Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefootsies
I mean the laws/DMCA are set up the way they are now (game) and there are many (players) who are taking advantage of that loophole for financial gain.
Same as big coal, banks, oil and credit card companies, and other industries do the exact same thing even when they know it is fucking the planet, the consumer, the economy.
That said, most of the people doing this are idiots who do not have a proper LLC in place, business bank account, separation of business and person or legal counsel to C.Y.A.. So they are playing a dangerous game, and should someone actually enforce their copyrights AND go the distance. They are royally fucking fucked.
Which is on par for most of this industry. Invest nothing in your business, spend it all trying to impress a bunch of fry cooks on an industry message board, or drinking and partying it all away. Or not investing in the future, and think you are going to get away with it forever.
The point being, this is a business like any other and some are taking advantage of the rules as they exist today. Whether unethical, immoral or whatever you would like to call it. It is the rules of the game that exist right now in 2009 for the online industry.
So they are gaming that system for financial gain. So hating, metaphorically, for being intelligent enough, ruthless enough, uncaring enough to make money doing shit like pre-checked cross sales, and driving a mack truck through the loop holes of DMCA is just business.
 |
Thanks for humoring me.
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?