Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Government Your Rights Online

Sons of Anarchy Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy 381

Posted by samzenpus
from the samcro-hates-piracy dept.
theodp writes "Over at Slate, Sons of Anarchy creator Kurt Sutter argues that Google's anti-copyright stance is just a way to devalue content, which is bad for artists and bad for consumers. The screed is Sutter's response to an earlier anti-copyright rant in Slate penned by a lawyer who represents Google and is a Fellow at the New America Foundation, a public policy institute chaired by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt that receives funding from Schmidt and Google. 'Everyone is aware that Google has done amazing things to revolutionize our Internet experience,' writes Sutter. 'And I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Google are very nice people. But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing. Yet Google wants to take our content, devalue it, and make it available for criminals to pirate for profit. Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work. People access Kim through Google. And then, when Hollywood tries to impede that thievery, it's presented to the masses as a desperate attempt to hold on to antiquated copyright laws that will kill your digital buzz. It's so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who's the friend of the young everyman. Don't kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You're just another revenue resource Google can access to create more traffic and more data streams. Unfortunately, those streams are now pristine, digital ones of our work, which all flow into a huge watershed of semi-dirty cash. If you want to know more about how this works, just Google the word "parasite."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sons of Anarchy Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy

Comments Filter:
  • Sour grapes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @02:46PM (#46499831) Homepage Journal

    Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people..

    • Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Last Gunslinger (827632) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @02:54PM (#46499887)
      Actually it works against content *publishers* (not creators) who have traditionally been the purveyors of grossly unfair contracts and all manner of unsavory business practices (e.g. we own perpetual license to any works you create, etc.) that leveraged their knowledge and access to distribution channels in order to live off the creative efforts of actual content producers. See also: Payola.

      For this no-value-added middleman clown to accuse any other operation of being parasitic is the apotheosis of laughable hypocrisy.
      • Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @03:24PM (#46500095)

        "Actually it works against content *publishers* (not creators) who have traditionally been the purveyors of grossly unfair contracts and all manner of unsavory business practices (e.g. we own perpetual license to any works you create, etc.) that leveraged their knowledge and access to distribution channels in order to live off the creative efforts of actual content producers. See also: Payola."

        It's not either-or. Many "content creators" are their own publishers, and are responsible for at least as much copyright abuse as publishers-only. (We're looking at you, Disney.)

        • Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)

          by The Last Gunslinger (827632) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @03:52PM (#46500259)
          You illustrate my point. The suits at Disney responsible for lobbying and litigating IP rules are not the people creating characters and animating stories. And the fact that the company takes creative content (e.g. new stories) and uses their copyrighted character to act them out does not make them creators of content. It makes them thieves.

          Show me the independent artist who is being serviced by today's 120-year copyright protections, and I'll show you a BitTorrent user who isn't pirating stuff.
          • Re:Sour grapes (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @05:23PM (#46500791)

            "The suits at Disney responsible for lobbying and litigating IP rules are not the people creating characters and animating stories."

            Ahem. Yes, they are. They build their own 3D animation studios. They hire their own artists (not up-and-coming talented bands or movie stars) in-house. Disney has almost always done it that way.

            Yes, Disney *IS* the creator of that content, not just the publisher. You're splitting hairs that are so fine they're not even visible under a microscope.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Yes, Disney *IS* the creator of that content, not just the publisher. You're splitting hairs that are so fine they're not even visible under a microscope.

              You mean all the stuff they took from the public domain, drew up some vision of the characters and now outright own the whole thing instead of the drawings they made? That kind of creation?

          • by jd2112 (1535857) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @06:55PM (#46501371)

            You illustrate my point. The suits at Disney responsible for lobbying and litigating IP rules are not the people creating characters and animating stories. And the fact that the company takes creative content (e.g. new stories) and uses their copyrighted character to act them out does not make them creators of content. It makes them thieves.

            If Disney keeps on extending copyright, someday they will run out of public domain material to form the basis of new movies.

    • Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Informative)

      by ATMAvatar (648864) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @02:58PM (#46499919) Journal
      Devalued content helps the consumer all the way up until the flow of new content stops, and there is no indication that it would, even in a world where all content was distributed for free. I might have more sympathy for the guy if the big content producers didn't also bribe Congress to extend copyright duration to a point where something produced in an average person's lifetime will not enter the public domain until after they're long dead.
      • Re:Sour grapes (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16, 2014 @03:44PM (#46500215)

        The point of copyright law, I think, should be whether it is good for 'society' or not. Whether it is good for the content producer, the consumer, or google shouldn't matter quite as much as whether it is good for society as a whole. Would creative people keep producing new and wonderful content it the protection of their efforts were more limited, if their distributors and heirs were less rich? I think yes, because I think artists are internally driven to produce. It would be more difficult for them to produce works beyond a certain scale (where they need mega-millions to do what they want to do), but that might not be a bad thing. Would the big-bucks producers (Hollywood, Bollywood, big studios) keep financing big works if the duration of their protection were more limited? Again, I think so, just that they would need to keep working, rather than relying on the sale of articles out of their library. The effect of copyright law on Google, Hollywood Studios, or even the artists should be secondary to it's effects on creative production. So, short-term protection should be the order of the day imo, not long-term protection.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by west (39918)

          > I think yes, because I think artists are internally driven to produce.

          Once they're no longer living in their parents basement, they're also driven to eat.

          If you don't want to make provisions for your content creators to be paid, expect your music to be like the musician in the coffee shop, your books to be like fan-fic, and your movies to be closer to YouTube videos. Not all are terrible and some are excellent, but for most consumers, not a match for what they enjoy today.

          I'm a programmer - I'd be up

          • by noh8rz10 (2716597)

            Agreed. I think it's good for society when awesome people can make a good living by doing awesome things. Whether you're a programmer or a musician or whatever, it's bad for society when you put down your instrument of choice because you have to go do a shift at starbucks because you need to get health insurance or pay rent (let alone a mortgage or college tuition).

            I do not agree with some countries that subsidize artistic endeavors. Cuz then you have a selection of bureaucrats deciding which art is "art".

          • Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)

            by dryeo (100693) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @04:44PM (#46500547)

            And how would going back to a 14+14 year copyright term hurt the average artist? They'd still get paid, just have to produce something new more regularly. Even the one hit wonders would make good money and if they sensibly invest it they still might never need to work.
            In your case as a programmer for hire, it would mean that your Boss would be more motivated to keep you around and happy instead of taking your code (for a price) and milking it forever.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by west (39918)

              A 28 year copyright term would probably not hurt productivity significantly.

              I find the whole lengthening of copyright fairly obnoxious and would be fine with something reasonable (max 28 years or artists lifetime?).

              But its use as as justification for piracy of recently produced stuff is near ludicrous. It's like justifying robbing someone because of US foreign policy.

              • by AK Marc (707885)
                14 years, extendable by another 14 on application, provided the author/creator was human (not a corporation) and didn't assign copyright to a corporation in the first 14 years (except for self or family owned corporations).

                Though I prefer something more silly like $0.01 for a month of copyright, doubling every month. Under $100 for a year of copyright. More than the sum of human wealth for 10 years.
          • Once they're no longer living in their parents basement, they're also driven to eat.

            If you don't want to make provisions for your content creators to be paid, expect your music to be like the musician in the coffee shop, your books to be like fan-fic, and your movies to be closer to YouTube videos. Not all are terrible and some are excellent, but for most consumers, not a match for what they enjoy today.

            Copyright isn't the only way for artists to get paid. It may be the easiest and most secure but by far not the only one. When my current employment contract expires next year, I'm going to start my own company to prove that free culture can be profitable for creators.

            I'm a programmer - I'd be upset if my Boss told me he was taking the code I wrote, but not paying me. And then told me it wasn't stealing, because I still had the source on my hard drive. So I understand if content providers don't see the difference between piracy and theft - I don't.

            It's not stealing because you're absolutely free to stop writing more code for your boss when he stops paying you. That's what employment contracts are all about.

            • by west (39918)

              > I'm going to start my own company to prove that free culture can be profitable for creators.

              It's not *impossible* to be able to survive providing free culture, but honestly, I hope you don't have anyone depending upon you for income, because the odds are not in your favor. Best of luck, anyway.

              However, no matter how optimistic you are, what becomes clear is that if copyright dies in a practical sense, you cannot make a living as an artist. You might be able to make it as a businessman / artist on th

              • It's not *impossible* to be able to survive providing free culture, but honestly, I hope you don't have anyone depending upon you for income, because the odds are not in your favor. Best of luck, anyway.

                I know what I'm getting myself into and I'm prepared for the possibility that I'll fail. I should find out whether I've failed or not long before I run out of cash.

                However, no matter how optimistic you are, what becomes clear is that if copyright dies in a practical sense, you cannot make a living as an artist. You might be able to make it as a businessman / artist on the side, but if fundamentally you can't get paid for your art, but only for your {merchandise, stage presence, likability, etc.}, then the market fundamentally changes, and probably not in a good way.

                One thing becomes clear, like free-to-play games, the vast majority of money comes from a few real patrons with deep pockets. For artists who actually need to support themselves and, heaven forbid, a family, you survive not by producing work true to you, but by pleasing those few patrons upon which your livelihood depends.

                My plan involves Kickstarter-style funding so that should not be a problem. Yes, my audience will make decisions for me with their wallets but I don't expect to depend only on a handful of individuals once my business takes off.

                I think the artistic community is *far* better served with a democratic model where a large number of people pay a little rather than a few people paying a lot. Artists still need to serve a community, but can draw upon a much larger group, and is dependent on no single customer.

                What democratic model are you talking about? In the mainstream film and music market, all those people pay to MAFIAA. MA

              • The odds are not in your favor either way. A creative career has never been a stable choice, and models that are less dependent upon copyright tend to have more reasonable wealth distribution. Also, it's quite hilarious that you bring up the potential for artists producing non-representative works to please a small powerful group of wealthy people as if we aren't already in a state where that is rampant.
              • Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Interesting)

                by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @06:24PM (#46501167)

                I'm firmly in the "reform copyright" camp. That is, I think copyright is a useful economic tool for promoting creation and distribution of new work, but the current implementation of copyright law is deeply flawed and no longer fit for purpose in most of the western world.

                That said, I want to challenge this statement you made, because I think it's too strong:

                However, no matter how optimistic you are, what becomes clear is that if copyright dies in a practical sense, you cannot make a living as an artist.

                I don't think this is a black/white question, but rather a matter of probability, scale, and variety of options. Many people do make a living in creative industries without really relying on copyright all that much.

                For example, most of the work I do is subject to copyright protection, and in some of my roles I would normally transfer the copyright to clients/customers at the end of a job. However, often neither I nor my customers much care about that, because if we're talking about software that is running on their web server or embedded in their device, it has much more practical protection against someone ripping it than copyright affords, and in any case the software would have limited value in isolation so there's not much incentive for others to copy it.

                Not everyone in software works on projects where that would be the case, so for others copyright offers a better incentive. But in those cases, other models might also work. I have some hope for the crowd-sourcing idea, as the likes of Kickstarter have already shown that even quite substantial projects staffed by solid industry veterans can pull in a decent amount of funding to match. Potentially there's a lot of middleman removal as a pleasant side effect, all the while still allowing the overall cost of developing a moderately large project to be amortised over many customers (and unlike typical copyright-and-sale business models, potentially allowing different customers to contribute more or less according to their means, so perhaps better satisfying your "democratic model" criteria). I think we need a few more of the bigger projects to actually deliver before drawing too many conclusions here, and of course even the biggest are still orders of magnitude smaller than what copyright-backed industry has achieved, but the early signs look positive from here.

                So while I'd agree that the scales proven so far and the odds of success are not as good without copyright as with it, at least for those kinds of creative work where copyright is fundamental to the existing business model anyway, I think it's too strong to say that you can't make a living as an artist without it. What we should be concentrating on is whether more people wind up making more and better work that is ultimately enjoyed by more people with different variations of copyright or other IP frameworks. The idea is to maximise creativity and productivity for the benefit of society as a whole, IMHO.

      • My concern isn't content creators but all the middle men who get paid several times what the creators do. Why does an eBook cost more than a regular book and the author gets a smaller piece?

        The authors work is unchanged. The publisher/editors work remains unchanged. Only the delivery mechanism changes. I have always had a hard time believing that prepress, printing and shipping, costs less than prepress and uploading to a bunch of servers.

      • If you produce something when you're 20, have kids when you're 30, copyright will still be in effect when you grand kids die of old age.

    • Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @02:59PM (#46499923)

      "Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people.."

      This.

      Contrary to what OP and TFA say, the Google-lawyer article wasn't "anti-copyright" at all. It was anti-copyright-ABUSE, and anti-copyright-TROLLING. There is a pretty damned big difference. Leaving off those last parts is disingenuous to the point of lying.

  • Uhhh... no (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The artist is not the one being gored by the presence of Google.... the impact is not to artists themselves but to the the antiquated business models of labels and studios.

    The labels and studios are the whale oil salesmen at the dawn of the age of electricity. How well did the campaign's against electricity work for them? Adapt... or die in a Darwinian spiral.

    • Re:Uhhh... no (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ThatAblaze (1723456) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @03:18PM (#46500055)

      Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work.

      This is hilarious, coming from a guy who writes a TV show about a gang of convicted felons who make millions of dollars in illegal revenue selling guns. You would think he of all people might be a little sympathetic to the idea of people stepping outside the law to provide a service when there is enough demand to do so.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    it doesn't matter. sure google is making money off of it. so is pirate bay with its porn ads.

    if they didn't, a thousand other people would. unless you are seriously going to rewind the clock
    to 1970 and only allow distribution and playback of analog, concrete media, you're just gonna
    have to get paid some other way or go out of business

    its perfectly fine to point this out, but are you saying there is some other option?

    • unless you are seriously going to rewind the clock to 1970 and only allow distribution and playback of analog, concrete media,

      I fondly remember my collection of concrete records. They had a uniquely gravelly sound that can't be duplicated by any digital technology. Sadly, I eventually got rid of them all because they were just too damned heavy to lug around.

  • I'm sure if you just start selling Sons of Anarchy t-shirts over the web and ship them out of your garage, you'll be fine!
  • Is Kim Dotcom a convicted felon, as Kurt Sutter claims? What case has he been convicted of, that makes him a felon? It seems he is still fighting extradition and other challenges in New Zealand. Where and when was he convicted of a felony regarding content, copyright or intellectual property?

    • by casings (257363) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @03:11PM (#46500007)

      Allow me to post the wikipedia article you were too lazy to search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]

      In 1994, he was arrested by German police for trafficking in stolen phone calling card numbers. He was held in custody for a month, released and arrested again on additional hacking charges shortly afterwards. He was eventually convicted of 11 counts of computer fraud, 10 counts of data espionage, and an assortment of other charges. He received a two-year suspended sentence – because he was under age at the time the crimes were committed.[29] The judge in the case said the court viewed his actions as "youthful foolishness."[30]
      In 2001, Schmitz bought €375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company Letsbuyit.com (de) and subsequently announced his intention to invest €50 million in the company.[31] The announcement caused the share value of Letsbuyit.com to jump[32] and Schmitz cashed out, making a profit of €1.5 million. One commentator suggested that Schmitz may have been ignorant of the legal ramifications of what he had done, since insider trading was not made a crime in Germany until 1995,[29] and until 2002 prosecutors also had to prove the accused had criminal intent.[33]
      Schmitz moved to Thailand to avoid investigation[12] where he was subsequently arrested on behalf of German authorities.[30] In response, he allegedly pretended to kill himself online, posting a message on his website that from now on he wished to be known as "His Royal Highness King Kimble the First, Ruler of the Kimpire".[30][34] He was deported back to Germany where he pleaded guilty to embezzlement in November 2003 and, after five months in jail awaiting trial, again received a suspended sentence (of 20 months).[33] After avoiding a prison sentence for a second time, he left Germany and moved to Hong Kong in late 2003.[12]

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      He was convicted of insider trading and embezzlement, and some computer crime I don't really remember. Whatever it was, it was not relevant and used dishonestly by the crybaby idiot in TFA to imply that it was in the context of copyright. Reading this emotion-appealing hyperbole collection makes me kinda regret trying to defend copyright just yesterday.... I hate both sides of this `debate'.
    • by nedlohs (1335013)

      He was convicted of computer fraud and embezzlement. There was no claim made that he was felon due anything related to content, copyright of intellectual property.

    • by rainer_d (115765)
      AFAIK: stock fraud. Back in Germany. A dot.com bubble thing. And before that, he got in trouble for hacking servers/networks (turned it into a pent-test business and sold it for big bucks - that's how he got rich the first time).
      He's a colorful personality.
    • by milkmage (795746)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]

      He rose to fame in Germany in the 1990s as an alleged hacker and internet entrepreneur. He was convicted of several crimes, and received a suspended prison sentence in 1994 for computer fraud and data espionage, and another suspended prison sentence in 2003 for insider trading and embezzlement.[12]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]

      he's kind of a slug, dude. he is not your anti-DMCA champion, he's a common fucking thief.

      "Where and when was he convicted of a felony regarding co

  • Non sequitur (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stellian (673475) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @02:55PM (#46499899)

    It's so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who's the friend of the young everyman. Don't kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You're just another revenue resource

    That may all be true, but that does not change the fact that Sutter is also part of the establishment and also looking at viewers as a revenue stream. Google vs Hollywood are two bears fighting over a beehive, and we are the bees. Pick your side carefully, when the fight is over someone eats the honey and it's not you or me.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content?

      Yes! That is why they walked away from China.

      Now let's talk about those lost Dr. Who episodes. Or would you rather address the copyright that every orchestra applies to their redition of a Mozart tune.

    • I'd rather the bear who wins based their fight on freedom and not restriction.

      Freedom Honey sounds much better than DRM Honey, even if it does have a dirty hippy sound to it.

    • "Google vs Hollywood are two bears fighting over a beehive, and we are the bees. "

      And carry to the analogy further: if they would stop trampling the bees, everyone could have more honey.

      There is a primitive mercantilist view of economics that says that money that someone else made is necessarily money that I lost. This view underpins most anti-capitalist actions, both leftist and rightist.

  • I would like to know how that's even possible, but this sort of person is one who relies entirely on emotion, and not someone who's capable of rational thought.

  • by amaurea (2900163) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @02:58PM (#46499915) Homepage

    This book [ucla.edu] argues quite convincingly, based on current and historical examples, that copyrights and patents are a net negative to society.

  • And should Google be your internet police? Why should Google make sure YOUR content isn't being stolen. Sorry but that's YOUR jobs unless you PAY Google or anyone else to police your works. Nothing is free in this world that includes you hiring people to police your content. I don't steal or share stuff im not soposta i learned that from my parents at a very young age. Why do so many people today think its ok and fix it.
  • by Oysterville (2944937) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @03:02PM (#46499937)
    Funny coming from someone who does a show of that name. It's just pretend anarchy.
  • So why is being 'the establishment' such a horrible thing? As individual consumers, or even groups of consumers, we are pretty powerless. Our best stragety is generally supporting the established power who's goals align the best with our own. Yeah, Google is doing what is in Google's best interests, the MPAA/RIAA are doing what is in their best interests, and the combined media/ISP companies are doing what are in their best interests. As consumers we are not going to fight any of them directly, but we c
  • by tricorn (199664) <sep@shout.net> on Sunday March 16, 2014 @03:05PM (#46499959) Journal

    Google contributes quite a bit, just because its software doesn't mean it's not creative.

    I'd be willing to bet that he uses free software all the time. Why doesn't he think that's a worthwhile contribution?

  • Kurt Sutter seems to be a whiner that can't understand that they have to adapt and make the customers feel appreciated for purchasing the content.

    One of the first things that must go away is those extremely annoying copyright warnings that we are forced to see when we have bought the film, but are nowhere to be seen on "pirated" movies. Only thing those warnings are good for is to know that now it's a good time to do #1 & #2 before I watch the movie.

  • by Frater 219 (1455) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @03:10PM (#46499991) Journal

    But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives.

    You never use a search engine while writing? They're awfully handy for fact-checking, looking up sources, and so on.

    But I suppose those sorts of activities are not required these days ....

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's pretty obvious that you've never seen an episode of sons of anarchy so let me explain.
      There is absolutely no need for googling anything while creating this show. If you had ever watched this so called tv show you would know that it has all the wit of a story written by a 4-year old with a crayon, completely flat one dimensional characters and to top it off law enforcement are all acting like they are severely mentally challenged and on top of that they are all corrupt so that the shows good guys (the b

    • Software / hardware development and design are creative processes as well. I guess that 'devaluing creative work' only applies to your own content. Google has figured out how to make money while giving the fruit of those creative processes away, something that the content industries have been fighting as long as they have existed.

  • Yet Google wants to take our content, devalue it, and make it available for criminals to pirate for profit.

    Who's paying for pirated content? Will piracy go away if no-one can profit from it?*

    * Rhetorical. No, it won't.

    • by west (39918)

      Actually, if *no one* can profit from it? Then yes it will. (Okay, it would be highly diminished.)

      Luckily, there are a *lot* of ways to profit from piracy. Provide bandwidth, blank CD's, blank diskettes, blank tapes, hard drives, computers, video players, on-site advertising, virus/worm infection vectors, etc., etc., etc.

      Is the next stop how the drug trade would be undiminished if no-one made any money off of that?

      • How much money is made on illicit alcohol in the US?

      • by Immerman (2627577)

        You forgot the most important way to profit - the way which can't be eliminated no matter what you do: Getting free stuff. So long as people can give a copy of their movie/software/music to their friends, thus enriching their friends at no expense to themselves, piracy will continue. They did it with mix tapes and VHS long before the internet or mp3s, and they won't stop any time soon. The internet and digital content simply make a time-honored tradition even easier and removes the degradation inherent in

        • by west (39918)

          Well, i was addressing the original assertion - piracy will continue if no-one profits from it, but aside from that, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

          However, a few points:

          Fortunately most adults understand that you need to pay people if you want them to keep making cool stuff, and are even willing to pay a reasonable price for quality content, so there is hope.

          I see that a lot in older people. But I find the sentiment less common among those who grew up not even understanding there was such a

    • Actually, the bigger question is that, if the "pirates" are making so much fucking money on this second-rate content (compressed, poorly packaged, difficult to find, and onerous to collect), how is it that the content creator, which have the ability to make acquisition super-easy are not able to see a dime from their work?

      The simple answer is that the entire landscape for distribution has changed, and the laws are still written as if it were pre-internet.

  • by Fringe (6096) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @03:10PM (#46499999)

    The problem is Disney. The last Copyright Extension Act increased copyrights to 120 years. The original U.S. copyright length, in the Copyright Act of 1790, was for 14 years with the potential for one renewal for another 14, and only if the author was still alive.

    Corporations have taken over copyright, and it's not currently fixable due to their power. We can destroy copyright and then rebuild more easily than we can wrestle the monied interests into compromise.

    Google is a problem for both sides, but that isn't a bad thing... having two enemies duke it out, weakening each other without impacting you, is a good thing.

    • While I agree that the extension of copyright terms is a huge problem in terms of things like remixes/rehashes/reimaginings of existing content (not that this has actually stopped people from Rule 34'ing every Disney Princess in a multitude of ways), for most "zomg piracy, our copyrights!" discussions it is not a factor; the vast majority of 'piracy' is of recent things with a very clear drop-off as you go further back in time.

      In the case of Sons of Anarchy, season 1 of that series hasn't even passed some o

      • by hibiki_r (649814)

        Well, it's just as illegal to download an episode than is 1 year old, than it is to download one that is 50 years old. If the punishment is the same, why wouldn't you download the latest stuff?

        He'd be voicing the concern no matter what, because he believes he is better served by infinite copyright.

  • 'Everyone is aware that Google has done amazing things to revolutionize our Internet experience,' writes Sutter. 'And I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Google are very nice people. But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing.

    I cant even begin to tell you how many items I would never know about if it were not for google and other search engines. To say they add no value is a joke Ive found more movies and music i never would have given a chance to from them, and yes paid for some of it!

  • ... is Kurt Sutter? I Googled the name, but nothing related came up.

    • The first hit I was was an excerpt from wikipedia

      Kurt Leon Sutter (born May 5, 1960) is an American screenwriter, director, producer, actor and douche bag.

    • So.. you attempted to use google to get collaborative information about an article that claimed that google was giving out information too freely, and you failed to find the information you were looking for. Irony?

  • Make it clear to me that you don't see my property rights as being in contention with your rights. You can start by disavowing any federal legislation that tells me what I can do with my property including tinkering, modifying and resale of the same. Get your DMCA-padded mits off my physical property and stop lobbying for restrictions on my computerized devices.

    Until then all I hear is "blah blah blah I want to violate your rights for profit blah blah blah."

    • Get your DMCA-padded mits off my physical property and stop lobbying for restrictions on my computerized devices.

      Seriously. My coworker told me all about what you have to do these days to get original source digital audio to play properly from so-called "legitimate" sources. I've never owned a TV or a BlueRay player, so I've never had to deal with all the HDCP bullshit. I was appalled. Why does ANYBODY put up with that shit?

  • What a tool.

  • Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope.

    Actually, yes. If we couldn't speak freely, Google couldn't index and profit from it.

  • SoA bitching about Google [slashdot.org]

    Google bitching about copyright [slate.com]

    Apple bitching about Samsung [slashdot.org]

    Microsoft and Google bitching about each other [slashdot.org]

    Sprint ripping off the warrantless surveillance program [slashdot.org]

    University of Phoenix poisoning the student loan program [slashdot.org]

    The Koch brothers and friends are always bitching about the bottom 90% having a sense of entitlement for wanting to be able to afford health insurance when they work full time. I'm a lot more sick of the rich and their sense of entitlement to be a little richer, often wi

    • by stenvar (2789879)

      The Koch brothers and friends are always bitching about the bottom 90% having a sense of entitlement for wanting to be able to afford health insurance when they work full time.

      I've never seen the Koch brothers "bitch" about "bout the bottom 90% having a sense of entitlement for wanting to be able to afford health insurance". Citation?

      The Koch brothers, like most people who believe in classical liberalism, simply believe that government financing of programs like health care and retirement is simply not sust

    • Funny how the people who scream about the evil Koch brothers never have a word to say about George Soros and his puppet occupying the White House.

    • It's funny how people bitch about the Koch brothers while ignoring the 58 people and groups who spend MORE money to influence politics (the majority of which donate to Democratic Party campaigns).
  • Primary pleaders they are called sometimes by Congress. That is people who come before committees asking for some legislation that will benefit them directly.

    Justifiably they are given a great dose of skepticism (but probably not enough).

    Please, no more articles based on the writings of a primary pleader.

  • Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work

    Yes, he's a criminal.
    He sold stolen phone cards.
    He was convicted of insider trading.
    He was convicted of securities fraud.

    But nothing he has been convicted, or even faced a trial for has anything to do with copyright.

  • Bullshit. Your argument just went out the window with that line.

  • That rant would be a lot more convincing if it came from someone who (1) actually produced something creative, and (2) who could make a convincing argument that he has actually been harmed by Google.

    So far, I see the whinings of a third-rate author whose works aren't infringed by Google and who has probably benefited enormously from publicity due to Google, not to mention that he and others creating "his" show probably use Gmail and other Google tools.

  • It sounds like Kurt Sutter has not thought about the economics of his industry. There is more media (tv shows, movies, albums, etc.) than ever before in human history. The tools to create and distribute are cheaper than they have ever been. At the same time, the amount of time people have to consume media has either stayed the same or shrank, if one considers other new forms of media created over the last few decades. The laws of supply & demand dictate than an ever-increasing supply with shrinking (or

  • I have no love for Hollywood or the publishing industry, but content producers need something to concentrate audience for promotional purposes.

    Even more importantly, if we encourage piracy, the person we're ultimately going to harm is the content producer, specifically the independent ones. Big publishing and movie houses will find a way around Google, but the little guy will not.

    When that happens, people will stop pursuing content production as a career because they won't be able to survive. This means tha

  • by saleenS281 (859657) on Sunday March 16, 2014 @05:00PM (#46500641) Homepage
    Was accused, not convicted, but why let the details get in the way. Copyright has become bastardized to the point of exhaustion. Copyright's original intent was to allow the creator to make money off their works for a set period of time at which point the works would become public domain. As with everything else in this country, the right and powerful decided that we really shouldn't actually have public domain, and convinced congress to just keep extending copyright's time limit to the point where it's basically non-existent. By the time something hit public domain these days, it's so irrelevant so as to be basically worthless in almost all cases.

    Copyright never should've been allowed to last longer than the creator's lifetime (and quite frankly I think the original 14 years plus another 14 was more than enough). Anything more is simply a bastardization of the original intent. You *MIGHT* be able to convince me that it should be extended to cover their spouse's lifetime for the rare circumstance in which an artist dies prematurely, but outside of that... it's all a corporate money grab.
  • Now troll is the story itself.
    Nice.
  • As I understand it:

    A long time ago, Google made some books public.

    Not just any books, books that had nobody to send royalties to. Books which have been out of print a long time. Nobody was hurt.

    Google competitors used shills to manufacturer a big fuss about it. People who don't know about believed the shills.

Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.

Working...