Slashdot Mirror
Kanye West Is Reportedly Considering Legal Action Against the Pirate Bay
An anonymous reader writes: Kanye West apparently has a new mission: to sue The Pirate Bay. Last weekend, West announced that his new album, The Life of Pablo, would be sold exclusively as a download from his website and the artist-driven streaming music service Tidal. The news sent Tidal to No. 1 on the U.S. Apple App Store, so West pulled the album from his site and announced it wouldn't be released on other streaming services. The Internet responded by pirating his album in droves.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
i don't care for mr west. however, it's laughable to see a grown man act like this. he begs a billionaire for money because he's in a mountain of debt and instead of maximizing amount of money he could make, he instead chooses to restrict the release of his music to an obscure platform. the fans that are unhappy with these restrictions might have been willing to buy his music but now he's blown that chance and he's going after a website administrator who he blames for the choices of his fans which was an indirect result of his own choice to restrict the release. he brought these troubles upon himself and i have no sympathy for this emotionally stunted man-child who is about the waste the money he has made going after money he can no longer make.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
141A86FD1105A0951EB12A322C088883B5761475
Now, in case The Pirate Bay cowers (doubtful), there's the file hash for the swarm. So if TPB is culpable for providing file hash data , who else is? /. Me?
Guess when you're 56 million in the trick bag, publish a shitty no talent album, where the only business that makes money for you is dependant upon people paying $200 for tennis shoes, you point fingers on anyone you can.
My guess... filing for protection or rehab.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
It's not all bad. A good part of what Macklemore writes is in deliberate rejection of the 'gangsta' culture that is usually associated with rap music. While most rappers brag about their wealth, his rise to fame was a song mocking them for wasting their money on status symbols and bling.
Gee, so the heavy pirating didn't start until he started smearing shit on the deal, hmmm, hmm hmm hmmmm.
Seems people's sense of fairness doesn't always match the laws, and if CEOs and copyright self-entitlers can get away with it, maybe there's a bit too much glass around for anybody to start complaining. There's nothing in that aphorism about who built the house.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
If it were not for his regular antics I doubt me or many others would know who Kayne "The Dunning Kruger Effect that walks" West is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
That said, there would be value in a additional legislation to force copyright holders to "use it or lose it". If copyright is used to deliberately keep something from publication (e.g. Mein Kampf in Germany) or if a publisher owns the copyright, but doesn't see the business case in using it, I think that the law should either
(1) revert the work to public domain after some time, and/or
(2) allow for making copies as "fair use", or
(3) apply some sort of RAND licensing on the work, so anyone can decide to publish (derivatives of) the work if they pay a reasonable fee, probably some percentage of last known retail value.
(this should only apply to works that have been made public before, e.g. acquirable by the general public. As an author you should still have the right to keep something private)
There is an analogy in the Dutch housing market history: until recently it was quasi-legal to squat a house if it had been empty for 1 year. So, a house owner has the exclusive right to use his or her house (by living in it or renting it out to whom s/he pleases), but if s/he just lets the building stand empty, the public used to gain a general right to take occupancy. The owner would then have to go to court and show that there are immediate plans to re-use the building, on which the court could decide to evict the squatters. As noted in the wiki:"Dutch squatting has its origins in the 1960s when the Netherlands was suffering a housing shortage while many properties stood empty" - empty houses were mainly bought for speculation, and rent was not considered enough to cover cost of maintenance and operation (a market failure). In a sense, although the house was private property, the total residential space in the city was seen as a public good. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting#Netherlands and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... )
I would use other examples. Considering Shakespeare or Dante to be the equivalent to T.S. Eliot is anachronistic.
Shakespeare in particular wrote for the "groundlings". The only reason we find his plays to be something that requires literary analysis is that our modern society does not even speak English in the same manner as a common man at the turn of the 17th Century in England did. His plays were not only completely comprehensible to commoners, they contained many jokes considered quite vulgar at the time. The problem is that we associate Shakespeare with intellectuals because common English of the time has been forgotten by everyone but experts, and so we assume that he was word salad or full of hidden meanings to the people he was playing to. It wasn't.
There may have been some witty double meanings, but his plays were not inaccessible to the crowds. He'd have died a pauper if they had been because he made his money on performing plays for as many people as he could pack into the Globe.
Dante was one of the first users of the Italian language for poetry. His goals were somewhat more intellectual, because his audience was different, but he was still a lot more comprehensible to the people of his time than many people give him credit for being today. Instead of Latin, he was using the vulgar tongue, and like Shakespeare, he was speaking to people in their everyday language and talking about people who were well known to the common people at the time. He probably was no more inaccessible than well-written satire is today.