Monitored Alarm Systems

Most of the time we take issue with the article on Techdirt have something in them we disagree or find silly. And some of Thing 'I want to show that it' sa unique is wrong, we point out. Or at most a few mistakes. But sometimes encounter a piece for a supposedly reputable publication seems, written so much as though it was written to be completely wrong, that I wonder whether infiltration has begun to start LulzSec the mainstream press. Take the American-Statesman article by Gary Dinges piece by piece an example of what I say 'm:

"For months and months of hard work for free illegal downloads in minutes. It 's the difficulty in dealing with writers, filmmakers and musicians across the nation will cost them huge amounts of money per year."

Well, Gary, that sounds positively frightening. It must be hard on these creators that are clearly in terrible distress. Care to share an example?

"It \ is rampant," said Sandra Brown, a Dallas-area author of 60 New York Times bestseller. "I have an assistant - a real Internet guru -. The majority of their time spends monitoring the web"

Ah, it was .... wait what?? I just want to make sure that I understand that perfectly. You 're up with a famous author who regularly on the Bestseller List? To demonstrate the struggle of the authors in relation to Internet piracy? Maybe the next time you 'd like to do a piece on the political glass ceiling for minorities in America and Barack Obama use as a prime example?

And here 's another question: How bad is Internet piracy made the thing for you if you pay the resources to an assistant, a real Internet guru, not less (whatever its content) to the most of their time "to spend monitoring the web"? And what the hell does that even mean? And why do you do that? I for one totally jealous that internet "Guru" getting a big check to play Bejewelled for the whole week then in a report, "yup, the Internet still exists" to make.

Okay...vitriol aside, how can this possibly economic sense? If we are able to some concrete answer to the question of which costs eventually Sandra more (real, not potential-free) money overall, the angry and vindictive Internet or the content of her faithful assistant were obtained for "Monitoring" do it by who you think will it 'd?

But back to the thing 'article. He offers us Dano Johnson, an animator, we learn, has his own struggles with Internet piracy. Apparently he has a movie on YouTube and was viewed over five thousand times or so before a DMCA takedown has been issued animated. Giordano 's response?

"\" I feel like 5000 times was robbed, "he said."

Well golly gee willickers, friend, sometimes I feel like a character from a Mel Brooks spoof movie, but feelings don't really mean a whole lot here, do they?  The fact of the matter is that you weren 't robbed five thousand times. I wonder how many of these people who viewed the YouTube video would have happened if it weren see 't it have to start free? I wonder how many of them they met for the first time someone shared a link? I wonder whether YouTube felt "robbed" for five thousand instances, at no cost to foster? Did you pay for each of the YouTube? Book (resist sorry, couldn 't) itself, Dano.

Now, after the article goes on to say, all the billions and billions of sweet American dollars, which immediately removed from the business quote, to be reportedly never seen again, we get back onto the racing line of the play with one last quote from Dano Johnson the impact of piracy has had its willingness to create his art:

"Go Piracy isn 't to me the desire to make films."

Oh, sweet Internet gods, I thank you for it. Piracy, while perhaps annoying, doesn 't stop creation. And if you acknowledge that copyright is an incentive to create, we come to the inevitable conclusion that the nuclear option as ProtectIP what this article really has to be, although she didn 't name the more controversial bill by Name , are not the answer.

Permalink | Comments | E-mail this story