Arguably the major labels and RIAA are at least partly to blame for this fact, firstly because of poor decision making by senior execs when the web first started to really take off a decade ago, and secondly because those companies and their trade bodies continue to operate a corporate PR strategy from — focusing all their efforts on schmoozing a few key political decision makers and influential financial and political journalists. Which is a big part of why the tech giants win the public, if not always the political debate on piracy issues.
So, food for thought. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website.
These cookies do not store any personal information. I was getting mad at his ignorance Hey the kids are talking about this internets, we can still do that can't we?
How does it give me money? What he doesn't seem to understand is that this whole thing has long since ceased being just about sharing music and movies; it's about fighting the rampant corruption that endangers the rights and freedom of so many.
In a way the music industry is just unlucky that they are seen as a representative of this corruption -- although not unjustly. They took it one step too far, pushed a little too hard, and now the people are pushing back and they'll have to take the blame. By the way, 'misinformation' and 'anti-democratic' are their new buzzwords; I've heard the same speech all over Europe with regard to the demonstrations against ACTA.
Societal pressures have done a good job of keeping them that way. It's much more dangerous when those in power use that power to subvert trust. Specifically, I am thinking of governments and corporations. Let me give you a few examples. The global financial crisis was not a result of criminals, it was perpetrated by legitimate financial institutions pursuing their own self-interest.
The major threats against our privacy are not from criminals, they're from corporations trying to more accurately target advertising. The most significant threat to the freedom of the Internet is from large entertainment companies, in their misguided attempt to stop piracy. And the cyberwar rhetoric is likely to cause more damage to the Internet than criminals could ever dream of. What scares me the most is that today, in our hyper-connected, hyper-computed, high-tech world, we will get societal pressures wrong to catastrophic effect.
I have one tiny little problem with your position. It's based on the assumption that those in charge of these corporations are not themselves criminals. When they direct their corporations to explicitly engage in bribing public officials to enact unconstitutional laws, are these not criminal acts?
Just because they may have a different look than the stereotypical common criminal and may often times will not face any form of indictment or prosecution, they are still criminals none the less.
BeeAitch profile , 6 Mar pm. Prashanth profile , 6 Mar pm. I've said this before, but what I'd really like to see is political candidates' campaign contributions dragged into the spotlight. I would love, more than anything else, for collaborating with Big Media to become political poison.
I want to see the expressions on their faces while they whine about the future slipping through their fingers. I want to laugh when their ruined empire finally crumbles. Josef Anvil profile , 6 Mar pm. You just have to shrug off anything that Cary Sherman says. It's obvious the guy is 1. Guys like him will not debate with anyone who has data to back up their words. Think about that. He used an analog response to a digital threat.
That is all he knows how to do and that is probably a good thing. Chargone profile , 6 Mar pm. Who would be stupid enough to bring a sword to a gun fight? The Moondoggie , 7 Mar am. Well stated. Greg , 6 Mar pm. No wait, I'm sorry I'll stop laughing in just a few weeks then we can continue this conversation Has this guy ever used the internet, for anything, ever? I'm confused In this one: The question is whether they were really informed or whether they were being misinformed.
That was the point of the op-ed: that there was a lot of misinformation about the bill that was being circulated, and that was accepted by readers online in terms of "if it comes from these sources it must be true. Yet in this bit: where a lot of different people came to the conclusion that this was a terrible piece of legislation. He seems to be admitting that the bills were just as bad as people were saying they were, and were therefor justified in being protested. So which is it going to be Mr.
Spin Doctor? Otherwise those platforms can be used in ways that aren't engaging the electorate in a good way, but rather in an anti-democratic way. It's a little too late to claim "anti-democratic way" after shutting out all involved parties that would have represented the public interests during the formulation stages. What Sherman doesn't get is that the public is not going to buy into a bill that had no input for issues that would have given the public some rights.
Putting this bill down as law to shove down the throats of the public isn't a medicine that will go down well; and it hasn't. Coming from a misinformation spin doctor as this, I am reminded of an old poster that showed Nixon, missing a tooth, with the caption of "Would you trust this man to sell you a used car? Counterfeiting goods doesn't relate to copyright. Hopefully that was a one time experience that came from a lot of different things coming together The public has learned that pushing bad copyright laws down the throat of the market isn't a one time experience but rather one that happens on the average of once every two years.
When is enough that the copyright groups finally have enough? So far their appetite for ever more draconian laws doesn't seem to have an end to it. If the people don't say they've had enough of it, when does the message arrive?
But in the future, think of how that could be abused for bad purposes. It's not the future that this idea has come of age. It is now that people have realized just how abused for bad purposes these proposed laws have become. Sherman has blinders on and can not see beyond his narrow scope into the real world. Taking all of an artists livelihood for these services through out their performing life is not what they want either.
The music business has become a vampire to deal with. Doesn't matter where on the ladder you are. They will attempt to suck the business lifeblood from it in order to take all there is, leaving a pittance for anyone else to survive on. Again, this was the kind of remedy SOPA was designed to enable. But SOPA did not become law. As the EFF points out:. What the complaint asks for is also far broader than the law allows.
That would seem to require every Web browser, mobile app, and Internet-connected device to block an ever-changing list of websites. Left unchecked, these kinds of orders could become a mechanism whereby the content industry gets veto power over online innovation.
Also, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in California, the site is owned by a guy in Germany, Philip Matesanz. Considering that there's a decently high chance that the guy in Germany won't bother responding to a lawsuit halfway around the world, the RIAA and its labels may simply be hoping for a default judgment, which they can then use to force all those third parties into blocking a website, despite a lack of a full trial over the issues with the case.
And, oh boy, does this lawsuit have serious issues. On a conceptual level, how is what this site is doing really all that different from a VCR in recording a TV show? In this case, it's just recording an audio file from a video file.
And such recordings for personal time shifting uses are considered fair use and not infringing. And for what? There's no evidence it'll work. The RIAA says it will, but after this leak do you really want to take its word for it? If this is posturing, it's an infuriating stance Not sure why the "outrage"
0コメント