>But the big G doesn’t contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing. I see the Mr Sutter is completely forgettin

>But the big G doesn’t contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing. I see the Mr Sutter is completely forgetting about YouTube. YT as a platform has enabled millions of creatives to publish their works and have them be available to the entire (or at least a very large proportion of the) world at next to no cost. >Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work. "Stolen work"? Is he really sugesting that he has been deprived of his wok, that he no longer has his copies of the works?. I think not. He doesn't understand what "theft" actually means. >People access Kim through Google. A search engine that allows people to gasp search for things? Oh the humanity! >And then, when Hollywood tries to impede that thievery Again, not thievery. Infringement of an exclusive right, but that doesn't have the same emotional attachment, does it? >it’s presented to the masses as a desperate attempt to hold on to antiquated copyright laws that will kill your digital buzz. But that's exactly what it is. The old business model is broken. It's the job of business and entrepreneurs to conduct business and make money given the constraints of technology, society and the law, not to infringe on the fundamental rights of us all to make a buck. Technology and society has changed, the business models of the past no longer work. Get with the programme, don't try and break one of the greatest pieces of technology ever invented because you're uncomfortable with change. > If you want to know more about how this works, just Google the word “parasite.” Hah! Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. >And if you think I’m exaggerating, ask yourself why Google spends tens of millions of dollars each year to hire lawyers and lobbyists (like Marv) whose sole purpose is to erode creative copyright laws. Perhaps because the copyright industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year to push copyright maximalism up the political agenda in order to enshrine their failing business models in the law. >Every writer, producer, actor, musician, director, tech wizard, and fine artist working today needs to be aware of what this all means for our future—we will lose the ability to protect and profit from our own work. Bullshit. Creative created works and made a profit before copyright existed. They created and profited from it when it only lasted 14 years. They'll continue to create and profit even when copyright is restored to a sane level. >Every kid out there who aspires to be an actor or musician or artist: This is your future that’s at stake. Future creatives should be worried about the dwindling public domain. Do you think the likes of Disney would be where there are today if they couldn't use stories that were in the public domain? >At this point, we are not talking about legislation or throwing handcuffs on any single party. We don’t want blood. Voluntary agreements are simply a place to start. Start? The copyright industry has been cranking the ratchet of ever-more-draconian law for decades. It's time to stop. >No one benefits from piracy except the criminals and the portal that opens its doors to them. Mr Sutter seems to be conveniently forgetting that those who download the most also spend the most. Criminalising your own customers is not a good business model. >Stealing content Again, nope. >Stealing content may feel like a win, but supporting piracy will ultimately diminish the quality of the content you’ve come to love and depend on. This makes it sound like piracy is something new. Did home taping kill music? No, it didn't, and industry profits have been going up and up. It was one of the few sectors that bucked the trend of the global financial crisis for fuck's sake. TL;DR: This article is horseshit.