing for it. ie., We need to replace law enforcement with a social stigma. Those that have the means to pay but choose not to need to be ridiculed for it. They are being nice, so we should be nice. Everyone should be good to eachother and stop fighting.

We can continue down the DRM, control, fight, enforce, restrict, greed, closed, path or the free, trust, cooperate, open, share, fair, path. The first path seems futile given the technology, and painful for everyone as it leads to anger, hatred, and conflict. While the later path leads to happiness, peace, love, and harmony among human species all over the planet. Choose!

Niallsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Solutions like Hulu – wait a moment, that’s not available outside the US. Netflix is barely available in the UK. HBO and numerous other channels aren’t terribly available either. Where’s the ‘effort’ to make these things available?

And once again, it’s really not Google’s job to prop up legacy players any more than it is Apple’s. DRM is a poor technological fix that is simply a waste of time. How long did DVD DRM last? Blu-Ray? It’s nothing to do with your BS ‘big search’ and everything to do with technological progress and human innovation.

Ever since region-coding on DVDs (and even some release windows on movies), a ‘war’ on customers has been evident. Virtually no other industry plays these games or ignores customers to this extent, let alone the people generating their content. The legacy players reap what they sow…

Maybe they aren’t actually ‘evil’. For instance, they aren’t starting illegal wars or removing people’s ability to survive without jobs or have affordable healthcare. But they appear to be wilfully blind to what they are doing, more than happy to make up vastly wrong numbers that they keep spouting, and the annoying habit of blatantly buying laws and politicians. So while they may not be Satan himself, they do qualify as one of his boils 😉

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

oh FFS! Here we go again, customers, millions of them, wanting to pay for your content. But you don’t want to serve them?
Oh look, there’s a free alternative with no restrictions. Hmm, maybe I’ll just try that instead.
It’s not about entitlement, it’s about making customers of your fans – rather than enemies, which appears to be your objective?

Hak Foosays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute

“Innovation” when it comes to DRM is a rather academic use of the word. Yes, you’re advancing the state of the science, but it’s a science that most consumers fundamentally don’t want. It’s like trying to get the Nobel in Medicine for advancing the spread of genital warts.

As a consumer, copy-prevention technologies rarely present clear and direct value to me. One of the few prominent exceptions is Steam, which actually offers a legitimate and comprehensible convenience. In contrast, every flyer and explanation I ever saw about UltraViolet just made me more confused and more wondering “why exactly can’t I just rip this on my PC like an audio disc?”

Sure, the industry shills will say “without crippling DRM, we couldn’t sell $foo…”. Bullshit. It’s not that you can’t sell it, it’s that you won’t because you think you can grab more out of the customer. Notice how media companies had to handle China– without being able to effectively swing the club of the law around, they actually had to re-price their products to the market.

Robertsays:

Re: Re: Hold on a minute

Check out the case studies and there have been many, many articles on how to resolve the broken industry model.

That discussion has been dismissed by the MPAA/RIAA repeatedly, there are many articles on that (not just on TechDirt either).

They don’t want help, they just want to go back in time to regain control over everything, what’s created, how/when it is consumed, and exploit it for maximum profits.

Funny how Hollywood rose from the ground as almost a grassroots power against patent/copyright abuse that was coming from Edison’s MPPC. Amazing how quickly they forget where they came from once they become wealthy beyond belief.

MPPC had shit films the public didn’t enjoy, Hollywood created new and unique films, the public loved it. Now what are they doing, trying to destroy the only means of distribution for small players, while remaking films and generating sequels in an attempt to grab as much cash as possible.

They don’t want to talk solutions, they’ve said “we want to talk” but that’s it, them talking, everyone else listening, that’s all they want. In old terms, they don’t want bidirectional communication (full duplex), they just want half-duplex, without the ability for said end device to send anything back, just hold it’s “CTS” (clear to send) pin low and listen.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Hold on a minute

“Some good ideas have been put forward such as a broadband fee”

A Broadband fee!!
Are you fucking nuts, thinking this is a good idea?
They already have these type of fees all over the place and yet piracy still exist.

You want to solve the piracy problem and the best you can come up with are fees?

The only way to stop piracy is to do away with the people that think piracy is a problem.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/18/apple-microsoft-sopa-support/

As the article suggests, Microsoft quietly supported SOPA until it became clear that it was DOA. And like so many Congressmen and Senators, jumped ship and joined the list of opponents when the outcome was clear. But you already knew that, didn’t you?

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

As the article suggests, Microsoft quietly supported SOPA until it became clear that it was DOA. And like so many Congressmen and Senators, jumped ship and joined the list of opponents when the outcome was clear. But you already knew that, didn’t you?

No, that article was wrong. The BSA supported it — which got some people, like the VB writer to falsely suggest that Microsoft supported it. But Microsoft did not support it, which is why the BSA changed its mind. The publicity from bogus articles like the VB one hastened the process of MS telling the BSA to back down.

The BSA backed down way way earlier than “when the outcome was clear.”

But you already knew that, didn’t you?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The BSA backed down way way earlier than “when the outcome was clear.”

When Lamar Smith recessed the markup instead of making everyone sit through each of the 75 amendments (mostly) authored by Google’s hired gun, Marvin Ammori; that was the moment the outcome was clear. He calculated correctly that Smith wouldn’t read the shifting sands until it was too late. The antics of January 18 were grandstanders abusing the corpse of an already-dead bill.

AdamFsays:

Where's this myriad?

So from now on, query “watch dark knight rises online for free” will pop up a bunch of legitimate licensed service?

Or, I’ll be less greedy and try “watch dark knight rises online in Canada for any price sometime this century”. Could MPAA please direct me to the myriad legitimate links that they claim are out there?

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Try this one

And why isn’t it out yet? There’s clearly market demand for a home version of Dark Knight Rises. Why must Hollywood stick to the old formula of saying for the first X amount of weeks, the only legitimate viewing is one done in a big building with hundreds of other people you don’t know?

JMTsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one

The owner of said business is not free to market his product in a manner that every sane economist and technologist is telling them is a terrible long-term economic strategy, while at the same time bribing the government to write terrible laws to assist them with their failing strategy, and strong-arming private companies to change the way they run their very successful business because they actually offer their customers what they want.

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one

And if we all close our eyes, and wish really hard, the internet will just disappear!
Windows made sense when the movie industry was physically shipping the movie reels around the theatres. They don’t make sense now. If your contracts with the theatres require this, re-negotiate. The theatres need the content, the content doesn’t need the theatres.

“the owner of said business is free to market his product as he sees fit.”

And the owner of said business is free to see it go to the wall because he refuses to serve his potential customers.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one

“Just like what ever business you’re in, the owner of said business is free to market his product as he sees fit.”

…and potential customers are free to tell them they’re doing it wrong, which includes the option of not buying. That some people opt to “pirate” rather than simply not buying does not undermine this point.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one

I actually have already watched it in the theatre, thank you very much, but why is it wrong for me to have a demand to watch it at home NOW? I don’t care what contracts the studios have with theatres. I’m a guy who wants to watch a movie and if you do it right, will pay you for it.

Niallsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one

F*** the theatres then. It’s not like I can get the time to go, or raise a mortgage every time I want to in order to pay for the ‘experience’…

Infinite goods, why should I wait? Provide me something affordable now, which wouldn’t ‘cost’ you anything, and might gain you something you wouldn’t have had. Or keep whining and losing out…

Robertsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one

It’s called protectionism, just like the US automotive industry. Too bad the Japanese were smarter than the US companies and decided to build them right in Canada and the US and people bought more of them, rather than pay for bullshit tariffs because competition is dangerous.

Man, you really don’t know much about US policy do you?

eggheadsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Try this one

“Try writing down the names of all of the people listed in the credits and paying every one of them too. Whether the director, producer or studio it’s only a pass through for all of those people whose creative input it took to make the film.”

Haven’t all those people already been paid for their work? Does the best boy really get royalty checks for all the movies he’s been involved in making? Perhaps I should send some money to the waitstaff, cooks, hostesses, bartenders, janitors, managers and owners of the local restaurant 24 hours after my meal when it re-emerges; after all, they helped make this shit possible.

Look, I get that the studio has already paid for the movie and is trying to re-coup their investment, but they seem to be too entrenched in their ways to see the massive demand before them. Maybe some accountant is too focused on using fuzzy accounting to make it look like they never make back their investment that they are concerned about making too much money too quickly. They wouldn’t want it to look like a success; they might just have to fork over some of their haul.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Try this one

No, sorry, I already own those films on DVD. I don’t want them. I want the new film, which I’ve already seen theatrically and will not see again until the DVD release.

So, I’ll wait. Maybe I will decide to buy another DVD in the meantime from someone who’s offering me the product, then pick up TDKR in the bargain bucket after it’s dropped in price following their decision to actually offer me the product. Their problem if they couldn’t be bothered to offer me the product when I was willing to pay full whack for it.

See how that works? Warner have failed to collect my money when it was being offered to them.

“Pay the creator. It’s only fair.”

I do when they decide to take my money. Not my problem if they refuse it in search of something else.

Zakida Paulsays:

Yet again

A company from one industry has to act in the protectionist interests of another industry. The entitlement of the entertainment industry never ceases to astound me. Instead of standing on their own two feet and innovating new ways of getting content to fans, they expect everyone to protect the industry’s interests at the expense of their own.

wallow-Tsays:

Re: Re:

Truer than you realize. Google, in the view of Big Content, should have every search result legally reviewed.

To the degree that user-generated content is too great a volume for legal review, it needs to be shut down completely; we need to return to the Compu$erve/GEnie/AOL model where content flows primarily from approved, centralized sources.

Big Content needs to take away the opportunity for infringement, no matter its effects on the opportunity for speech and expression. And, it needs to be able to do this at minimal cost: due process and accuracy are not cost-effective and they do not scale.

To Big Content, the Internet (as we understand it) is acceptable collateral damage.

anonsays:

Rope rope give them more rope...

The MPAA is doing exactly as predicted, they are demanding more and more and more, until they destroy the Search Engine, that is when the might of Google will rise up and either purchase all the studios and Close the MPAA or arrange a nice court case where the Industry has to defend there action’s, where they they have removed content when they had no right to,where it is illegal and corrupt and fraudulent.

Robertsays:

Re: Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.

I am going to have to disagree with you on this.

I think we should all respond to Bob’s posts, but in a polite, fact-based manner, or at least point out his argument fallacies.

The reason? There are still many politicians and artists who believe as strongly as he does that the RIAA/MPAA stats are 100% true and the industry as a whole (not just the label’s subset) has been devastated.

Robertsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ingnore ALL posts by "bob" the Troll.

Uh, no, it IS Robert, not that Bob guy.

I know too many people who think the same as Bob does, so maybe, just maybe, if they read bob’s comments and see the responses (with minimal ad-hominem attacks) it might help the readers who feel the same as bob see how they are not 100% correct (and neither are the doom and gloom industry stories).

I’m thinking of one particular musician who’s music is very important to me, but he has similar conceptions of reality that match Bob’s. People like Barry Sookman or Graham Henderson, well, those guys are being paid to feel as Bob does, so I don’t care.

But the more I read bob’s stuff and the more responses I see, the better I am able to try to convince musicians and people who’s opinion I actually care about to see other information and see through the lies/tricks/misinformation provided by the RIAA/MPAA groups.

I am simply trying to be fair.

If we just dismiss Bob, ignoring him, well… others who feel as bob does will continue to do so, instead of being influenced by the responses to bob’s ignorance and stubbornness to continue in their belief.

I’ve found through a2f2a.com (now gone) that many are like bob, but many are not so stubborn when they realize bob’s views are based on less than accurate information.