Hollywood Agent Ari Emanuel Wants a Magic 'Stop Piracy' Button 269
closer2it writes "At this week's All Things D conference, Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher invited Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel. He spoke about things like TV not dying, cord-cutting being some kind of myth, and that googlers are smart guys and they should do something about the stealing of content. Josh Topolsky, from The Verge, apparently challenged him (video) on this point, asking: 'Aren't you saying that the road is responsible for the fact that someone drove on it before they robbed my house?' Emanuel didn't like this analogy, and even ended the reply asking Topolsky where he works. Mike Masnick also wrote a piece about the interview. I guess that if the Internet has enemies, I'd say Emanuel gives them a face."
I'd like a pony while we're at it. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the "Googlers" are smart guys, doesn't that only show you'd have to be stupid to support the entertainment industry's view of how content should be bought, sold, and used?
Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought a pony was 25 pounds.
Why not ask for more?
Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (Score:5, Funny)
Just get your pony off BitTorrent.
"You wouldn't download a pony"?
Fuck that, of course I would.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Sadly, the 3D printing of living animals will still be a bit further away than the 3D printing of cars and handbags. Still, we need only wait and technology will provide us with many new ways to pirate livestock!
Re: (Score:2)
Combining your post with the Rule of 34..................
Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (Score:5, Insightful)
He might not get a magic button, but he's more likely to get something acceptable to him than you are to get a pony.
Re: (Score:3)
and is far richer and better connected to politicans than you
Well, guess what. Mathematics and technology don'r give a damn how rich and connected he or anyone else is. They have always worked and they will always work in the same way. There will always be a chance to transfer bits between two parties without anyone else knowing what's going on. The possibilities are so limitless that you can't possibly plug every hole through which data could leak between people.
Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Even North Korea can't stop piracy [torrentfreak.com]. Because sharing content is the natural thing to do. Sharing is what turns content into culture. So what makes Hollywood bosses think they can stop it? Or more importantly, how far are they willing to go to stop it? Because even North Korea obviously doesn't go far enough.
Re: (Score:2)
And men in hell want ice water.
Do they get it?
Hell, No.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I say until We, The People actually have a say at the bargaining table that ALL copyrights should frankly be ignored. The current laws were bought by treasonous bribery against the will of the people and like all laws brought about by bribes and backroom deals they should be treated as the illegal acts they are and promptly ignored.
Until we, the people, can frame our discussion and opinions in ways that don't make us sound like raving lunatics and utter morons, we, the people, will be ignored as lunatic morons. You can't garner support when people who actually agree that copyrights are out of hand think that you're off your rocker.
I'm just sayin'. When you throw around words like "treasonous" in casual conversation about copyright, you demonstrate an utterly extremist view that is easy to ignore.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with you in principle, the problem is the copyright special interest groups often uses extremist [michaelgeist.ca], raving lunatic language [stopthecap.com] too.
Except they are backed by millions of dollars, have PR agencies, and have the ear of politicians (or are politicians, in the example where a Conservative Canadian MP called backers of fair copyright "radical extremists").
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Both sides as bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like both sides were just shouting in each other's direction, not actually answering the points being made. Google are not the copyright police, but they do block child pornography. Come one, answer these points, make your case instead of just repeating yourself.
To be fair the host needed to step in and moderate too. Is this what passes for a debate?
Re:Both sides as bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Google doesn't block child pornography, Google tries to block child pornography. There's a big difference. They can block the terms typically used to search for child porn, but there's no way that Google could block it without actually looking at all the pictures and checking IDs.
And unfortunately, that would be a crime as there's no mens rea requirement attached to child porn charges.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Presumably it isn't illegal to have the checksum values of child pornography. Couldn't the police issue these to Google, so that if their bots crawl illegal content, those sites can be removed from their search results. The URLs for those sites could then be passed back to the police.
This wouldn't be a "magic button" though. Content can easily be hidden.
Re:Both sides as bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Two problems:
In short, any such technological measures are at best useless, and at worst can cause nearly unbounded harm.
Re: (Score:3)
i think it was something about someone uploading child porn to Wikipedia to get it taken down.
that is quite different to adding checksums of things you don't like into the banned list.
one is kinda like someone coming into your house and planting drugs so that cops will come and arrest you
the other is like cops coming to your house and arresting you because they don't like the colour of your carpet.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem might be bandwidth and laws. The crawlers would have to download every file found on every site they visit, then calculate the checksum. So they would generate a pretty heavy load on the sites they visit AND they would likely be guilty of copyright infringement, since many of the files that are 'available' for download are copyrighted.
At least I assume that automated downloads are still illegal, even if you then remove the copy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They were shouting because they were confused. The on-stage guy was confused by the fundamental structure of the Internet and how it works, since he clearly doesn't understand the role of ISPs and search engines, while Topolsky was confused by the child porn red herring that had absolutely no applicability whatsoever.
Topolsky's followup article makes it clear that you can still find child porn in Google search results, so the argument being made by the on-stage guy was invalid even before it got out of the
Re: (Score:2)
actually, the child porn argument was perfectly valid.
Topolsky said: Google are not the police so they should not try to stop people from finding content that would be illegal for them to access
Emanuel replied: They already try to stop people from finding content that would be illegal for them to access, therefore the people with the power to make such decisions, do not believe what you are saying to be true.
The above are not direct quotes, they are what i believe to be meaning of what was said.
i personally
Re: (Score:3)
It's an argument like "if they can ban heroin they should also ban alcohol"... two actions are not equal if they apply to different subjects.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Google do block child pornography
They do? I've found plenty. (Mostly nudity but that's still considered "porn" in some persons twisted reality.)
And this Ari guy is the type who believes reality can be denied just by pretending it doesn't exist. "Comcast lost almost 10 million subscribers last year, and 25 million over the last five years." - "No they didn't." I think they call it cognitive dissonance; an unwillingness to accept reality because it doesn't fit your belief system.
Re:Both sides as bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the links answers this question directly. Child pornography is easier to police because it is absolutely illegal. You can block searches for it. You can develop algorithms to scan images and videos for it. You can target it without pause or question. Copyright is more vague. Is it in the public domain? How do you know? Is this particular case fair use? Considering that Lenz v. Universal ruled that copyright holders can be financially liable for issuing DMCA requests on fair use creations, this is a real issue. Is this a licensed use of it?
Given that nobody really knows what "fair use" is in the digital age, building a system for filtering copyright is impossible on the fair use issue alone. Even if that issue was settled, then Google would have to run every image and video through a database of copyrighted works and they would have to know who has permission to use the works.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all true...but what's missing is the fact that Google already does police their content for them, using the ContentID system they volunteered to create, a system which has already shown us (many times) how legitimate the concerns you list are.
Re: (Score:2)
You can develop algorithms to scan images and videos for it.
Uh, you can? Show me a program that can distinguish between child porn and regular porn.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I have to say Josh was so proud of himself for asking his question he really didn't seem interested in hearing an answer. Usually when you ask a question you then shut up for a second and let the other guy (no matter how wrong his answer is) say something before talking over him.
It was just two egotists talking to the crowd/themselves, neither to the other.
With todays Hollywood (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:im certain (Score:5, Insightful)
why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont.
Your solution here is Netflix.
The artist Drake for example is a greedy and despicable person, i relish each blow to his earnings. his lyrics, his engineering, melody and the like are all manufactured to generate profit for clearinghouses and industry executives at the pittance he is afforded. None of it is authentic, thus none of it is art. without art, there is no artist to defend.
So you hate the artist, hate his music, hate his art overall, but still like it enough to pirate. And since you'd never buy from him, you haven't hurt his earning one whit. Son, you're badly conflicted here.
Re:im certain (Score:4, Informative)
Ah... ever heard about this place called not-USA?
For all your Hulu and Netflix and innovative services like that, we get jack shit. So when we are told to go away from those, we go where they don't care where we're from: thepiratebay. Thanks for playing.
I want Spartakus (Score:4, Insightful)
Your solution here is Netflix.
When does Song of the South or Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea come to Netflix?
Re:im certain (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is that his solution? He already *has* a solution, it's called piracy. He's invested in it, has the equipment and the skill to use that solution. Now you're suggesting he should scrap a working solution and replace it with.... a more expensive, partial solution that may cause extra inconvenience?
Netflix is at best an alternative that may or may not be around in a few years time, and could be ruined by a change of management. Piracy is not only a proven solution by now, it also has the advantage of staying power. If you've pirated a favourite DVD ten years ago, you will be able to watch it in ten years time with your kids. Can you honestly say that every movie that was in Netflix's catalog ten years ago will be available as-is in ten years time from them?
One thing people never discuss enough is that with piracy you get private ownership, just like when you buy some physical good in the store. Whereas the commercial digital world is all about renting everything and owning nothing. One day you have the right to watch or listen or read something, and the next the company is gone, or your credit card has expired, or your computer is b0rked, and *poof* it's all gone forever. It's highly unreasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
Piracy isn't a solution, though. The (exaggerated) point made by Cap'n DB Emmanuel is valid. If no one pays, no more (overly-hyped/produced/shitty) content.
The main problem is this idea that cord-cutter = pirate. I cut the cable cord because I didn't want to pay for a ton of ads and crappy channels I don't watch. But instead of piracy, I moved to the netflix+hulu+espn3 on my xbox. I pay a fair price to see the content I want, when I want. I'm not happy about the ads on hulu, but it's infinitely better th
Re: (Score:3)
You can't shift people's behaviour by calling them cheapskates and offering them the privilege of feeling good about giving away money to some company so that they can get a more limited product in return that they already have access to for free.
The current generation of pirates are a bit like farmers.
Re: (Score:3)
Just keep in mind, Monsanto has been trying to sue farmers for their crops being pollinated by GM crops they sell. :)
Re:im certain (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a reason why copyright infringement isn't called theft, and it's because there's no stealing involved. And there's a reason why people don't think piracy is a serious crime, and it's because the private ownership is of a copy on their own bits and hard disks. The original remains the private property of the owner.
I wonder if you understand the mentality of an artist? The classic artist feels the need to create even if nobody appreciates his work. It's an internal need, not a kind of narcissism. There are plenty of famous artists who never saw a lot of money in their own hands, or were appreciated in their lifetime.
Re: (Score:3)
Before I even start, let me say -- the copyright system is broken, and the current laws are ridiculous. But that doesn't mean that "copyright" in a general sense is always bad.
And there's a reason why people don't think piracy is a serious crime, and it's because the private ownership is of a copy on their own bits and hard disks. The original remains the private property of the owner.
You do have a point here, but you have to admit that the system has changed just in the past decade or two. Before that, you might have to, say, go to the library and spend an hour photocopying a book to make your own copy; now you download it in a few seconds. Perhaps there is an analogy to be made for those who would photocopy a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:im certain (Score:4, Insightful)
why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont
Self serving nonsense. Rotton tomatoes comes to mind as one movie review site that does a remarkably good job of correctly rating movies as utter crap on a continual basis.
And you can subselect within that to follow frequent reviewers that look for what you look for in movies. I'm sure there's other places for good reviews as well.
I also pirate the film because its a more usable format than a DVD or blu-ray, which require me to purchase needless accessory players and cables to do that which im perfectly capable of with a computer.
Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)... give me a break.
Re: (Score:2)
Rotton tomatoes comes to mind as one movie review site that does a remarkably good job of correctly rating movies as utter crap on a continual basis.
"correctly"? It's a subjective matter.
Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)... give me a break.
He already has the PC (which may be far more important than a bluray player). Not everyone has an infinite amount of money, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
"correctly"? It's a subjective matter.
Of course. But
a) Its not rating everything 9 or 9.5 out of 10 the way some video game sites do, where even the greatest stinker of all time gets an 8. Rotton Tomatoes has tons of stuff rated below 20/100...
And even if you don't agree with the consensus, like i said, there are probably sub-groups that align with what you like, and you can selectively follow that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)... give me a break.
You do realize most of us would still have the PC for gaming and surfing and coding and whatever else we do right? So the only extra cost I had was the HDMI cable. It's one device less so less cable clutter, it's less shelf waste - I have a collection of discs and they're all collcting dust. And I can put it on my laptop or iphone or ipad, I can easily have a backup, browsing a folder is easier than searching through discs. I'm not going to make a mountain out of a mole hill but in an ideal world I'd still
Re: (Score:3)
> because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables
Not true. A $50 Blu-Ray player won't have an internet connection and so won't be able to update the firmware to play the latest discs with the latest copy protection (updated yearly). It is for this reason that every Blu-Ray player other than the PS3 is basically garbage.
This argument is sort of missing the point that the primary technical problems with DVD and Blu-Ray are:
1) Being for
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, my PC only cost me $175.
Then I seriously doubt it has a bluray player in it, does DTS7.1 surround sound, hdmi/dvi digital output.
I'm also skeptical that a 5 year old kid or grandma, or the babysitter can just use it...
I don't disagree that an HTPC is a great thing to have. I have one myself. But I don't pretend its is simpler to use than a disc player.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I seriously doubt it has a bluray player in it, does DTS7.1 surround sound, hdmi/dvi digital output.
Almost all that is a function of software, and all of it can be had for free (although decrypting Blu-Ray discs does seem to work better using a paid solution), while a video card or motherboard with HDMI solves the hardware issue for less than $50.
Yes, $175 isn't possible if you want an HTPC that looks like a normal piece of A/V equipment (those kinds of cases are expensive), but $200 for the whole thing in a generic case is certainly very possible. In addition, you really can build this sort of thing usi
Re: (Score:3)
why would it need a blue-ray player?
Re: (Score:2)
I have way different reasons than that guy for pirating which you may or may not agree with. But its easier to stream from my pc than to set up any sort of player.
Yeah, sure, if you spend considerable effort in advance to setup a PC and Xbox, and are going argue that going through the relatively minimal one-time effort to setup a player is now too much.
Honestly its much simpler to browse through movies in a digital list format than dvd cases.
Tell my Mom that. :)
Its more powerful, and once you know how to d
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I pirate because its more reasonable to delete the movie i hate, than to expect a refund after having sat through it at a theater.
Exactly.
Even candybar makers like Hersheys and Mars issue refunds if the product is unsatisfactory (just return the unused portion). I don't expect theaters to issue refunds, but why can't Hollywood do the same if I return a crap DVD? Or issue a store credit? It's a sad state of affairs when low-end candymakers offer better customer service/satisfaction than the ri
Re:im certain (Score:4, Informative)
I thought about doing that, but then I realized I'm cutting-out all the important people who ALSO helped make the music: The audio engineer, the extra instrument players, and additional backing vocals. The only way those people get paid is to buy the CD or MP3
Those people are work-for-hire 99.9% of the time. They get a fee for their day's work and that's it. They don't get an additional royalties for sales. Once in a blue moon an engineer can get points on a release (i.e. royalties) but only if it is a rain-maker like Flood or something, and guys like that aren't hurting for your change.
I appreciate the sentiment, I really do, but I agree that it is better to buy from the bands directly.
Re: (Score:2)
If this came to pass another model would appear to satisfy the need. To succeed it would have to be much saner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Normally when I directly give money to a band (at their merch table, staffed by themselves and their road homies) those other people are all there (being the band themselves and/or their road homies).
I don't think it's possible to give money directly to major commercial acts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm taking this off on a tangent because of this - because most people don't know you *can* get a refund if you don't wait until the end.
I pirate because its more reasonable to delete the movie i hate, than to expect a refund after having sat through it at a theater.
If you walk out before a half hour is up and say "this movie sucks" you can easily get your money back.
CSB time:
Go see movie with GF. Not sure what to see
We pick something that looks interesting. Some art movie or something, avoiding all the H
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that should such a button ever come into existence, its largest affect would be upon the RIAA and MPAA themselves.
why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont. trailers are designed to hype the films premise by any means; whatever it takes for the dog to bite. I pirate because its more reasonable to delete the movie i hate, than to expect a refund after having sat through it at a theater. I also pirate the film because its a more usable format than a DVD or blu-ray, which require me to purchase needless accessory players and cables to do that which im perfectly capable of with a computer.
I think you're making up reasons to justify why you don't feel that you should have to pay for content that costs real money to make.
You don't need to download a pirated movie to avoid paying to see it at the theater. You can wait 6 months until the DVD comes out.
Likewise, you don't need to pay $25 for a new DVD, wait another few months until the used DVD's are available for purchase. (buying used puts less money in the movie industry's pocket, but still provides them with some revenue since many of the pe
Re: (Score:3)
Many people are like you, and if there were easy and affordable ways to get access to content you'd probably choose that instead of downloading it for free.
But there exist also people in my camp. I don't accept the legitimacy of "intellectual property" and I don't recognize copyright law (on a related topic, I also consider all forms of commercial advertising to be unethical). These concepts are against the natural order of the universe, and serve an immoral purpose of creating restrictions on the free flow
Trade you! (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we trade a "Stop Piracy" button for a "Stop Adam Sandler" button? mkay?
Re: (Score:2)
How about we trade a "Stop Piracy" button for a "Stop Adam Sandler" button? mkay?
Can I trade you my "EASY" button for that? It's big and red.
Somebody (Score:5, Funny)
Google should just BUY the entertainment industry (Score:5, Interesting)
...and give it marching orders. Use the entertainment industry to sell computers and to generate internet revenue.
"Give them the razor, sell them the blades" by buying out the razor factory.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, at the rate they're going, Apple will be sitting on $200,000,000,000 within a year...
TV won't die if it's free (Score:2)
But I'm certainly not going to pay Comcast or any other cable company $70/month for 70 channels that rarely have anything I want to watch. (Even Syfy is now filled with reality junk... having canceled their last sci-fi show.)
I might be willing to pay for a la carte. Say $8 for any 20 channels of my choice. Somewhat similar to how Sirius XM radio works ($8 for 40 channels).
And Just Why...? (Score:2)
And just why do you want to know where I work?
So that you can complain to my boss that I made you look stupid and that he should fire me for that?
Re:And Just Why...? (Score:5, Informative)
No, he wants to know where you work so he can complain to the politicians that your company is costing his company money.
Which is exactly the strategy that Cary Sherman of RIAA [internetevolution.com] suggested when SOPA failed.
If it's about "Hollywood vs. freedom", Hollywood loses.
But if the debate can be reframed to "MPAA vs. Google", or "RIAA vs. Telcos", Hollywood wins, because they can just point the finger and say "Look, we're only saying the things we say because we work for Paramount, Universal, and other MAFIAA organizations. But you're only saying that because you work for Google, a telco, or an ISP, you're a lobbyist just like us!" and with the debate framed in a context that the politicians will understand, Ari and Sherman can easily demand a law that transfers wealth from "Northern California" to "Southern California" (by transferring the cost of preventing piracy from "Southern California rightsholders" to "Northern California companies whose customers happen to infringe on those rights").
Bundler (Score:2)
He's a registered hard money 'bundler' [opensecrets.org] ($132,813 on '08) for Obama.
Happy Friday.
Re: (Score:2)
Also brother to Obama's former Chief-of-Staff. Who is currently the Mayor of Chicago.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever politician currently electable in the world is corrupted*1 with regards to his nation to some degree.
Whatever politician currently in office via any other ways than randomocraty*2, democracy and general nomination*3.
1-I do not talk about any others morals standards than using the money of the people with due diligence and trying to attain an ideal economy of mechanism.
2-The jury system applied in a recursive ways to forms 12 designational committees, to form at 144 decisions committee, 1728 bids co
In other words... (Score:2)
Old man yells at clouds. How is this a story?
do you ever et the feeling (Score:3, Insightful)
My Wishlist (Score:3)
A 'Stop Crap' button for the lame films they spew.
A 'Stop Bay' button to make him stop ruining my childhood like a TNT wielding GLucas on crack.
A 'Stop Lucas' button while we're at it.
A 'Stop Gouge' button that makes a movie night cost me less than or equal to what I make in it's equivalent running time.
A 'Stop Loss' button that refunds me the price of admission, snacks and reimburses me for my time when the only good parts of the feature appear in the trailer in their entirety.
There's more, but I figure Santa can get started on these and I'll get the rest to him before Christmas.
Re: (Score:2)
equal to what I make in it's equivalent running time.
I don't understand, don't you find going to movies expensive enough ?
Th world 20 years from now... (Score:5, Insightful)
The last few seconds pretty much sums up Ari's shortsightedness. A man from the audience is explaining that what happened to the music industry (how Apple saved the failing business model) and Ari agrees with that, then the man from audience asks if he doesn't see the writing on the wall, that this is going to happen to TV soon, within 20 years. Ari's answer is that he'll be fine with that, he'll be 71.
This is exactly the problem with that whole industry. Their policies are based on shortsighted views and ancient mentality. In the digital age it is folly to let these idiots lead the content industry. They're concerned about immediate profits, with no regard to what will happen in the near future.
People who have the mentality of "I don't care what happens 20 years from now" should not be in charge of anything that is expected to last more than a mere 20 years. If you want your business to fail within 20 years, then Ari is your man. Ari is a death sentence to a company.
Re:Th world 20 years from now... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the problem with that whole industry. Their policies are based on shortsighted views and ancient mentality....People who have the mentality of "I don't care what happens 20 years from now" should not be in charge of anything...
It's a problem in a lot of industries. "Who cares what happens in 24 months? In 6 months, I'll have gotten more in bonuses than most people will see in their whole lives. If it ruins my company in 12 months, I have a golden parachute."
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention governments. Very few "democratic" governments think long term, and nor do the people that elect them. Sad really.
Immature (Score:4, Interesting)
Next time, someone present it like this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Topolsky's analogy was good, and it really demonstrates how irrational Emanuel is. The analogy though would better fit ISPs and hosting providers.
I have a slightly better analogy which I welcome interviewers to keep in their pocket for the media industry representatives anytime they try to do the censor Google and similar song and dance. It has the advantage that you have the interviewee agree to the fact that you are right before the question is posed, or they clearly demonstrate that they are indeed insane.
First, I would like to know whether you agree to a few basic premises of my question.
1) Libraries should exist and should be able to house any content which is legal and that content should be available to examination by all patrons. To my knowledge, the only significant content under the illegal category is child pornography.
2) Libraries should be able to index the content they carry, whether by the Dewey decimal system or keyword or any other metric they so choose.
3) If someone uses the knowledge gained from a library to commit a crime, such as creating an ammonium nitrate fertilizer bomb from reading chemistry or explosive making books, the library has no responsibility. Only the person who committed the crime bears the guilt of such an act. Another example would be someone who learns how to pick locks from locksmithing books and uses the knowledge to rob jewelry stores he looked up in the Yellow pages.
Now comes the obvious question.
So then, how is an organization such as Google, responsible for providing the address of where a person can go to steal goods. Google does not house or transfer the goods. Google is little more than the Yellow Pages or a library index, they don't even carry the books, but you want to hold them responsible for the content of other people's computers? This would be like reading an autobiography from a drug trafficer which mentions that their gang used to hide drugs under an old brass bell at 49th and Broadway and blaming the library, or much less, their use Dewey Decimal system, which allowed some thugs to steal and sell the drugs hidden beneath.
Further, consider another example. Consider if someone used a transcode tool to make unencrypted copies of everything they watched on a Netflix account and then distributed that content. No one in the content industry would blame Netflix if they were using proper industry standard methods to copy protect their feed. This was never an issue that Blockbuster was responsible for VHS piracy during the 80's when some people would dub video cassette rentals. Radio stations and boombox makers were never the issue when people made mix tapes from Radio broadcasts.
Where exactly do you derive the right to publicly espouse a view clearly in contrast with society, the companies for whom you work, and even yourself? Nobody in any of those groups would say that libraries should have censored or monitored indices or banned books on the basis that they could be used for illegal purposes.
Frankly, I think Emanuel would probably begin cursing and yelling even more when faced with such reality, not to mention display an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance palpable to the audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Emanuel would probably begin cursing and yelling
As far as I can tell, this is the primary form of communication used in his family.
Another analogy (Score:3)
Another analogy that fits better is this.
Is it Verizon or AT&T's responsibility to police phone lines for someone who might be planning a robbery with another robber over the telephone? Is it the phone company's responsibility to do a criminal background check before handing out a phone book full of address information? Google is just a 411 service for the internet. And internet service providers just provide the pipes.
Really wish Josh would have thought it through more, it was an important televised
Re: (Score:2)
My own argument just gave me a brilliant idea. Ripping Netflix streams should be legal as time shifting under current copyright law. Sure, you would be breaking the Netflix EULA, but you wouldn't be breaking ANY criminal copyright laws.
Just did the Google search. Yes apparently others find this to be a legally defensible action. Perhaps I should get a Netflix account for my father and sister who are out in the sticks and can't get anything better than dial-up where they live. Sadly enough, I bet most j
Consequences of a fake tan (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point, should the amount of fake tan you apply disqualify your opinions from consideration?
Just a thought.
This web is magic! (Score:5, Insightful)
There exists a certain kind of person who will think that when you do something with computers, you are some kind of genius and a genius is almost a wizard if not a warlock or something. It might SOUND like awe but you can hear them linking it with witchcraft and selling your sole for a demonbuggering you.
Sometimes, praises ain't praises at all. Googlers are smart guys sounds a bit to much like Jews are really good with money, White people got all the jobs and Blacks sure got rhythm. Quick personality test, which of these made your blood boil? Mmm, interesting...
But where your grandmothers world views might be relatively harmless (where was she during the holocaust or lynchings etc etc) this guy uses it to put the blame for all his whoes on another group of people. Consider this: You can blame your high fuel prices on the oil companies, big money, Illuminati etc etc. This is straightforward blaming (and usually gets racist sooner or later). OR you can say, those motor company guys are smart guys and they can build a fuel efficient 3 ton SUV for you to drive alone... AND the unvoiced part here IS: but they ain't, so those guys must be in cohoots with the former guys who are controlling the entire world.
In short, this praise of googlers is NOT praise but saying really: They could fix it if they wanted to but they don't want to.
Pretty nice since this needly sidesteps the challenge of proving it can be done. Simply, they are smart, they can do it, if they wanted to and they must.
The problem this guy, Ari Emanuel faces is that he can't deal with the idea that world changes. Not just faster computers, bigger SUV's etc etc but that our culture, our idea of who we are, what we value, how we live, how we entertain ourselves, our morals, EVERYTHING changes over time. Copyright as it exists now, did NOT always exist in its current form. It was introduced quite recently and then it was introduced because tech (printing and music recording) were changing the world.
BUT that is just the shallow end of the changes made a hundred or so years ago. How many of you got an instrument you play with regulatory for your enjoyment? Wink wink, nudge nudge know what I mean
What I mean of course is that the sale of musical instruments has plummeted, once if you wanted to listen to music, you made it yourself. For hundreds, no thousands of years. Long before any copyright existed to "protect" music. In fact copyright was not introduced to protect musicians or even song writers but to protect music PUBLISHERS. Recorded music, first pianola, later wax cylinders etc changed all this. But it changed far more then just how music made its way around. How many in your youth went to a disco... okay, wrong place to ask BUT think about this, going to a disco or dance is basically the same thing but how normal do you find it have LIVE music playing? When there was no recorded music, far more people played to entertain others outside the home. Now only a few even play inside the home.
Recorded music has been killing MUSIC!
And yet, we SURVIVED!!! Society did NOT collapse. This was feared every time culture changed, the end of theater because of the movies, the end of the movies because of TV, the end of TV because of the VCR.
Culture survived! Might it also survive a new change? An era in which entertainment is once again produced differently? Think about cover bands. They are NOT a new thing but with recorded music, people for the first time had an idea of how the original sounded. Cover bands just USED to play popular music they heard in one place in another by just listening and changing it ever so slightly. That is how many a folklore story got changed and yet remained the same. (Yes, that too is part of mass media entertainment, just a different era). The idea that ONE company, one performer can now set how ALL other performers of a similar product are judged against the "original" is quite new. Quick, Snowwhite, the little mermain, picture them. If you can't help but see th
Someone will sell him a magic button (Score:2)
That's part of the problem. There's people who tell him all the reasons it won't work, but he doesn't want to hear that. There's other people who don't bother telling him unpleasant truths, and instead just sell him a magic button, and when that doesn't work, sell him more magic buttons.
You have to admit, the magic button vendors have it figured out. They get to make money, AND cheat the RIAA out of their hard-"earned" money.
He came across well (Score:2)
So nice to see validation... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have always though that Hollywood executives were completely Idiotic Morons with an IQ around 85.
And this guy has proven it without a shadow of a doubt.
Please hollywood, keep hiring and showcasing complete idiots like this guy. It means you will not see the end coming and will stand there off guard and blindsided when the bitter end whips and smacks them in the face.
If cord-cutting is a myth... (Score:2)
If cord-cutting is a myth, then why is my cable company currently offering me free TV service for a year? I stopped paying for TV years ago, and they keep trying to entice me back with increasingly good deals. Why bother if I'm one of a few rare weirdos, and everyone else is still paying?
Re: (Score:3)
It works the same as magazine subscriptions. The network exists to show you advertisements. If not enough people are watching then not enough advertisements are viewed and advertisers go elsewhere. So there's lots of free magazine subscriptions given away to people who may or may not even realize they're getting them just to inflate the numbers. If nobody complains about it being undeliverable they just count it as a subscription.
Your cable company is having trouble getting enough customers to get advertise
Cord cutting is a myth?? (Score:2)
Yeah whatever.. I was a Dish subscriber for 13 years.. Last year we turned it all off, bumped up our netflix subscription to get everyone in the house streaming at once and got a unlimited blockbuster store pass. It works for us.. If I want local news I get it OTA and thanks to digital broadcasting it looks better than on cable or dish.
You know what else I have now? Free time.. I'm no longer sucked into watching endless crap reality shows..
First ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I watched the video. I don't agree with Emanuel's perspective, and I hate to say this, but Topolsky got his ass handed to him. He presented a weak argument, and Emanual ripped it apart. Topolsky's not wrong, he just failed to bring a decent argument, and was basically laughed out of the room.
And just how does a weak argument equate to not being wrong? If the facts demonstrate a weak argument as being wrong, I would expect them to do the same to a strong argument as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the problem was Topolsky's line of thinking. It's that despite his motivations, he brought a knife to a gun fight. Despite being right, he still got his ass handed to him because Emanuel was so confident, to the lay person, he looks right.
Bluster leads to votes (Score:2)
It's quite a statement about you and your inability to look beyond peacock feathers and assholery.
It's not maccodemonkey's inability as much as the median voter's inability.
Friendly suggestion: don't pick science or any field where ideas are more important than bluster for a career.
Bluster leads to votes, and votes lead to legislation.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no general correlation between a weak argument and being not wrong (or a strong argument, for that matter). There is just the fact that in this particular instance, the argument presented was a weak attempt to make a particular point. And while others are criticizing Emanual for simply bullying in response, if you listen, he actually made an argument in response which Topolsky failed to counter, despite it also being a weak argument.
Re:Topolsky (Score:4, Informative)
Really? You must have been watching a different video.
Topolsky's argument and analogy made sense. Emanuel didn't have a counter argument so he resorted to name calling and bullying from his self-styled throne. He was in a room full of his cohorts and admirers, and he had an obligation to listen and present an intelligent response. He didn't.
Sorry, but bullying only makes him look like an ass.
Re:Topolsky (Score:5, Insightful)
In the video I watched, Emanual absolutely had a counter argument.
Topolsky said "they (Google) aren't policemen, they don't police things" and Emanual responded "no, they decide when they want to police something and when they don't want to". He went on to discuss how Google is actively filtering child pornography, but refuses to actively filter copyright infringement. Topolsky had no response to that other than to mutter "I don't know" and then go back to the road analogy and talk about tearing up the road. However, using his analogy, Emanual was not arguing that the road be torn up, just that since the road is already being policed for one bad thing, then it should also be policed for other bad things.
The argument that Topolsky should have brought was that, first of all, Google doesn't filter child pornography, so Emanual's premise is wrong. Secondly, child pornography is always illegal (at least in the U.S where this debate was occurring), so any instance of child pornography is, by definition, an instance of illegal child pornography, whereas an instance of downloaded content is not necessarily an instance of illegally downloaded content, so the filtering is different. Basically, the nature of the content in question is that it must be self-policed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
With DVDs / Blu-rays, video games, Netflix, and various corporate streaming services, cable was always the inferior option
How do you watch collegiate or professional sports if the game is blacked out online because it's being shown on national or regional pay TV? And what would be a good substitute for MSNBC's Morning Joe Brewed by Starbucks, which one of my relatives claims is worth $60 per month to her?