Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
if you want to shut down mega upload because of the piracy problem then independent artist should have the same right to shut down radio stations who refuse to give them equal play time.
|
How are these two things even related? Who is to determine who gets played on the radio? If my band sucks I should get even playing time with Metallica or Michael Jackson or whoever else has sold millions of records? That isn't a free market it's kindergarden sports where everyone gets a trophy.
Also MegaUpload wasn't a promotional vehicle it was a delivery system. At best case you pushed your own fans there, they (MegaUpload) did not return the favor and give you traffic back. They kept all their traffic and kept all their money.
Quote:
|
not what i advocated, at all, i said the government should have left mega upload up, for the independents and simply took down the pirated content only.
|
How could they do that without seizing the site? Megaupload was warned, as are other sites of their ilk. MegaUpload could've and should've been doing that all along! By the time the government gets involved it is too late! The pirates are just as responsible for putting things like SOPA on the table as the media companies. None of it is about free speech it is all about money. KimDotCom's 30 million vs the Billions of the media conglomerates. Both these idiots are fucking up the internet for everyone else.
Quote:
Personally i believe that fair use should be protected equal to copyright
if a copyright holder infringes on a fair use, those people should have a right to sue for statutory damages of 25k per infringement
if the copyright holder destroys a business based on fair use, that business should have a right to ask for every copyright to be voided (unless the copyright holder adequately compensates the wrongfully accused for their losses).
|
Really no one has a right to anything. Like your example Coulton said, no one has a "right" to make money off their own music.
"And if you can stand me sounding even crazier, here is this: making money from art is not a human right. It so happens that technological and societal blahbity bloos have conspired to create a situation where selling songs about monkeys and robots is a viable business, but for most of human history people have NOT paid for art."
I tend to agree with this. Laws are mainly put into place to protect peace. But if someone can be granted 25k for every instance of a false DMCA while I am also granted 25k for every instance of stolen work every time someone takes my content and uploads it to share without my permission. I would GLADLY take that deal!
Quote:
well since you get to set your own price, and it the market that decides weather people will actually buy or simply download the song for free.
The argument that you should have a right to force people to pay non market driven prices for abundant goods is the most anti free market statement you can make.
|
Not really. Competition and IP theft are different things completely across every single business. If another company makes a better product or can make a similar project cheaper then that dictates my price. That is a free market. Hyundai copying the exact design for a Ferrari and selling it for the price of their line of cars is not. Think back to when Phystar started making knockoff mac computers for cheaper and were sued into oblivion. Is that anti free market, too?