« A Brief History of Apple Not Buying Things | Home | Recent Comments | Categories | Wal*Mart raised its low prices! »
French copyright enforcers: “Pirates are big spenders on legit content”
[Quote]:
HADOPI, the French agency charged with disconnecting French Internet users who use the same Internet connections as accused copyright infringers, conducted a study on media purchasing habits by copyright infringers. They concluded that the biggest unauthorized downloaders are also the biggest customers for legitimate media. Just like every other study that’s looked at the question, of course, but this time the study was funded and released by one of the most extreme copyright enforcement bodies on the planet.
A Brief History of Apple Not Buying Things
[Quote]:
For years, Apple has confounded the rest of us by not buying things that it should clearly be buying. Not purchasing other well-known companies is so core to Apple’s strategy that it must have a whole department devoted to non-mergers and un-acquisitions.
Sex abuse led to 26 suicides says policeman
[Quote]:
In interviews with a university researcher, Detective Sergeant Kevin Carson of the Ballarat Crimes Investigation Unit has revealed that during his investigations into Father Gerald Risdale and Christian Brother Robert Best – which led to both being convicted – he discovered that up to 24 young men had killed themselves in the years after they were abused by one or both of the men.
Detective Carson has recently learned of two more suicides, bringing his count to 26.
Advertisement: Story continues below
A research paper prepared by lawyer Judy Courtin, a PhD candidate in law at Monash University, examining the Catholic Church and child sexual assault, says that according to Detective Carson, the information about the suicides was discovered during the course of recent investigations into Best’s abuse.
Can you survive Baltimore’s 5K zombie run?
[Quote]:
One of the first rules to surviving an attack by the living dead, as related to us by the main character in the film "Zombieland", is cardiovascular health. The undead may be clumsy, but they’re also fairly quick and extremely unrelenting, so being in top shape when the time comes to escape the brain-hungry masses should be a priority.
What better way to measure how you’re stacking up against the competition then by participating in this year’s “Run For Your Lives” race? The 5K (3.1 miles) event, taking place an hour outside of Baltimore, has you frantically running through a forested obstacle course – all the while attempting to avoid a horde of zombie volunteers nipping at your heels.
|
NSW rabbis brawl over child abuse
[Quote]:
Rabbi Yosef Feldman, president of the Rabbinical Council of NSW and based at the Southern Sydney Synagogue, has sparked outrage in a series of emails to other rabbis when he said it should be up to them to determine whether a paedophile should be reported to authorities.
The rabbi also said that, where possible, allegations of abuse should be dealt with outside the Australian legal system.
|
$230,000 For a Guard Dog: Why the Wealthy Are Afraid Of Violence From Below
[Quote]:
John Johnson, the owner of the $230,000 dog featured in the New York Times, is a former debt collector. (You can’t make this stuff up.)
He sold his debt collection company three years ago, but still has not just one, but six highly—and expensively—trained “executive protection dogs.” Harrison K-9 services, the trainers behind Johnson’s pricey protection dogs, used to train dogs for elite military units like the Navy Seal team that raided Osama bin Laden’s compound. The article doesn’t say exactly how many dogs Harrison K-9 has provided for the world’s rich and famous, but it does feature a quote from their head trainer saying she’s trained “a thousand” dogs.
Big Pharma looks to capitalize on success of vitamin D by turning it into a ‘drug’ for kidney disease
[Quote]:
With an incredible success rate for vitamin D in treating a myriad of health conditions, it is no wonder that some drug companies are looking for new ways to capitalize on this natural, inexpensive nutrient.
Biopharmaceutical giant Rockwell Medical recently announced that it has acquired a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic, injectable form of vitamin D called Calcitriol, that it openly refers to as a “drug.”
Marketed under several brand names including Rocaltrol (Roche), Calcijex (Abbott), and Decostriol (Mibe, Jesalis), Calcitriol is really nothing more than vitamin D3, or 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, that has been placed in a syringe with sterile fluids and other additives. And yet Rockwell Medical, as well as various medical information sources, refer to Calicitriol as a “drug,” which is why Rockwell Medical obtained an ANDA in the first place.
|
Cartoons
Norge rammet av terror 22.7
Obama
Cartoon
Yet another rationalization for piracy. Pirates don’t have enough rationalizations already? Does it really matter that they’re willing to pay for some content but not all? I guess that depends on which artist you ask. The one who is getting paid for their work or the one who isn’t. Sorry. This study is irrelevant.
The study is indeed irrelevant, because everything it says is already known. And yes, it does matter that they’re willing to pay for some content but not all – but you need to ask (and answer) this: why? Why do they pay for content X but not Y? Could it be availability? If you live in France and want to watch, say, Spartacus from HBO, there’s only one way: pirate it. Would it be less pirated if you could actually buy it?
The first step to finding this out – and reducing piracy along the way – is to recognize that you need to find the answer to those questions, and the first step towards that is to realize that your biggest pirates are also your biggest spenders. Oh, wait, that means this study is relevant after all.
They can’t buy Washington Parish watermelons in France, either. So what? You’re saying people pirate because they have no means to purchase the product? If I want to see Spartacus, I have to subscribe to HBO. That’s the price. If they can’t subscribe to HBO in France, they should have to do without Spartacus.
Oh, and HBO “On Demand” is on the internet. They will one day be able to get HBO legally in France (If they can’t already), perhaps when France does something about piracy.
If they can’t subscribe to HBO in France, they should have to do without Spartacus.
Good luck stopping piracy that way.
No crime can be totally eliminated. The criminals will just be prosecuted and fined or jailed when they’re caught. Quite a few of them are going to get caught. You probably know a bazillion ways to get around tracking software and might even recognize a sting site when you see one but the average file downloader doesn’t.
Not to mention that shafting your best customers is not actually going to endear them to you.
This argument about access rather than ability to pay is true for me. I’d actually pay equivalent to their license fees for fresh BBC content, but they won’t let me…sigh…
As an artist and technologically competent person, I would love it if I got to the point where people are bittorrenting my music. It’s free publicity and distribution, if it gets even one person to buy a track, then great, they might not have heard of me otherwise. Its a shame that it is viewed as a threat instead of a boon for mass distribution of media by so many
Prosecuting and punishing thieves is equivalent to “shafting your best customers”? What will they do? More stealing and pay the heavier price the next time they’re caught? Quit buying the content they’ve been buying?
I can’t get fresh BBC content, either, Sue. All I get is what BBC-America offers. We get Spartacus, they get Waking The Dead.
You’re free to do exactly that, mysteryweapon. Who is stopping you? This whole problem would go away if artists distributed their own material. They don’t, though. They sign recording contracts and studio contracts and book publishing deals, etc.
The criminals will just be prosecuted and fined or jailed when they’re caught.
So you’d rather spend gobs of money prosecuting a victimless crime than find a new way to get less crime and more sales in the first place?
Quit buying the content they’ve been buying
That’s what I’ve been doing. Haven’t been to a cinema in years, quit buying music.
And I don’t bother pirating – for example, I’ve got an iPod full of music from the time I did buy, and I found out if I put it on shuffle I’ll never get bored. So why buy new (or pirate, for that matter)?
Right now it’s unlikely they ever get me back as a customer even if they stop treating their best customers as criminals.
I create music for more than 15 years. Today I can publish my own music on itunes and beatport myself via Rebeat or Tunecore.
I dont need and want record companies anymore.
That’s the real reason why they’re fighting piracy.
New artists don’t need them anymore.
Fighting piracy is a last breath.
Most of them are crooks anyway. And their music sucks too.
Piracy is not a victimless crime. Selling songs, CDs, DVDs, and books is honest work. Stealing their products is no different than stealing whiskey from a liquor store or shoes from a shoe store. It’s only easier. It hurts the merchants. It hurts the manufacturers. It hurts all of the vendors who support the merchants and manufacturers. It hurts all of the employees of the merchants, vendors, and manufacturers. If trains go out of business because of cars and airplanes, that’s the free market at work. If they go out of business because people keep robbing them, that’s something else and I support stopping it or at least trying to.
You have the perfect solution, Paul. Whose music sucks, though? The people who sign with record labels? I buy music from iTunes. I also buy CDs, DVDs, and books from Amazon. They’re both evil middlemen, too.
You’ve carefully avoided my question: So you’d rather spend gobs of money prosecuting a
victimlesscrime than find a new way to get less crime and more sales in the first place?Within reason, yes. I wouldn’t go as far as “millions for defense, not one cent for tribute” because I don’t think anyone can afford that philosophy any more.
“This whole problem would go away if artists distributed their own material. They don’t, though. They sign recording contracts and studio contracts and book publishing deals, etc.”
Just want to understand, your justification for legitimate customers being treated like thugs is that the artist is too stupid to be able to handle the business side of their work in a modernized fashion? This precedent that Metallica started by suing their own fans is nothing short of retarded.
When a person must fork over a sum of money they could never hope to attain in a lifetime of work and have the rest of their life completely ruined by a money hungry media copratocracy in the name of “defending artists”, who is the real criminal? If you can’t make money from free advertising via electronic replication, your product never had a goddamn leg to stand on in the first place.
Not talking about legitimate customers, mysteryweapon. Just the thieves. Didn’t once say artists were too stupid. They like the money the various recording companies or publishing houses offer them to sign. Those companies have a right to protect their investment and to want a return on it. Metallica has every right to charge for their product. If you don’t want it, you are free to not purchase it. You are not free to take it from them or anyone they authorize to distribute for them because you don’t like the price or the terms.
“When a person must fork over a sum of money they could never hope to attain in a lifetime of work and have the rest of their life completely ruined by a money hungry media copratocracy in the name of “defending artists”, who is the real criminal?”
Easy. The person who broke the law, the person who violated the terms of service is the criminal.
So you have little interest in actually fixing it, and think prosecution is the far more important?
Wow.
So you’re probably not a big fan of the Twenty-first Amendment, then?
I want it to evolve on its own. Paul Jay and mysteryweapon have found ways around it without breaking the law. If more did what they’re doing, it would evolve into something closer to what you want. Well, maybe anyway.
I wonder how virtuous those two artists are if Warner Brothers or Geffen Records were to wave a stack of cash at them.
Not sure how the 21st amendment is relevant. It merely repealed the 18th amendment. I’m not FOR prohibition.
I want it to evolve on its own.
Consider piracy to be evolutionary pressure.
Not sure how the 21st amendment is relevant
Drinking alcohol was a crime. Not a victimless crime, to say the least. Following your stance on piracy, you would not have wanted money spent on anything but prosecution of people drinking – perhaps a little on rehab, but that’s it. At most, you’d wanted recreational drinking to evolve on its own, since some drinkers appear to have found ways around it without breaking the law.
I consider piracy to be criminal and it should be dealt with accordingly.
Buying and consuming alcohol was made a crime by the 18th amendment. I would have opposed that one but I would have obeyed it while working to change it. That’s what our modern day pirates should be doing.
So any law you think is unjust will never be changed by any of your actions, no matter how unjust you feel the law is?
I don’t make the laws but I vote for the people who do. I won’t always agree with them. I can’t just break the laws I don’t like. There is nothing unjust about this anyway. People are not entitled to free music, free cable, free concerts, free books, or a chicken in their pots. The people who provide those products and services are no different than anyone else who provide products and services. How much they charge or if they charge at all should be up to them.
Oh, and I know we’ve butted heads on this before but I do want to say I appreciate the civility. I don’t weigh in on this elsewhere mainly because that’s not always the reaction.
There is nothing unjust about this anyway.
That’s now what I asked you – I knew you felt that way, and quite simply that’s a matter of opinion, and mine happens to be different. I said: So any law you think is unjust will never be changed by any of your actions, no matter how unjust you feel the law is?
I take it the answer is no. That’s fine with me – you’re free to feel that way, but progress in society will never be made by people like you.. (which is fine too – not all progress is by definition good or right)
Progress in society IS made by people like me but not by people like me alone. If I feel strongly about something I think needs changing, I’ll write or call my representatives. I’ll sign petitions. I’ll work for candidates that agree with me. I won’t always get my way, though. That’s as it should be.
Writing your rep is not always useful
Definitely not always useful and with my dismal winning vote percentage, it’s most likely they’ll tell me to sit down and shut up.
I’ve signed a recall petition. I’ve worked in a campaign. The recall didn’t gather enough signatures but the campaign I worked in was successful. It can be done.
The irony of metallica is that their fan base was built because of fan to fan bootlegs. How many bootleg tapes have people offered you lately? None, because mp3 is the new bootleg. You’re right, I have the right not to buy metallica crap, and after that fiasco, I wouldn’t listen to anything by metallica or own any property of theirs unless it was stolen. Your fans are what make you, when you get this attitude that you are suddenly more important than the people who make your existence up, that’s when I call bullshit. They only started having to sue people because they could no longer make decent music that people would actually buy, and that’s precedent for bands and companies that are seeing their business model crash and burn. Suing your way out of a problem doesn’t work, just look at SCO
I haven’t seen any kind of bootlegs since I was a kid. I would counter that Metallica’s music is desirable or no one would want to steal it. I would also disagree that what makes them is their fans. What makes them is their music. If it draws an audience, more power to them. Metallica went after Napster because they are one of the few bands who had the resources to do it. The quality of their music had nothing whatever to do with their lawsuit. Metallica may not be the musical force they were in 2000 but who is?
“Easy. The person who broke the law, the person who violated the terms of service is the criminal.”
Then if I pirate stuff I am not a criminal, as the Hungarian laws clearly state that downloading is not a crime.
Also, I already pay for all the music I never pirate when I buy DVDs, CDs or flashdrives.
So if I decided to pirate stuff, I am not a criminal
The person who breaks the law is indeed a criminal. I wonder why, in some cases, people insist to call them “victims of communism”.
On the other hand the “violated the terms of service is the criminal”, now that’s an interesting question.
If I sell you a software, and put in the terms of services, that:
1) by opening the case you accept the terms of services
2) from now on you are not allowed to sing your national anthem
and then you sing your national anthem you will be a criminal.
Or maybe my terms of service are criminal?
“Selling songs, CDs ….. is honest work.” If it is done by the actual artists, I would agree Rob. Somehow you have this misplaced idea that those entities that used to be known as the record companies are good and honest people. Try asking the musicians if they believe that to be true. Try asking all the artists who are still waiting for payments from the 70s, 80s, 90s and so forth. Try asking the people who are still waiting for their royalties to be paid for decades despite court rulings. Need I continue? You seem to place great store in “the law”. Time to investigate the music industry from that angle, for starters.
There’s that “research” word appearing again. Try it some time Rob. Properly.
““Selling songs, CDs ….. is honest work.” If it is done by the actual artists, I would agree Rob.”
When its not done by the artist, it’s done by someone who paid the artist money for the rights to do so. Your whining is misplaced. You should be angry with the artist, not the record company. Mysteryweapon, at least, had that part of it right.
“Somehow you have this misplaced idea that those entities that used to be known as the record companies are good and honest people.”
Most successful businesses are ruthless. See Walmart, Dell, Microsoft. The artist does not have to sign with them. Oh, that’s right. They like the money. Again, your whining is misplaced.
“Try asking the musicians if they believe that to be true. Try asking all the artists who are still waiting for payments from the 70s, 80s, 90s and so forth. Try asking the people who are still waiting for their royalties to be paid for decades despite court rulings.”
Payola was awful but artists wised up to it. They don’t sign those kinds of lopsided contacts any more … but they do still sign contracts. Why? Why not distribute the music, themselves?
“There’s that “research” word appearing again. Try it some time Rob. Properly.”
I respond to what’s here, Irene. Same as you. But I’m not going to respond to you any more. Arguing with fools and all that.
Let’s keep this brief. Your use of terms such as “whining” and your final sentence demonstrate your usual level of maturity, Rob.
Your standard of debating/arguing as in – “I respond to what’s here, Irene. Same as you.” is also in the same vein, mainly because it it untrue. Given the low benchmark of your refutations, the fact that you are not going to respond to me anymore, could be taken by many as a joy to behold. Take your bat and ball and go home.
Alternatively, lighten up Rob. It’s not a competition. As I’ve said on a previous occasion – Wake up and smell the hummus.