|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Mainstream -- or perhaps better put, "much larger, much more mature industries" -- certainly has its share of loophole leapers, but it's not a prerequisite to survival and success. Furthermore there's always a concern to appear ethical (not necessarily to be ethical.) For example, you'll never hear Boone Pickens wave off a detractor by saying "don't hate the player, hate the game" (I would love to see it though :D). You would not see a "mainstream" entity so obviously pushing a loophole at a supplier or competitor's expense because the deniability is hardly plausible. My gut feeling is that abuse continue simply because the licensors whose IP is being leveraged without consent are so small that they are unable, individually, to defend their rights. Meanwhile the RIAA zaps $100k from an individual with a lot of MP3s. While there are certainly people who feel a visceral disgust -- "hate" -- for those whom you describe as "ruthless enough, uncaring enough to make money doing shit," I think there's a higher plane with a more interesting conversation to be had. Would one be a "hater" for acting to correct a broken system, in other words, to change the game? Or is a "hater" anyone who is NOT taking advantage of the loopholes? ORRR does this whole mess highlight that it's just IMPOSSIBLE to protect IP in the information age? That DELIVERY is what people are paying for, not the CONTENT itself? |
Quote:
If you are shooting content in the first place, like both you and I, and do not have a LLC you are a fucking idiot. You are just begging to be sued by your models and lose your ass. It is common fucking sense to be an LLC to protect yourself. Just like paying models. You think I pay them out of my personal checking? Cash maybe? :2 cents: |
Something I would like to correct here, there is no loophole in the DMCA.
The DMCA itself is a loophole. Of course the alternative is probably worse. That would be that you could sue someone for damages if they violated your copyrights, and there would be no safe harbor to hide behind. BUT, your stuff wouldn't be taken down until a judge ordered it, and that would take at least 6 months, and if the pirate had half competent counsel, more like 18 months....at which point you'd be suing out of principle because your "new release" is now in the bargain bin.....also if it was found that the defendant had a fair use right, you'd have to remunerate them for attorney fees and costs etc. |
Quote:
None of that changes the facts of the matter. Business is business. No matter how technical you want to get on the legal, the moral, or choice of language in my example it's legal. The fact remains that in current form, those loopholes exist just like in other industries, or the tax code. People take advantage of them, and that is the plain and simple fact of the matter. Whether you approve or not matters none. They do not pay their bills with your opinion or endorsement, and despite what is said on message boards. Most do not care. |
Quote:
So get a pair of good cowboy boots and do the cabbage patch, or greasy chicken. You are going to be dancing awhile, and as well proven over and over again. Few people have the balls to do anything, and those that do make a half hearted effort in the end still fold. :2 cents: |
Quote:
1. You upload your own content. 2. You run your site for a profit. 3. Moderate uploads. 4. Don't allow uploads at all. The ISP provision just says states, "We leave the flood gates open and wharever comes through comes through, if you find something copy-written we will remove it." Even BUYING your own content takes you out of ISP land. :2 cents: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What does your response have anything to do with the value of content versus delivery? Or whether it's contemptible to seek change? It's like I said "2+2 is 4" and you said "but the lunchbox is yellow!" :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh |
Quote:
I'll leave you to your shadow boxing or devil's advocate arguments that have no conclusion to the current situation. The spicy language, or legal technicalities you like to cite do not change anything professor. As I said, get some good shoes so you can tap dance around the turd in the punch bowl. Your approval, ethics, morals do not change the DMCA loophole, nor the fact people will use it as a strategic advantage. Period. Carry on. :pimp |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I responded directly to your original question and explained it in detail. You wanted to get off on some tangent about use of language, and jive turkey or your lack of understanding and compare it to Madoff, and all this other nonsense. The fact remains as described a number of posts ago. DMCA is a loophole and business is business. Some will use it as an advantage, and others will not. In the end, none require your endorsement. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's a hint: NOTHING I am talking about has anything to do with my approval, or any of that whiny bullshit you're SO eager to destroy even when that's not what you're hearing. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh I'm saying, with what is happening, who is winning, who is losing, WHY? If they are winning today, are they winning in five years? What is driving this movement? How can I figure out a way to profit in the long-term? You know, shooting the shit on a messageboard. Chill with the Rand-Hammer man, that was nail was pounded in long ago. :drinkup (you can keep calling me professor, that's cool) |
Frankly I do not care what anyone believes. That should be more than apparent by now I would think. But that's me. None of it effects my business.
Quote:
|
Quote:
i suggest you re read snake doctors post, and go back and try and remember what a pain it was to get your content dropped before the takedown notices safe harbor is the balance to that new power period. no loophole it does exactly what it was designed to, to prevent that takedown request from turning into a censorship tool. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'll just blame tubes... mmkay? kthxbye...
|
Quote:
Last time I checked all of the hosts I know make a profit and they're still ISPs. Same thing goes for Charter who provides me with internet access locally. Alot of this other stuff will (hopefully) be resolved by the Viacom v Google case. My point still is still the same and still valid though. If you wanted to throw out DMCA completely so you could sue the bastards violating your copyrights, you'd have to wait 6-18 months to have your content taken down, AND if the defendant somehow won the case, you'd have to remunerate them for attorney fees and other expenses. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you have a solid ground for a lawsuit it is worth waiting, maybe your compensation for damages will be higher than what your site's going to make in it's entire lifetime. But even if it's not doesn't matter - 99,9999% of those motherfuckers who steal nowadays all day long would not do that knowing there's a good chance they'll get sued and they have NOTHING to show in court. Now with the damnable DMCA around all they have to do is to show their upload button to a judge and that's it, rock solid proof they're clean. I'll go back into the pre-DMCA era any day of the week. It isn't a big deal to sue, the big deal is when your content is all around and you cannot even sue, only to send piles of worthless DMCA notices which do nothing in the grand scheme of things - the next day your content will be all over the place again. |
Thread deleted...
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It amazes me how many shooters pay by personal check and/or cash. Even some of the "bigger companies." |
Quote:
:disgust |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123