Oh, and down towards the end of the article you linked to:
"At best, the Swedish system has hastened the migration from P2P. The development of better legitimate models is very welcome and it probably explains the uptick in sales. But it seems highly implausible that it is legislation which has prompted any reversal of fortune," he added.
In Sweden many artists came out in support of new legislation, says Werner. But many opposed it as counterproductive.
Alex Jonsson, the keyboard player in Maze of Time, a Swedish progressive rock band, describes the new law as "absolutely horrid", partly because of the privacy implications, but also because he believes many bands have benefited from filesharing.
"If I could, I would put everything out there. The way the music business has developed means that spread is much more important than short-term gain … It's a changing climate and you have to look at new ways of getting your music out, such as the live scene and bundling music together with other services and so on," he said.
"I do get a smaller piece of the pie but the pie is getting bigger. People in Kuala Lumpur would never have known before about a band in a suburb of Stockholm."
Smarter musicians don't try to fight what can't be stopped.
I am more inclined to believe that the legal and reasonable offer draws more people in than any threats from law.
I am also left wondering if you even read the entire article since it doesn't seem to solidly support what you claim it does.
FTFA: Opponents of the British proposals are quick to point out that the Swedish sales rise coincides with the emergence of new legal digital services such as the popular Spotify.
Indicating that it may not be for the reason you want it to be. Not to mention that:
Figures from the record labels association IFPI Sweden show revenues rose 18% in the first nine months of this year,
Yes, because these organizations have shown their math to be infallible. I am very likely to not believe a single math stat they put out. Maybe if it came from somebody else but they have used extremely fuzzy math just a few too many times. Such as their double (or more than twice) dipping and all the other crazy methods they have used to inflate numbers.
And lastly, you are linking to an article about music to claim that the original post here is wrong .. when the original article is about movies. Brilliant.
Thank you for the links to their contact sites. It is always good to our representatives actually care for a change. It happens so little.
Now if only they all acted this way all the time.
And we were just talking yesterday about the corruption and them blatently pissing on our rights in broad daylight.
This is a case that exemplifies our wanting some sections of law / lawmakers completely redone.
The blatant double standards are what annoy me the most as well. And I believe that nobody should get preferential treatment.
For some reason the judges like to give corrupt politicians just a tiny slap on the wrist. But some random guy off the street nobody cares about is who they punish the worst to make an example. It should be the other way around.
While I cannot say that I would agree with a total reboot, I do think a great many sections could stand for a rewrite. IP laws would be a very easy one to do. Just make it an extreme minimum if at all. Trademark is the only good one I see really (and I should point out here that I am talking about its roots in preventing consumer confusion, and that is it). So I guess trademarks shouldn't even really be considered IP, since it isn't about property anyways. At least not in my book. Pretty much all IP laws would be wiped then, and the world would only be a better place. Well, except for those rich few who make their living feeding off of the artists.
What goes around comes around. I love it when they get hit with their own arguments. It just points out ever more clearly how they care about nobody but themselves. Represent the artists. Ha! That will be the day. Only new smaller labels actually represent the artist's best interests. Anything owned anywhere up the line by the majors obviously does not.
Looks like someone wants to eliminate all that independant action!
That is what most of the litigation from the major movie and music people against services is aimed at doing. They are just trying to ensure that they have no competition in their areas.
I must say that I did not feel too compelled to buy the original T-Shirt when it was (is?) up.
As neat as the techdirt logo is, it alone was not enough to make me want to buy a t-shit, even though I would like to support techdirt for keeping me posted on stuff for all these years.
This shirt though has a witty little line on it. One that can prompt people to ask questions or laugh. I like the shirt, so it was a great chance to show my support and I get something I like in return!
Thanks for making the DMCA notice shirt Mike / Techdirt team. =)
The really messed it up by making a console game, and then just porting it to the PC.
I will not be buying the game, and have talked at least 3 others out of it so far (2 others might get it anyways, so somewhere between 3 and 5 won't).
If I wanted the console gaming experience, I would play on the console. Forcing us into a console gaming experience on the PC is not acceptable.
Activision and IW: Get it right next time and I will consider buying.
Note: I also refuse to pirate this game.
He said - "You can get paid to write free software, but most of what's on my computer was created just for the sake of creating it"
You said - "I think you'll find that the large majority of FOSS contributions are written by paid programmers as part of their job."
Looks to me like you guys are in agreement. You said the same thing with different words. I do think that the first part of his sentence does not have much to do with the second half but that is a small quibble.
So I think that you saying his statement is ignorant is wrong when you turn around and say mostly the same thing, from a different point of view.
I thoroughly enjoyed CoD4. It had just about anything you could want from the PC FPS area. Which included everything they removed from this one.
I refuse to buy, or even download MW2.
So what are they going to use as an explanation when the video game ban does absolutely nothing to stop violence?
Are they going to reverse this decision? (That goes back to the laws should have expirations and if the law isn't accomplishing goal)
And to look at one tiny bright side, this will prove to be a most excellent demonstration to all those up here in the States like Jack Thompson that video games do indeed cause no violence. They do not make people evil.
We can point out that an entire country tried to get rid of them, and the violence did not stop once they were banned.
They would be hard pressed to come up with anything even remotely believable after this.
People are just violent. It is in the human nature. They can try to use video games as a scapegoat, but they have never been a root cause.
Whats to stop the DVR people from just ignoring this flag?
There is something about it I am not understanding.
Have to admit though that I do not use a DVR.
The only way I can think it would work is to not use a flag but an entire encryption method. And my understanding was that the bandwidth for the HDTV was already strangled enough to get it to be nice and high def in a single stream.
The real reason they have them copyrighted is because the penalties for breaking copyright are way worse than any other law you could possibly break. ;)
After they get 3 strikes and proactive-policement their next move will be to get copyright infringement punishable by death.
Judge: "I am really sorry but all fair use has been removed from law so I am going to have to give you the chair."
Wtf Miles?
I have seen you make awesome arguments before, but this is not one of them.
You are honestly saying that if one part of the connection isn't secure you should not use any security at all? That makes no sense. but those who are offering you the VPN service may not appreciate you taking chances on *their* secured connection.
You do realize he pays them for this right? It is the service they offer in exchange for your money? All it takes is one time to change security to vulnerability.
It seems to me from your post that you are more advocating turning off all security just because one site on the internet might not be secure. I think you need to clarify.
RSS
Twitter
Re: Legislation works ! (as Killer_Tofu)
Oh, and down towards the end of the article you linked to:
"At best, the Swedish system has hastened the migration from P2P. The development of better legitimate models is very welcome and it probably explains the uptick in sales. But it seems highly implausible that it is legislation which has prompted any reversal of fortune," he added.
In Sweden many artists came out in support of new legislation, says Werner. But many opposed it as counterproductive.
Alex Jonsson, the keyboard player in Maze of Time, a Swedish progressive rock band, describes the new law as "absolutely horrid", partly because of the privacy implications, but also because he believes many bands have benefited from filesharing.
"If I could, I would put everything out there. The way the music business has developed means that spread is much more important than short-term gain … It's a changing climate and you have to look at new ways of getting your music out, such as the live scene and bundling music together with other services and so on," he said.
"I do get a smaller piece of the pie but the pie is getting bigger. People in Kuala Lumpur would never have known before about a band in a suburb of Stockholm."
Smarter musicians don't try to fight what can't be stopped.
I am more inclined to believe that the legal and reasonable offer draws more people in than any threats from law.
I am also left wondering if you even read the entire article since it doesn't seem to solidly support what you claim it does.
Re: Legislation works ! (as Killer_Tofu)
Did you read the whole article?
FTFA:
Opponents of the British proposals are quick to point out that the Swedish sales rise coincides with the emergence of new legal digital services such as the popular Spotify.
Indicating that it may not be for the reason you want it to be. Not to mention that:
Figures from the record labels association IFPI Sweden show revenues rose 18% in the first nine months of this year,
Yes, because these organizations have shown their math to be infallible. I am very likely to not believe a single math stat they put out. Maybe if it came from somebody else but they have used extremely fuzzy math just a few too many times. Such as their double (or more than twice) dipping and all the other crazy methods they have used to inflate numbers.
And lastly, you are linking to an article about music to claim that the original post here is wrong .. when the original article is about movies. Brilliant.
Re: Use this link instead for Bernie Sanders (as Killer_Tofu)
Thank you for the links to their contact sites. It is always good to our representatives actually care for a change. It happens so little.
Now if only they all acted this way all the time.
Re: Sigh... (as Killer_Tofu)
And we were just talking yesterday about the corruption and them blatently pissing on our rights in broad daylight.
This is a case that exemplifies our wanting some sections of law / lawmakers completely redone.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Made their bed, now they can lay in it (as Killer_Tofu)
The blatant double standards are what annoy me the most as well. And I believe that nobody should get preferential treatment.
For some reason the judges like to give corrupt politicians just a tiny slap on the wrist. But some random guy off the street nobody cares about is who they punish the worst to make an example. It should be the other way around.
While I cannot say that I would agree with a total reboot, I do think a great many sections could stand for a rewrite. IP laws would be a very easy one to do. Just make it an extreme minimum if at all. Trademark is the only good one I see really (and I should point out here that I am talking about its roots in preventing consumer confusion, and that is it). So I guess trademarks shouldn't even really be considered IP, since it isn't about property anyways. At least not in my book. Pretty much all IP laws would be wiped then, and the world would only be a better place. Well, except for those rich few who make their living feeding off of the artists.
Made their bed, now they can lay in it (as Killer_Tofu)
What goes around comes around. I love it when they get hit with their own arguments. It just points out ever more clearly how they care about nobody but themselves. Represent the artists. Ha! That will be the day. Only new smaller labels actually represent the artist's best interests. Anything owned anywhere up the line by the majors obviously does not.
Re: Re: (as Killer_Tofu)
Looks like someone wants to eliminate all that independant action!
That is what most of the litigation from the major movie and music people against services is aimed at doing. They are just trying to ensure that they have no competition in their areas.
A shirt I liked (as Killer_Tofu)
I must say that I did not feel too compelled to buy the original T-Shirt when it was (is?) up.
As neat as the techdirt logo is, it alone was not enough to make me want to buy a t-shit, even though I would like to support techdirt for keeping me posted on stuff for all these years.
This shirt though has a witty little line on it. One that can prompt people to ask questions or laugh. I like the shirt, so it was a great chance to show my support and I get something I like in return!
Thanks for making the DMCA notice shirt Mike / Techdirt team. =)
Re: (as Killer_Tofu)
Yes, because every single one of these modders is 100% made of money and would have purchased every single thing they pirated *rolls eyes*
Modern Warfare 2: Brining console shortcomings to the PC (as Killer_Tofu)
The really messed it up by making a console game, and then just porting it to the PC.
I will not be buying the game, and have talked at least 3 others out of it so far (2 others might get it anyways, so somewhere between 3 and 5 won't).
Many of my reasons are nicely summed up here:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/pc-modern-warfare-2-its-much-worse-than-you-though t.ars
If I wanted the console gaming experience, I would play on the console. Forcing us into a console gaming experience on the PC is not acceptable.
Activision and IW: Get it right next time and I will consider buying.
Note: I also refuse to pirate this game.
Re: Re: When it doesn't work ... (as Killer_Tofu)
"But think of how much WORSE it would have been if they kept violent video games around. Good thing they nipped THAT in the bud."
But what if the levels don't change at all?
Your scenario does make me sad though. They better not.
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Killer_Tofu)
He said - "You can get paid to write free software, but most of what's on my computer was created just for the sake of creating it"
You said - "I think you'll find that the large majority of FOSS contributions are written by paid programmers as part of their job."
Looks to me like you guys are in agreement. You said the same thing with different words. I do think that the first part of his sentence does not have much to do with the second half but that is a small quibble.
So I think that you saying his statement is ignorant is wrong when you turn around and say mostly the same thing, from a different point of view.
Re: Shocking? Hardly (as Killer_Tofu)
I thoroughly enjoyed CoD4. It had just about anything you could want from the PC FPS area. Which included everything they removed from this one.
I refuse to buy, or even download MW2.
When it doesn't work ... (as Killer_Tofu)
So what are they going to use as an explanation when the video game ban does absolutely nothing to stop violence?
Are they going to reverse this decision? (That goes back to the laws should have expirations and if the law isn't accomplishing goal)
And to look at one tiny bright side, this will prove to be a most excellent demonstration to all those up here in the States like Jack Thompson that video games do indeed cause no violence. They do not make people evil.
We can point out that an entire country tried to get rid of them, and the violence did not stop once they were banned.
They would be hard pressed to come up with anything even remotely believable after this.
People are just violent. It is in the human nature. They can try to use video games as a scapegoat, but they have never been a root cause.
Easy to get around? (as Killer_Tofu)
Whats to stop the DVR people from just ignoring this flag?
There is something about it I am not understanding.
Have to admit though that I do not use a DVR.
The only way I can think it would work is to not use a flag but an entire encryption method. And my understanding was that the bandwidth for the HDTV was already strangled enough to get it to be nice and high def in a single stream.
Real Reason (as Killer_Tofu)
The real reason they have them copyrighted is because the penalties for breaking copyright are way worse than any other law you could possibly break. ;)
After they get 3 strikes and proactive-policement their next move will be to get copyright infringement punishable by death.
Judge: "I am really sorry but all fair use has been removed from law so I am going to have to give you the chair."
Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing? (as Killer_Tofu)
Thank you for the clarification Miles. Your standpoint makes more sense now.
Re: (as Killer_Tofu)
They're not taking anything from the author.
They are copying it.
This has been beaten with a stick already. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
Re: A programmer's simple solution (as Killer_Tofu)
Amen.
Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing? (as Killer_Tofu)
Wtf Miles?
I have seen you make awesome arguments before, but this is not one of them.
You are honestly saying that if one part of the connection isn't secure you should not use any security at all? That makes no sense.
but those who are offering you the VPN service may not appreciate you taking chances on *their* secured connection.
You do realize he pays them for this right? It is the service they offer in exchange for your money?
All it takes is one time to change security to vulnerability.
It seems to me from your post that you are more advocating turning off all security just because one site on the internet might not be secure. I think you need to clarify.