Sons of Anarchy Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy 381
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."'"
Sour grapes (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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?
Re:Sour grapes (Score:4, Funny)
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)
Re:Sour grapes (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
> 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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: Sour grapes (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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, Insightful)
Historically, the arts have been funded by patronage. The commercialization of the arts is a fairly recent phenomenon. Yes, many great artists have died penniless with their genius unrecognized. But that means they created out of love for their art and the need to express their genius not out of a desire for financial renumeration. In addition, original works of art are far more valuable than reproductions. So not only is there an innate desire in true creators to create, there is also an innate desire in others to reward this creation, after the fact. There is joy in the act of creation and there is joy in others when they appreciate what was created. I've been in movie theaters where the audience stood up and gave the movie standing ovation even though none of the creators were there to hear the applause. There is no doubt that at that point in time many people would have paid generously if making a payment was as easy as tapping a button on their phone. Films that moved people would be rewarded.
The notion that patronage does not work is only in the context of a world where the arts have been bastardized and exploited for monetary gain. Of course people who are embedded in the commercialization model will have a difficult time making the transition. This is a feature not a bug. It would be a benefit to have the exploiters weeded out so more genuine creation and genius can flourish. It is insane to for us to give the role of story-teller to Hollywood writers. They are not the people who should be teaching our children about relationships. Sex sells. Violence sells. But these are not the stories and myths we want our children to be raised on. The information we pass on to the next generation should not be based primarily on what is most titillating.
As the cost to copy, store, and transmit information continues to plummet, the commercialization model becomes less and less tenable, requiring draconian measure to give content owners more and more control over all aspects of information transfer and processing. It would require a fascist dictatorship over information.
OTOH, the patronage model becomes easier as information technology advances. It can be fueled by instant micropayments so everyone who chooses to can participate and vote with their wallets. In the long run it is the only sensible approach. But even in the short term, it is the only way I know of to stem the tide of cultural exploitation and destruction that the commercialization of the arts has caused.
Culture belongs to everybody. It is our birthright and it is the lifeblood of our civilization. It is crazy to lock it up tightly due to the fact that the cost of information transfer and storage is getting close to zero. The cost to our society and to our civilization for this lock-up is enormous because we are denying our children and our children's children their birthright. It is a form of cultural and societal suicide. The miracle of life is based on passing genetic information from one generation to the next. Human beings were able to supercharge this passing on of information by creating side-channels: art, language, history, science and the humanities, even religion. Evolution in these side-channel information transfers was staggeringly fast compared to genetic evolution. Stifling this form of evolution is the ultimate triumph of mediocrity over genius.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sour grapes (Score:4, Insightful)
Human culture existed for thousands of years before copyright, and during that long expanse there has been no lack of music, drama, prose, poetry, painting and sculpture. Strangely enough "content creators" did make a living.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the idea the absurd idea that artists might make based on what spoke to them, and if it appealed to enough people, allow them not starve, is an absurd misstep in history. Anyone with a brain knows that in order for artists to produce, they must produce only what appeals to those with money and power to patronize them, for *that* is the only way for an artists to survive.
No wonder the quality of the arts has dropped in the last 100 years. Time for this historical aberration to end.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
First, no artist was *ever* forced to go through the big labels.
You sound like the people defending Ticketmaster. There was an act that couldn't get venues or insurance unless they paid the Ticketmaster Tax. They weren't "forced" to use Ticketmaster, they just weren't able to tour without them. I used to go to the UA theater when I was a kid (the theater is long gone, and I think they left the theater owning business) but yes, they would *only* show big label sanctioned movies.
There's a reason why Robert Rodriguez had to sell the rights to the completed movie El Mariachi to get it shown in a theater. The contracts blocked access to anyone but the big labels. I'm sure there were a handfull of theaters that were dollar theaters or the like that could show it, but they don't even if they "can". Instead, it gets bought and re-mastered for millions (for a sub $100k movie), and shows for a loss after making more than 10x the production cost of the movie (mostly lost to "sound" and "marketing").
Yeah, you aren't "forced" to go through a big label, but you'll never get your movie shown in the US unless you sell the rights to them or pay them millions for approval.
Re: (Score:3)
That might be reasonable, if you weren't paid in the first place. In which case, you'd be working damn hard to make certain the house stood up long enough that you didn't starve to death. Might improve the build quality of most new houses!
Re: (Score:2)
You own those houses, right? You financed their construction, created your own design, executed it to produce the houses, and still own at least a share in them, correct?
No? Then your analogy is nonsense. Sit back down.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a creator of intellectual works. Some of my intellectual works help bring medicine to billions of people... ...when the problem is solved and the work is done, I move on, looking for other people who need my help.
Oh my god. Are you... are you... Bruce Banner?
Or maybe Dr. Sam Beckett?
Re:what? youre a cluless cunt (Score:4, Interesting)
google contributes nothing good to society and freeloads off of all content creators period
I like my Nexus 5. I'm new around here, and I find it very helpful finding my way around the city. I hitchhiked all the way across the continent a few months ago, and Google Maps helped me find my way.
What did YOU contribute?
Re: (Score:2)
He contributed poor spelling.
Perhaps he should have used a spell checker. Chrome has one (so does IE and Firefox even though I'm typing this in Firefox and it's telling me I'm spelling Firefox wrong and suggests I change it to Firebox.).
Re:what? youre a cluless cunt (Score:4, Funny)
Actually Google didn't create the Nexus. It pretty much copied much of the iPhone's look and feel. Then it hired some company in Taiwan to make it.
Google copied from some other company, and then hired an Asian company to manufacture it?
Those bastards! That's *Apple's* business model!
Re: (Score:3)
Google came up with a very good search engine and financed it with small unobtrusive ads. That is why I started using Google along with most other people. You can say that wasn't a good contribution to society all you want but the numbers say you're wrong.
Uhhh... no (Score:2, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Google should charge him royalties.
lets just agree completely with what he said (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Change your business model! (Score:2, Funny)
Is Kim Dotcom a Convicted Felon? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Is Kim Dotcom a Convicted Felon? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a colorful personality.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Proof the Google Gives a s**t (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
"stolen creative work" (Score:2)
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.
Interesting open book on the opposite side (Score:5, Informative)
This book [ucla.edu] argues quite convincingly, based on current and historical examples, that copyrights and patents are a net negative to society.
Re: (Score:3)
I have not read the whole thing yet. Only about 1/3 or so. But the parts I've seen talk of non-software too. For example, even in the very first paragraph of the introduction there is an example of patents slowing down the progress of steam engine technology and the speed of its adaptation. See also page 24+ in chapter two.
The reason why there is so much focus on software in the book might be that that is a field that until recently was free of patents, and so provides us with a very clear example of how a
And should Google be your internet police? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Anarchy" (Score:3)
Establishment. (Score:2)
Not a minute or dime? (Score:3)
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?
Sounds like a whiner. (Score:2)
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.
Doesn't pass the laugh test (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
What profit? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
How much money is made on illicit alcohol in the US?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Disruption works when evolution fails. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Disruption works when evolution fails. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily - if I could download content from 14 years ago free and clear of legal encumbrance, then I'd probably watch a lot more old content, it's not like modern content has improved dramatically, and there's no shortage of old classics I've never gotten around to watching, thus reducing the temptation to pirate anything. Of course that only makes the problem worse for the media giants - their problem is not specifically piracy, but that I'm not paying for their new content. And for that I can only say that until they start offering a quality product at a reasonable price I won't be buying much regardless.
wait wait wait (Score:2)
'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!
Who the hell ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Tool (Score:2)
What a tool.
Correction for you, Mr. Sutter. (Score:2)
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.
Entitlement of The Wealthy (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Primary Pleader (Score:2)
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.
I'm sorry, you just lost your credibility (Score:2)
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.
"Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom" (Score:2)
Bullshit. Your argument just went out the window with that line.
the creative folks of Hollywood (Score:2)
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.
Economics (Score:2)
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
Keep incentives high for content producers (Score:2)
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
Kim Dotcom (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a salary cut, it's the reality for everyone with a job. You don't get paid indefinitely for something you did 50 years ago. There's no reason that copyright should be any different.
Troll (Score:2)
Nice.
Is Google anti-copyright? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because he hasn't been convicted in this current case, doesn't mean he isn't a convicted felon.
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]
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
None of his previous convictions have anything to do with copyright and they all happened over a decade ago (blah blah blah clean slate acts in dozens of countries etc)
Re:The problem is ads, not downloading (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually...
Wrong. If it's on YouTube, it's there because someone, somewhere, uploaded it to YouTube and, in doing so, certified that they had the right to do so and agreed to allow YouTube to attach ads to it. That person, the one who uploaded the content they had no right to upload the content, who had no right to agree to allow ads to be attached to it, is the one who is in the wrong; they are the one Kurt Sutter should be pissed at, not Google, who provides a service that allows people to upload their own content. YouTube works on trust, and that trust has been violated, but Google has kept up their end of things; if you see your content on YouTube and you did not authorize its presence there, Google will remove it, but you have to make them aware of it, first.
Re: (Score:2)
You can also tell Google it's yours and they'll give you a share of the ad revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't make DMCA requests take hours, the law does. And they don't share the names of the felons uploading con
Re: (Score:2)
Except YouTube gives part of the ad revenue back to the content producer.
Like a content distributor
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is you're using "Creatives" in an unjustifiably restricted context that only covers 99.99% of creative human endeavor. He's using it in the much more inclusive meaning of the 0.003% who have convinced major media conglomerates to fund high-dollar productions of their derivative vision, and created something of insufficient quality for most people to justify paying for.