21–30 of 50 posts
It's as if his head isn't attached to his mouth, which I think goes for a lot of current politicians. Bringing them all down a staff of notches is entirely in order, lest they forget they represent the "people".
"There was some back and forth about how best to combat piracy, with some in the audience advocating a strategy that supplies more content in new, affordable avenues to undercut the temptation to steal, and Fithian arguing that cheap-prices-up-front approaches such as Netflix streaming and $1 Redbox kiosks are "bad business models."" Clueless
Care to elaborate?
I'm still waiting for the VCR to destroy movies, as his predecessor, Jack Valenti, predicted: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
Another 'watershed moment' in American politics is Dodd's shameless and unapologetic shakedown of the US Congress for not staying bought. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/exclusive-hollywo...
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate...
Has it actually been defeated though? I'm not that well versed in what's been going on, but the last time I read about it they just said the bill had been shelved after public outcry Shelved surely means they'll pick it up later and push it through discreetly?
When something gets shelved it pretty much means it's dead. The president even said he was against it and we are in an election year. Chances are greater that they would hide this in another significant bill so it can get passed.
I like how he thinks that Netflix and Redbox are also ripping him off. It's like he expects each person who sees the movie to pay for the entire production. Anything less is ruining the industry. I disagree with this, though. I think it should be legally required for everyone to pay for the movie, regardless of whether or not they see it. That way, nobody can steal his hard work!!
Don't even joke about that. In Denmark we pay "license" to the state, to keep the public television and radio channels going. Mind you, this isn't part of the tax and it's completely optional whether you want to pay it or not. Except, if you have a television, an internet connection, a cellphone, a radio or any device capable of receiving a television signal via an antenna or internet connection - you have to pay. Af…
Isn't that to compensate artists for the right to copy something for private use. At least that's how I believe it works in Sweden. Unfortunately we also have laws that forbids us to circumvent any form of DRM or copy protection and since nothing is sold without DRM today we are paying for something we can't legally do. And this is something that even extends to external harddrives, MP3-players and I believe smartphones as well (not sure on that though).
I like how he thinks that Netflix and Redbox are also ripping him off. It's like he expects each person who sees the movie to pay for the entire production. Anything less is ruining the industry. I disagree with this, though. I think it should be legally required for everyone to pay for the movie, regardless of whether or not they see it. That way, nobody can steal his hard work!!
Don't even joke about that. In Denmark we pay "license" to the state, to keep the public television and radio channels going. Mind you, this isn't part of the tax and it's completely optional whether you want to pay it or not. Except, if you have a television, an internet connection, a cellphone, a radio or any device capable of receiving a television signal via an antenna or internet connection - you have to pay. Af…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't even joke about that. In Denmark we pay "license" to the state, to keep the public television and radio channels going. Mind you, this isn't part of the tax and it's completely optional whether you want to pay it or not. Except, if you have a television, an internet connection, a cellphone, a radio or any device capable of receiving a television signal via an antenna or internet connection - you have to pay. Af…
By the way, almost every country in europe has a TV licence. It definitely can be a good thing, most brits would accept that the TV licence is a good price for the BBC. They provide quality television/radio for minority groups and tend to invest heavily in industries like documentary film-making which might otherwise be ignored in a purely capitalist TV industry.
My problem is that everybody pays exactly the same, the poor, the students, just as the rich. Everything else in our society is based on a progressive tax, just as most "extras" besides your tax is completely optional. The license on the other hand, that's a flat "tax" that everybody has to pay. With the current rules, very few can honestly say they don't need to pay it. As such - let us pay it over the tax and I'd be fine with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't even joke about that. In Denmark we pay "license" to the state, to keep the public television and radio channels going. Mind you, this isn't part of the tax and it's completely optional whether you want to pay it or not. Except, if you have a television, an internet connection, a cellphone, a radio or any device capable of receiving a television signal via an antenna or internet connection - you have to pay. Af…
Oh and on top of that we pay an extra tax (which goes to the artists) on casette tapes, CD-R's, DVD-R's, VHS tapes, etc. After all, we might record songs & movies on those mediums. And before you ask, no, despite us paying that tax, it's still not legal for us to do so. Isn't that to compensate artists for the right to copy something for private use. At least that's how I believe it works in Sweden. Unfortunately we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh and on top of that we pay an extra tax (which goes to the artists) on casette tapes, CD-R's, DVD-R's, VHS tapes, etc. After all, we might record songs & movies on those mediums. And before you ask, no, despite us paying that tax, it's still not legal for us to do so. Isn't that to compensate artists for the right to copy something for private use. At least that's how I believe it works in Sweden. Unfortunately we…
That might be, but that begs the question, why? Why do we need to compensate the artists for our own private copying, for our own use? Once we buy their work, ought it not be ours to listen to, however we want?
However this is now very obsolete and the current implementation is horrendous. But the idea (back in the day) wasn't that terrible.