anon1234321

That's not a slur, it's an opinion about cultural differences quite relevant to the discussion.

Is it now a HackerNews rule to deny the existence of cultural differences?

None of those are related to Europe's malaise. The fire that drives people to build great things, to push themselves harder, to try to make a better life for themselves, has been extinguished in Europeans.

Amateur hour. They didn't capture or eliminate Erdogan in the first place. Then they failed to cut off internet and television within the country, so Erdogan was able to rally his supporters to the streets, and the soldiers were obviously (and rightfully) not willing to mow down mobs of civilians.

If you ever hoped to see Erdogan removed from power, this is the worst possible outcome. He will now use this as a pretext to solidify his strangehold on civil society, carry out a purge of disloyal elements of the army, and do whatever else he must to solidify his place as dictator for life.

I think we found the problem. You're a raging capitalist and the Swedes are a bunch of commies.

I'm joking obviously, but maybe you'd fit in better back home. What's toxic in Sweden might be ambitious in Britain. Cultures are different.

They already cemented their place as top dog, got everyone to license their content, and now actually profits more when you watch the official versions.

If you don't sell any copies, you usually don't owe the advance back; it's yours to keep and the label eats the cost. It's not a salary but it has a somewhat similar effect and I stand by my point. Nevertheless, I was wrong and I do stand corrected.

Yes, anything that challenges Google's "Don't Be Evil" propaganda is hard for some to swallow. Thankfully, at least some of us don't fall for that kind of bullshit.

I actually have exactly zero skin in this game. I'm no fan of current copyright law, with it's ridiculously long terms. I'm posting from a throwaway because trashing Google, one of the biggest employers in the US, is a career-limiting move.

What you think of the terms between artists and labels is not really relevant to the matter at hand. No one is forced to sign with a big label. If you want someone's money, then you have to be willing to play by their rules. If the contract terms are too one-sided, then other labels would undercut the competition by offering better terms. This is what happens.

But again, totally irrelevant to YouTube's massive copyright heist. There's no justification for basing your business model on copyright infringement. No justification for having an asinine takedown system that doesn't change the fact that the top result will be yet another illegal copy of the video you just spent forever trying to get taken down.

Lol what? Did you not read the next paragraph of my comment?

How about hurting the record companies, who front most of the capital for artists, pay them salaries, etc.

To be fair, I don't think bdrool is claiming the situations are analogous. He's just using the opportunity to point out other problems with Amazon's operations.

It's the same deplorable ethics that Youtube used to rise to where they are today. It was probably the biggest copyright heist in history. Almost all of their traffic was to illegally uploaded music videos and they knew it. They put up so many procedural barriers to effective takedown that content owners gave up and accepted YouTube's licensing terms, because you'd rather make something than nothing.

(Of course, now that their place as a/the top video site is secured, and now that they've strong-armed everyone into licensing to YouTube, they've stepped up enforcement, so they can pretend to be good citizens. It's like a mobster turning around and using some of his ill-gotten gains for charity.)