No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
from the let's-get-rid-of-this-myth dept
Ugh. So, we recently wrote about Matthew Yglesias' quite accurate economic explanation for why the price of music was going to get pushed to zero, no matter what the industry said or what happened with copyright law. Andrew Sullivan spotted it, and also a response from a guy named Sonny Bunch who apparently has decided to totally reinterpret the history of copyright law in a post he entitled Piracy. Is. Stealing.:No! False! The purpose of intellectual property law has very little to do with Matt Yglesias being able to enjoy a wide variety of new music. The purpose of intellectual property law is to protect the intellectual property created by artists so they are rewarded for their efforts. The purpose of intellectual property law is to punish people who steal that which isn't theirs.First, on the title, let's get serious. Every time someone claims "piracy is stealing" it suddenly becomes that much more difficult to take them seriously, because it shows they've put no thought into their argument and are parroting specious arguments that have nothing to do with reality. Stealing means taking something away. Making a copy of something means there's two such things, not one, and nothing is missing. It's not stealing, and even the Supreme Court knows this:
Yes, copyright was created in part because there were concerns that authors wouldn't bother creating new work if they were consistently stolen from, leading to Yglesias's oddly solipsistic reading of intellectual property law. But, more importantly, copyright law evolved because we think that artists, writers, musicians, and others have a right to profit from their labors. It's a crazy idea, I know.
Also, Yglesias's cute little bit about the marginal distribution cost being zero ignores the fact that the production cost of music is far from zero -- leaving aside the artists (who Yglesias clearly doesn't care about being paid for their work), there are studio technicians who mix the music, producers who craft the songs, and all sorts of other people involved with the creation of music. I suppose they shouldn't be paid either? That we should just rob them of their labor too?
Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.But that's old hat. What's really problematic is the claim that copyright law was designed to "protect" the creator. False. Copyright law has one purpose and one purpose only: and it's to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Yes, the method for doing that included some limited protection but only for the sake of promoting the progress. If it is not promoting the progress, then the protection should not be allowed.
But Bunch goes on and makes a "sweat of the brow" argument or the "labor theory" of copyright that has been rejected over and over and over again. Not only has it been rejected, but it has been soundly rejected in clear language -- again, by the Supreme Court:
It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not "some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme."... It is, rather, "the essence of copyright," ... and a constitutional requirement. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."And if the Supreme Court isn't enough for Bunch, how's about Congress:
"The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based on any natural right that the author has in his writings... but on the grounds that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted.... Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public such rights are given."Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion on copyright law. But not their own facts.
The next paragraph by Bunch is also wrong and misleading. In talking about basic economics, no one is saying that they don't want people to get paid. If you explained why telephone switching technology was going to make the everyday phone operator obsolete did that mean you didn't want operators to get paid? Of course not. You're just explaining the basic functioning of the market, and what it means. It's got nothing to do with what anyone wants. It's about what's happening.
Furthermore, the claim that any of this means people don't get paid is also pure folly. As we've described in great detail, plenty of business models that don't require copyright are working quite well in the industry.
I'm always quite amazed at people who clearly have no experience with copyright law or the history of copyright law insisting they know all about what it's about.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, incentives, labor theory, promote the progress, sweat of the brow
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, Mike's ideas about copyright are basically square on with the law and how most courts interpret the law. This post was a great example.
Sonny Bunch argued the infringement is stealing. Mike pointed out a US Supreme Court case that held it is not.
Sonny Bunch argued that authors deserve to be paid based solely on the sweat of their brows. Mike pointed to case law that said that's not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but more importantly, copyright is important because it allows the producers, artists, and whoever took part in getting that content in front of your face, to recoup the investment. think about it this way... if i have $10m, and i know that i can make x% on it over a year investing in whatever at y% risk, i am going to do to the math for the expected value, and know my expected returns are going to be some value $z. now, if i have $10m, and producing a movie is going to have expected returns less than $z, i'm not making the movie, and everybody loses. if a decent number of content creation participants can't recoup, they're making less (or lower quality) content, and copyright law is not working.
that's EXACTLY why you're not seeing high production value shows on youtube. even after all the product placement (and now some pre-rolls), giving it away for free doesn't recoup cost of production... and that's just the successes. the successes always subsidize the failures (another point mike still doesn't understand).
mike can't mention a single artist who has broken the glass ceiling following his "connect-with-fans + reason-to-buy = profit!" mantra. yes, some people do profit... but the people he cites have all either been set up by the labels that he so despises, or these people are the rare musicians who barely make more than grocery cashiers. but none of them are breaking through to being "big." none of them are getting big endorsement deals. none of them are becoming stars. even when you go into non-pop genres, revolutionary technologies like pandora still only play the same lists of artists (i.e. even trance stations are common artists like tiesto, corsten, atb, etc).
yes, the labels and studios are full of parasitic baby eaters who make some ridiculous arguments. but as far radical as they are on one side, mike is just as radically anti-IP on the other. every single post he makes is full of anti-IP rhetoric.
just look at the news industry. yes, they wasted a shitload of money on bad credit deals, and they got destroyed in the advertising market, but they get virtually zero copyright protection. so now the industry has grinded to a halt, reporting churnalism and punditry as news because it's really cheap to produce. hell, even this blog is churnalism + punditry. mike finds stories written and researched by other people, and re-reports them with his radically anti-IP spin, often quoting VERY heavily, with the tell-tale "please don't leave my site, it hurts my ad revenues, 3 crosslinks-per-article, even if they're really not that relevant" signs. to make up for this low production value, mike makes sure to spin it with arms-waving panic-screaming sensationalism.
if you want REAL economics or REAL law, check out some blogs in those fields where people with knowledge and experience in moving millions write. it's not nearly as interesting because it's factually honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But can't name himself? Which means it's someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and can't back up anything. Or it's someone paid by the industry to take a very strong point of view. In this case, since I'm pretty sure I know who you are, we'll go with the latter.
mike's ideas are not "square on with the law."
Which part, please?
mike took a few quotes that back up a particular point of this particular argument (not even the original premise). the supreme court does not even come close to mike's view of what the law is (or should be), or you wouldn't have cases like ashcroft (mike would get laughed out of court if he did this).
Indeed, it is true that the Supreme Court's view on some aspects of copyright law are different than mine. No one denies that, but we weren't discussing those aspects -- we were discussing the wrong statements by the person above. But the Supreme Court is clear on the fact that "sweat of the brow" is not the reason for copyright, and that copyright infringement and theft are two different things.
but more importantly, copyright is important because it allows the producers, artists, and whoever took part in getting that content in front of your face, to recoup the investment.
No, this is incorrect. Copyright is one tool that provides one method by which a content creator can try to recoup their investment. In their wisdom, Congress decided to provide this tool.
think about it this way... if i have $10m, and i know that i can make x% on it over a year investing in whatever at y% risk, i am going to do to the math for the expected value, and know my expected returns are going to be some value $z. now, if i have $10m, and producing a movie is going to have expected returns less than $z, i'm not making the movie, and everybody loses. if a decent number of content creation participants can't recoup, they're making less (or lower quality) content, and copyright law is not working.
Yes, I did graduate from business school you know. I do understand how one makes a go/no-go investment decision. But to insist that copyright is the necessary tool for this suggests that you don't know squat about business or business models. You seem to be confusing copyright with business models when the two are different things.
that's EXACTLY why you're not seeing high production value shows on youtube. even after all the product placement (and now some pre-rolls), giving it away for free doesn't recoup cost of production... and that's just the successes. the successes always subsidize the failures (another point mike still doesn't understand).
Please, can you share with us your brain reading technology? Of course I understand that successes subsidize failures. But I also understand basic economics and the pressures on bad business models. Why do you ignore that? You act like I suggest things are happening because I want them to happen rather than because of economic pressures.
And, no, of course the vast majority of stuff on YouTube doesn't have high production value, but that's because that's the nature of the medium. But there is stuff with high production value on YouTube, it's just that apparently you are unable to find it. That's a problem with your own searching/filtering.
I've seen lots of very high quality stuff on YouTube, and more and more seems to show up all the time.
mike can't mention a single artist who has broken the glass ceiling following his "connect-with-fans + reason-to-buy = profit!" mantra. yes, some people do profit... but the people he cites have all either been set up by the labels that he so despises, or these people are the rare musicians who barely make more than grocery cashiers. but none of them are breaking through to being "big." none of them are getting big endorsement deals. none of them are becoming stars. even when you go into non-pop genres, revolutionary technologies like pandora still only play the same lists of artists (i.e. even trance stations are common artists like tiesto, corsten, atb, etc).
I love how the paid shills get to determine what constitutes "success." Corey Smith making $2 million net last year? Nah, that's just "grocery store money."
And why do you say I hate the labels? I don't. I've said repeatedly that the labels can and should be helping in this process -- and a few of the smarter indie ones do.
So why lie? Oh, because you want to prove me wrong when the evidence says I'm right, so you make up stuff. Funny that.
But the bigger point is that this model has really only been used for a couple of years, and already we are seeing many success stories (despite what our "anonymous" friend has to say). His solution is apparently to wish and pray that the basic laws of economics don't work, and when that fails have the gov't step in and prop up the broken industry against the laws of economics. Why?
yes, the labels and studios are full of parasitic baby eaters who make some ridiculous arguments. but as far radical as they are on one side, mike is just as radically anti-IP on the other. every single post he makes is full of anti-IP rhetoric.
Just a realist, brother. And I've never said anything about labels being "parasitic baby eaters." I just complain when they do stupid *things*. I've said -- repeatedly, and given examples -- that there's plenty of room for them to succeed, and talk to label people all the time to help them figure this stuff out.
Why set up a strawman? Because you can't accept reality? How sad.
just look at the news industry. yes, they wasted a shitload of money on bad credit deals, and they got destroyed in the advertising market, but they get virtually zero copyright protection.
Uh, wow. That's simply blatantly untrue. The newspaper industry gets just as much copyright protection as everyone else.
so now the industry has grinded to a halt,
This is totally untrue and repeating it just makes you look like a fool. Not someone who knows. Someone who lies. For a living, apparently.
mike finds stories written and researched by other people, and re-reports them with his radically anti-IP spin, often quoting VERY heavily, with the tell-tale "please don't leave my site, it hurts my ad revenues, 3 crosslinks-per-article, even if they're really not that relevant" signs. to make up for this low production value, mike makes sure to spin it with arms-waving panic-screaming sensationalism.
Heh. Interesting spin. Wrong. Really, really wrong, but interesting that you see things that way. Funny how you first claim I "re-report" stuff and then mock me for too much quoting. I'm not re-reporting. I'm not reporting. I'm not replacing journalism. I'm not a journalist. I'm doing commentary, and I don't give a shit about ad revenue, because ad revenue is a crappy business. So, no, it's got nothing to do with what you claim. And the cross links aren't about getting people to stay on the site, they're so that I can provide background info without having to rewrite everything.
if you want REAL economics or REAL law, check out some blogs in those fields where people with knowledge and experience in moving millions write. it's not nearly as interesting because it's factually honest.
Lovely. I like that you wrote a bunch of words attacking me and insisting I don't know this topic... but didn't point to a SINGLE THING that was wrong in the economics or the law that I wrote. Typical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
no, i am not an industry shill paid to do this or any other post. i am in the growing class of IP moderates willing to speak out in all this silliness. it's a joke that big content shouldn't be expected to enforce their copyrights (you constantly ridicule them for simply enforcing their rights), but at the same time, it's just as laughable that no royalties lawsuit in the history of forever has ever found that a label or studio overpaid the little guy.
and i'm not attributing the "parasitic baby eaters" quote to you. i'm characterizing the impression one would get of big content when they viewed your blog... that big content takes away more than they give, and they do it in vile and flat-out mean ways.
you've said multiple times on this blog that ad revenues suck (i agree that they do), but then why do you post 10+ times a day? even if every post only takes a half hour, that's still 5 hours a day on blogging. do you really get that many people saying "wow... mike masnick really knows what he's talking about on his blog. i'm going to pay him to make up a multi-tiered payment plan for people who just want to download my music instead of buy the mp3s"? on top of that, do you realize how many lawyers take a glance through and say, "wow, this guy is commenting on the law and he has no idea what that case says... not even anti-IP orgs like the EFF or stanford cyberlaw would say something so blatantly wrong..." i don't mean things like this article where you can debate for YEARS what the constitution means (you're trying to put emphasis on the "promoting progress" part while ignoring the whole "exclusive" part). i mean things like the "no contract" article just today where the judge DEFINITELY DID NOT say what you said he said. i wasn't even the first one to call you on it.
but this "interpreting promoting vs exclusivity" issue really is the big issue in the argument of this article. you want to ignore the "exclusive" part of article 1, section 8, while sonny over there wants to ignore the "promoting progress" part. neither one of you is right. without a means to exploit one's production to recoup, it's not going to be made, and we all lose. the founders chose exclusivity as that means. and the lack of exclusivity is one of the major factors in why the news industry has so massively switched over to low production value content. i disagree with sweat-of-the brow also, but the gawker-wapo dispute shows the exact problem we have. gawker made money that they could not have made if it wasn't for wapo's expenses. gawker responds that it was criticism, and that wapo should stop writing boring shit. wapo responds that if they wrote the article that gawker did, no one would ever give interviews (many politicians and celebrities pre-screen questions, or refuse interviews outright exactly for this reason). so gawker has to rely on other companies' on-the-ground journalists to do the research, and they can write their polarizing articles only because on-the-ground journalists simply cannot. so instead of sitting there spending production budget on investigation (because nothing in the investigation chain is protectable), most newspapers switched to garbage churnalism. i'm not saying we should allow the copyrighting of facts, and i certainly don't take the APs position that you need a license for 5 or more words (i'm an IP moderate, remember?) but there needs to be some middle standard where the production costs can be recouped to bring the quality back up.
as for what you want to title yourself (and your blog), that doesn't matter (you probably use some goofy title like "business model liaison"). when you have a site that delivers news and punditry, you're competing against all other sites which deliver news and punditry, regardless of how you monetize the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an artist I know for a fact that this is untrue.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts and as Oscar Wilde put it, "All art is quite useless."
Art does not need copyright to survive or evolve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Other than credibility. Without it, we just have your words to go on and they prove, quite irrefutably that you do not, in fact, know what you are talking about. I will note that you did not respond to most of my claims, you did not admit all of things you got wrong.
Wonder why? Same reason you won't tell us your name. Because you are wrong, and you can't back up your position. But that's not what you're here to do. You're here to try to make me look bad. And you will make up stuff to do so.
i am in the growing class of IP moderates willing to speak out in all this silliness. it's a joke that big content shouldn't be expected to enforce their copyrights (you constantly ridicule them for simply enforcing their rights),
I ridicule them for enforcing their rights *when* it is a bad business decision for them to do so. Why you left off that last part of the sentence? Gee... I wonder...
I'm sorry that you seem to have trouble understanding what I write, but I ridiculous bad decisions -- not just the enforcement of rights. When enforcing those rights costs you much more in how your customers view you, that's a problem, don't you think?
and i'm not attributing the "parasitic baby eaters" quote to you.
It sure looked like you did.
i'm characterizing the impression one would get of big content when they viewed your blog... that big content takes away more than they give, and they do it in vile and flat-out mean ways.
Huh. I'm curious what makes you qualified to determine what "one" would think when reading the blog? The vast majority of folks do seem to actually understand what I am saying. You don't. I'm suggesting perhaps the problem is on your end. Not mine.
I have nothing at all against big content companies, and, as I noted (and you ignored... weird...) I talk to folks there all the time, and have worked with some of them on various projects.
But if they do something bad that's going to harm them in the long run, I'm going to speak out. And it's not because I think they're bad, but because I'm trying to HELP them STOP doing stupid things.
It's quite a world where trying to help someone is seen as disliking them. I want to see them survive. That's why I tell them when they do stupid things.
you've said multiple times on this blog that ad revenues suck (i agree that they do), but then why do you post 10+ times a day?
Because I like to? Because I have something to say?
even if every post only takes a half hour, that's still 5 hours a day on blogging. do you really get that many people saying "wow... mike masnick really knows what he's talking about on his blog. i'm going to pay him to make up a multi-tiered payment plan for people who just want to download my music instead of buy the mp3s"?
And this is why you will never actually "know what you're talking about." You assume that everything has to have a single step direct link to money. Funny.
on top of that, do you realize how many lawyers take a glance through and say, "wow, this guy is commenting on the law and he has no idea what that case says... not even anti-IP orgs like the EFF or stanford cyberlaw would say something so blatantly wrong..."
Heh. Odd. I run a lot of my posts by some of the most respected lawyers in the business, and many of them talk to me all the time. I've never had a problem at all.
And the fact that you claim that EFF or Stanford Cyberlaw gets stuff blatantly wrong reveals your true thoughts on the matter, and shows the lie that you claimed at the beginning of being an "IP moderate." Ah, your words reveal you...
i don't mean things like this article where you can debate for YEARS what the constitution means (you're trying to put emphasis on the "promoting progress" part while ignoring the whole "exclusive" part)
I didn't ignore the exclusive part at all. I just pointed out that the exclusive part only applies to situations in which the progress is promoted. Are you suggesting that the founders intended exclusivity to apply even in cases in which progress is not promoted?
Would you really care to defend that position?
i mean things like the "no contract" article just today where the judge DEFINITELY DID NOT say what you said he said. i wasn't even the first one to call you on it.
I responded there. I never said the judge said anything at all in that post. You seemed to read that into things I never said, and then took it to extremes and pretended I said something I didn't just to make me look bad.
Now why would you do that? Hmmm... I wonder...
but this "interpreting promoting vs exclusivity" issue really is the big issue in the argument of this article. you want to ignore the "exclusive" part of article 1, section 8, while sonny over there wants to ignore the "promoting progress" part. neither one of you is right.
Again, I never said to ignore the exclusive part at all. I'm all for it. If you can show it promotes the progress.
All I want is something very simple. Some evidence that the exclusivity promotes the progress. That's all.
without a means to exploit one's production to recoup, it's not going to be made, and we all lose.
Indeed. We agree absolutely. That's why I spend so much of my time (you know, the time you don't think is particularly worthwhile) helping content creators come up with better models to do a lot more than recoup their money. And I help them do so in a fan friendly way that doesn't limit production of resources and doesn't require gov't monopolies.
What do you do to promote the progress?
the founders chose exclusivity as that means.
Yes. Though I'll note here now it appears to be you who is ignoring a rather important word. Limited. Need I remind you that it is "limited exclusivity" and the reason they chose limited was because they were afraid it would be widely abused.
And, since that time two things have happened (both important):
1. The definition of limited has been ignored (like by you!) such that the exclusivity has been extended to ridiculous levels over and over and over again.
2. A growing body of research has shown over and over and over again that such exclusivity does not, in fact, promote the progress and, instead, retards it.
the lack of exclusivity is one of the major factors in why the news industry has so massively switched over to low production value content.
Pure conjecture, spoken by someone who apparently knows very little of what's actually happening in the news industry these days.
And, I'll note, that you ignored what I pointed out to you before, which is that this is simply not true. The news business has the same copyright everyone else has. Why would you ignore that... I wonder...
but the gawker-wapo dispute shows the exact problem we have. gawker made money that they could not have made if it wasn't for wapo's expenses. gawker responds that it was criticism, and that wapo should stop writing boring shit. wapo responds that if they wrote the article that gawker did, no one would ever give interviews (many politicians and celebrities pre-screen questions, or refuse interviews outright exactly for this reason).
That's an interesting, and totally incorrect, retelling of the WaPo Gawker story, but okay. How about his, much more accurate, retelling. WaPo did an interview, and Gawker made fun of it, quoting a few paragraphs . You think that's really going to make WaPo do fewer interviews? Is their ego so fragile? It was a fluff piece in the "arts & living" section that was highly unlikely to overlap with Gawker's audience. Gakwer quoted a few (4) paragraphs (out of a total of 36 paragraphs in the original) but also included 3 links back to the article, and if you looked at the WaPo logs I would guarantee it drove a fair amount of traffic.
Nothing in that hurt the WaPo, other than its ego. That the WaPo was apparently too stupid to capitalize on the incoming traffic... well... that's really the WaPo's problem, right? Nothing to do with a lack of exclusivity.
Or are you REALLY trying to suggest that commentary should not be allowed on a ridiculously dumb interview? If you want to get Constitutional, I'd love to see you bring that into alignment with the First Amendment. I'll wait...
so gawker has to rely on other companies' on-the-ground journalists to do the research, and they can write their polarizing articles only because on-the-ground journalists simply cannot. so instead of sitting there spending production budget on investigation (because nothing in the investigation chain is protectable), most newspapers switched to garbage churnalism.
Again proving that, despite your name, you appear to know nothing of actual business or economics. You act as if because Gawker made money, WaPo lost it. Try looking up what a non-zero-sum game means. Both companies made money here, and if the WaPo didn't make enough, that's it's own fault.
High quality investigative journalism drives a TON of traffic. Trust me. Breaking a story? HUGE traffic driver. If you can't capitalize on that, you don't deserve to be in business. If you think that someone offering commentary and quoting 1/9 of your article is putting you out of business, you are so clueless that you should be serving fries somewhere, and not anywhere near a business.
i'm not saying we should allow the copyrighting of facts, and i certainly don't take the APs position that you need a license for 5 or more words (i'm an IP moderate, remember?) but there needs to be some middle standard where the production costs can be recouped to bring the quality back up.
There IS a middle standard: it's called having a business model.
when you have a site that delivers news and punditry, you're competing against all other sites which deliver news and punditry, regardless of how you monetize the site.
Huh? Competing? Again, you appear to not recognize what a non-zero-sum game is. There's no competition. If there were why would I link to these other sites? These "competitors"? For someone who claims to know stuff and won't back it up by giving a name, your words prove you know incredibly little.
And that's why it's clear who you really are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
in what way does that imply that i'm asserting you said anything about the parasitic baby eaters? the rest is full of strawman arguments. good job and knocking down things i didn't say.
want a better example? i never said the EFF and stanford cyberlaw is wrong a lot. i know FVL personally and he's both a great guy and a fantastic attorney. i've written multiple journal articles that praised some of his work. more often than not, the EFF and stanford cyberlaw are right -- they usually don't participate in cases where they have no argument (yes, even the EFF turns down cases). again, law isn't binary. it's a spectrum. some pro-IP groups are way off the deep end, but not all of them are. the EFF and stanford cyberlaw tend to be on the other side, but usually not too far over the center. they only take cases where there are reasonable grounds for disagreement. your IP stance is so radical that you're sitting way out past them, outside the stadium, past the bus stop, and in the next zip code.
i have re-responded about the "no contracts" article there. you said it was "fully legal" which is not what the judge said... the judge said it was a question of fact to be determined at trial.
and if you you still don't recognize that most of your writing is rhetoric, you regularly ignore the facts which disprove your argument entirely. case in point -- the article a few days ago on p2p and organized crime... you completely ignore major facts against your argument. security firms, the NSA, FBI, CIA, and USAF have all admitted that botnets are regularly used by organized crime. right now it's versions of photoshop on bittorrent. years ago it was files on kazaa named "britney spears - somesong.mp3.exe" and when people left the default file browsing view in windows explorer, it included the "hide file extensions of known file types" setting, so people would regularly install malware and join up into the botnets.
also, "having business model" is not a middle standard, or even a standard at all. you cannot go into court demanding they apply the "business model" standard.
i'm not agreeing with this sonny guy at all. i believe that place, format, and time shifting are fair use (as well as backups), because it doesn't promote progress to exclude people from privately doing anything with content they already paid for. i'm just saying that your concept of what "promotes the progress" is very skewed. copyright probably shouldn't be 4732842 years. in fact, i have publicly advocated things like a default 5 or 10 year term, and then the rights holder would have to pay a maintenance fee that compounds some percentage to renew for each term after that. regardless, your assessment of both my arguments and my position is just flat out wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wonder why not. I think we all know the answer...
Let's go through this again.
want a better example? i never said the EFF and stanford cyberlaw is wrong a lot.
Ok. Let's see what did you say?
"on top of that, do you realize how many lawyers take a glance through and say, "wow, this guy is commenting on the law and he has no idea what that case says... not even anti-IP orgs like the EFF or stanford cyberlaw would say something so blatantly wrong..."
That certainly looks like you're saying they get a lot of stuff wrong, doesn't it? Pray tell, how would you interpret it?
the EFF and stanford cyberlaw tend to be on the other side, but usually not too far over the center. they only take cases where there are reasonable grounds for disagreement. your IP stance is so radical that you're sitting way out past them, outside the stadium, past the bus stop, and in the next zip code.
Really? Then I believe you misread my position entirely. I'm pretty much in agreement with EFF and Staford Cyberlaw on most legal issues. So I'm sorta confused why you've got me pegged elsewhere.
I think, perhaps, the problem is that you interpret my economic arguments as legal arguments when it suits you to attack me... and why would you do that?
Again, the answer is clear, and it's screamed loudly in the fact that you won't identify yourself.
and if you you still don't recognize that most of your writing is rhetoric, you regularly ignore the facts which disprove your argument entirely.
I write opinion. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but you are wrong that I ignore facts that disprove my arguments. If you had facts I would love to see them.
case in point -- the article a few days ago on p2p and organized crime... you completely ignore major facts against your argument. security firms, the NSA, FBI, CIA, and USAF have all admitted that botnets are regularly used by organized crime. right now it's versions of photoshop on bittorrent. years ago it was files on kazaa named "britney spears - somesong.mp3.exe" and when people left the default file browsing view in windows explorer, it included the "hide file extensions of known file types" setting, so people would regularly install malware and join up into the botnets.
And that proves what, exactly? You seem to be confusing a bunch of different issues. The fact that some organized criminals have used P2P networks to confuse people into installing malware doesn't mean that copyright infringement makes organized crime money? I mean, seriously?!? You think that those are the same things? Yikes. You really have no clue what's going on.
also, "having business model" is not a middle standard, or even a standard at all. you cannot go into court demanding they apply the "business model" standard.
And here you go again. I never said that having a business model was a legal argument in court. Clearly you're not that stupid, but your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. You were insisting that protection was needed, and I was suggesting it's a business model problem, NOT A LEGAL PROBLEM.
I note, by the way, with great amusement, that you failed to respond to my discussion on the Gawker WaPo point which proved how far out of your depth you were on this particular subject.
I'm sorry, but you are clearly not someone familiar at all with economics or business model issues and it shows.
i'm just saying that your concept of what "promotes the progress" is very skewed.
So we have a difference of opinion on that. Why are you then trying to claim my *opinion* is factually incorrect?
in fact, i have publicly advocated things like a default 5 or 10 year term, and then the rights holder would have to pay a maintenance fee that compounds some percentage to renew for each term after that. regardless, your assessment of both my arguments and my position is just flat out wrong.
If you really had claimed that you wouldn't be afraid of putting your name here and standing behind it. That you refuse to do so makes it pretty clear that you are lying.
Anyway, I've responded to each of your points. You have attacked me, claiming I got stuff factually wrong, but failed to show a single thing I actually got wrong. Instead, you appear to be wholly ignorant of basic economics and business models.
I get that you disagree with my opinion on copyright law. Fine, lots of people do. But a growing number of people are looking at the facts, understanding the issues and realizing that what I have to say makes a lot of sense. And most of them are willing to sign their name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is interesting to note that in places like Poland and Russia, a growing number of people are looking at the "facts" and are becoming skinheads, racists, and anti-immigrant yahoos.
Your logic isn't very strong here. Essentially you are saying that your opinion isn't right, it isn't very common, but a few more people are agreeing with you.
Okay, now I understand, thanks. I will let the AC have at the rest, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is only 'interesting to note' if your aim is to pose a mischaracterisation. While the majority of people who read this site, on either side of the copyright debate, are likely to disagree with the facts presented by racists, that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
"Your logic isn't very strong here. Essentially you are saying that your opinion isn't right, it isn't very common, but a few more people are agreeing with you."
He said people don't agree, not that his opinion isn't right. It's his opinion, whether it is right or wrong would be purely subjective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point isn't racism, the point is that a significant (and growing) group of people have a point of view that most of us accept as wrong. However, they totally believe it, the write newsletters and run blogs that support their point of view as fact.
What Mike has just admitted that plenty of people disagree with his views (as I disagree with the racist skinheads), but that more and more people are looking at the "facts" and moving to his view (similar to what is happening with the skinhead groups).
He said people don't agree, not that his opinion isn't right.
His opinion is an opinion, it isn't "right", because it is just an opinion, and there is plenty wrong with it. Certainly, there is enough wrong with it that a fair number of people disagree with him, and at least a couple of them have called out is "right" opinion in very public ways in the last few days. His answers are pretty much the standard dismissive answers that you would expect. He doesn't speak about his opinion, as much as lecture about how they are wrong and he is right. Yet, his "right" answers are only an opinion.
Hmmm. You have to think what other type of person would do this sort of thing. The wackos from Waco come to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I know you're out there. I can feel you now. You're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. A world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you."
You can either heed Neo's words and adapt and accept that the old ways are dead and take advantage of what technology allows, or you can fall into obscurity and irrelevance with the rest of the dinosaur corporate megaliths you defend. The choice is yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike goes on and on about business models, yet he has never put forward a business model that would support the quality and levels of media that we have seen in the last 20 years. Quantity perhaps, but not quality, and certainly not business models that would rival or surpass the current movie or music industry models.
Will those models go away? Probably. Models have changed with technology, but those models rarely support working for free for very long. So the wild west "it's all free!" sort of mentality is transitional, as we go from a disc, paper, broadcast model of media distribution to digital subscription models, memberships, or other systems to continue to put enough money into the systems to make them run at the levels people have come to expect.
Of course, you could suggest that a movie like Avatar should never happen (too expensive) and that we should all be watching $50 monster movie CGI home made stuff instead. Without a way to turn the 300 million dollar investment into profit to finance the next movies, it is unlikely that the big studios will continue.
So it isn't a question of protecting "the dinosaur corporate megaliths", rather, it is looking around and saying "there isn't a replacement for something the public en masse is demanding, using, and enjoying, so why would it die?". So you can kill "the industries" if you like, but the only replacements that are out there are like watching high school football instead of the Super Bowl. I know which one will pull on TV and which one won't even run on the local community access cable channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More LIES AND MISREPRESENTATION FROM TAMHOLE
Times change. Business changes. NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE is guaranteed that either their business wont change or fail, NOR that they are will never lose something in the change. You also dont get a guarantee that whatever new thing that comes along and replaces you does so in a ZERO SUM GAME, where its AS MUCH as what came before. Change HAPPENS. You cant legislate it NOT to.
"Will those models go away? Probably. Models have changed with technology, but those models rarely support working for free for very long. So the wild west "it's all free!" sort of mentality is transitional, as we go from a disc, paper, broadcast model of media distribution to digital subscription models, memberships, or other systems to continue to put enough money into the systems to make them run at the levels people have come to expect."
Um..excuse me? You need to put up or STFU now and here is how you WILL do it, or lose ALL credibility forever:
WHERE has Mike or this site or any of these ideas said "its all FREE! Give everything away FREE?" Pleas, enlighten us. Because that is this FALSE LIE that you perpetuate is the COMPLETE underpinning of your specious garbage. So, its time to SHOW US ALL how righteous you are, and how WRONG we all are, and WHERE EXACTLY AND SPECIFICALLY there was a call to "give it ALL AWAY FREE!!"
You MUST answer this, with CONCLUSIVE PROOF that this is what Mike, his site, and advocates, all are pushing.
"Of course, you could suggest that a movie like Avatar should never happen (too expensive) and that we should all be watching $50 monster movie CGI home made stuff instead. Without a way to turn the 300 million dollar investment into profit to finance the next movies, it is unlikely that the big studios will continue."
What stops them from doing so now? HOW exactly would Avatar FAIL to recoup its money FROM A THEATRICAL RUN? Please, again, enlighten us. Even if piracy were 100%, there would STILL BE MOVIE THEATERS because, as been pointed out to you NUMEROUS TIME, the movie theater experience IS UNIQUE. Oh and Avatar was available on download sites a couple of days after release, and its STILL the number 1 box office of all time. Man, did YOU pick the WRONG movie to try to use as an example....CLASSIC TRAITOR AGAINST MANKIND FAIL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More LIES AND MISREPRESENTATION FROM TAMHOLE
You MUST answer this
Sorry son, but you can't order me to do anything. That might work on your dog or your mom, but it doesn't work on me. I will answer you as I feel, not because you are trying to put a virtual gun to my head. Don't be such a dick!
Times change. Business changes. NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE is guaranteed that either their business wont change or fail
Did I say that? Nope. All I said is that the public loves movies and music, they continue to love music and movies. Ripping down those industries (by widely supporting piracy) where there is no business model replacement isn't workable.
WHERE has Mike or this site or any of these ideas said "its all FREE! Give everything away FREE?"
He says it all the time. Give away the content, and sell the scarce goods around it. Give away your music and movies, and sell scarce things like t-shirts and miniputt games. That's his whole mantra. Mike considering content to be infinite, not rare or scarce, and as such, his take on econ says it has not market price.
Further, Mike has advocated selling DVDs at the exit of movies running in theaters, which would clearly lead to high quality DVD rips being all over the world and in people's homes while the companies are still trying to sell the scarcity of theater viewings. He is against windowing of any sort, and wants the studios and production companies to compete against their own product free in the market.
HOW exactly would Avatar FAIL to recoup its money FROM A THEATRICAL RUN?
Avatar is obviously recouping just from the theater run, but plenty of movies do not. They need the income from dvd sales, PPV, and licensing for TV play to make ends meet. Plenty of movie companies go out of business because they have a couple of poor movies in a row. If you want all of those other retail markets to go away (because remember, everything is free, and Mike says that the content should be out there without restriction), it changes the equation. For every Avatar, there is a Waterworld. There are movies that end up as "direct to DVD", which would no longer exist because the move her is to make that movie infinite and free.
the movie theater experience IS UNIQUE
It is less and less unique all the time. Home theaters are becoming as sophisticated (if not more) than most local movie houses. The only uniqueness of the experience is that the content isn't available online in a decent quality to be downloaded, otherwise people would likely avoid the theater altogether.
CLASSIC TRAITOR AGAINST MANKIND FAIL
Not at all, sorry you feel that way. Avatar is an example of a success, but those successes are rare. You have to pay attention to how many movies are made which never break even in the theaters, and who's profit and loss comes only in the secondary markets that Mike is pushing to abolish (by making them "FREE!").
All I can say is that you appear to be making a CLASSIC TOO MUCH KOOLAID FAIL by not looking past the end of your nose, perhaps because all you can see is Mike's butt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah! You go get him! He cant both be right AND have an opinion! Mutually exclusive. And he keeps trolling and posting this gibberish and expecting people to "Come around" to his point of view, crazy! And how he skirts direct questions and makes personal attacks, I mean, what is that? Cant we debate the issues? Dont his arguments have ANY merit, that he has to ignore, lie, misrepresent, and otherwise go around the actual points, raise false points of attack and then claim victory? I mean, what kind of repulsive, sleazy, despicible
wait...
what?
oh.
My friend just pointed out that the posting was about MIKE. That it was posted BY TAM about Mike, and not the other way around.
Oops.
My bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
His opinion may be right, his opinion may be wrong, the same with mine. Of the the true skills of a great guru type is that they are able to weave just enough provable truth into their message that most people don't question all the big blank space in between those hard data points.
I personally think it is a great thing that Mike is admitting that many people don't share his views, and the way he explains it, his views are those of the few, not the masses. I think it's a great advancement in his self-view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You drew a comparison between two completely unrelated things. Criminals breathe air, I've observed it and can swear that you observe the same. Should it be said therefore that anyone who breathes air is a criminal? Drawing a comparison between two unrelated things serves only to bring the object of comparison into focus, usually the kind of tactic reserved for those known under 'Godwin's Law'.
"His answers are pretty much the standard dismissive answers that you would expect. He doesn't speak about his opinion, as much as lecture about how they are wrong and he is right. Yet, his "right" answers are only an opinion."
An opinion is what someone thinks about an issue; even if everyone in the world holds the same opinion, the fact that is an opinion doesn't change; even if it has been scientifically concluded, it is still a unique opinion to everyone who thinks about the issue. In saying that 1+1=2 I am stating my opinion, though there is worldwide consensus that what I have stated is fact.
So, going back to your earlier post, you said 'essentially you are saying that your opinion isn't right', which would seem impossible. Your subsequent post makes even less sense so I figured it would be quicker to explain the earlier point than to unravel the resulting mess.
"Hmmm. You have to think what other type of person would do this sort of thing. The wackos from Waco come to mind."
I see you have skipped the details of the comparison altogether for that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You entirely miss the point.
The only point is that a signficant number of neo-nazi types really believe that their ideas are right, they will defend them, they will quote court rulings, papers, and the whole nine yards which shows they are right. A growing number of people in those countries are buying it.
It isn't anything else. Don't mistake it for me calling Mike a neo-nazi or anything like that. I am only identifying a group that few of us would agree with, but who will claim their opinion to be right, and have a growing following (as Mike claims to have here).
So, going back to your earlier post, you said 'essentially you are saying that your opinion isn't right', which would seem impossible. Your subsequent post makes even less sense so I figured it would be quicker to explain the earlier point than to unravel the resulting mess.
What Mike said was that not everyone agrees with his point of view, and suggested that the people who agree with him is a minority but growing. That would make his opinions somewhat less than right, because the majority of people think they are wrong, no?
I see you have skipped the details of the comparison altogether for that one.
it's the same comparison: A group of people who believe what they think is true, and is right, and everyone else is wrong. Nothing more, and nothing less. Heck, they were willing to die for their ideals and for what they thought was right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While the argument rages on, the tide can be held back. It doesn't need to be won, simply continued.
Their fear is that people might stop arguing, reach a conclusion and act upon it. For when people start prospering without the publishers then the publishers are truly lost. But while an iota of doubt can be maintained in your audience, then they are safe, and your audience will need them to keep the wolf from the door. You are thus a pied piper with a curious audience that while mildly fascinated by your fantasies yet remains reluctant to follow.
In other words Mike, I'm asking you if you think we can figure out a way to move the discussion on? To move on from right/wrong and possible/impossible, to the next level, i.e. the level where we have apprehended its validity and viability as self-evident, that we're now pragmatically concerned with the HOW of it.
Maybe we're not able to do that. Perhaps it is only when everyone and their dog are doing business without copyright and patent (without suing each other for infringing a monopoly) that the discussion of whether it is right or wrong or possible or impossible will finally dry up?
Aren't our energies better directed to assist the early adopters of the new business models than to gainsay the Luddite detractors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also as an anonymous coward? Apparently they were as bad as your cheap attacks on Mike. Pity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The one rule you don't ever break is to screw openly your customers they will find a way to screw you back and that is a universal one.
About not seeing high cost productions in youtube well the web-series sanctuary started there, The Guild, FearNet, former Walt Disney CEO Michael Eisner's produced Prom Queen, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, the internet TV even has awards given by the Streamy Awards
StarWreck and Iron Sky also came from the web for free.
http://www.wreckamovie.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_television_seri es
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Web_television_series
Then in music you have monkey artic or was artic monkey, that started in social networks.
Check out SOME REAL people making money on the WEB!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another thing to ask yourself is: with the advent (and eventual ubiquity) of "Consumer-level" HD video cameras/camcorders (I saw one for 150 bucks that could record in 1080p or 1080i, with an SD card slot), and increasingly inexpensive (or even Free/Open-source) video editing software, you think "production values" won't inevitably rise as a result?
Check out any "fanfilm" made by Star Trek geeks. It's actually pretty amazing what they can do on a relative "shoestring" budget (and, more importantly, since Paramount actually at least partially understands the whole "get the fans participating" thing, they don't actively try to have fan-projects killed.)
http://www.hiddenfrontier.com/
Now, I realize that the "production-values" are actually pretty shaky on the above, as compared to what you're used to seeing nowadays. But the truly amazing thing is what they were able to do on a shoestring budget, BACK IN THE 1990s (which is when the projenitor/alpha version of the above referenced fanfilm series began.)
You honestly don't think that the combination of increasingly-good technology (HD cams and such), AND an increasing knowledge-base among New Media (oops, I mean "amateur") vid makers won't make the quality increase?
More to the point: you *really* think the "production values" of all big studio fare are good?
You obviously never saw that godawful remake of "The Music Man" starring Matthew Broderick and Kristen Chenowith:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293437/
(Proof you really *Can't* polish a turd!) :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ooG-wWuajc
The same guy that put that short film on the web for free 3 years later would be doing District 9.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you going to go spank that naughty judge who called it stealing? Are you going to insult Trent Reznor who called it stealing?
You have something you are not suppose to have, you have paid for, and shouldn't have in your possession. How did you get it? "Oh, it just materialized." No, really, you obtained it illegally, right? Grandma would call it stealing.
plenty of business models that don't require copyright are working quite well in the industry.
Earth to bootstrap control, Mike is quoting himself. Always good to take opinion and add some opinion on top. We get to the same place, almost every one of those "business models" starts with "and here is someone really famous", who can afford to not make a living writing and recording music.
This thread is almost a classic already. Doesn't it make you wonder when more and more people are calling your ideas out as smoke and mirrors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is your mindset, as proven by your track record of comments and trolling here, TAM. Deny it or accept it. Either way, we know what you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am a big believer in the artists (music and movies, example), not just the big names in front but all the little guys (and girls) in the back that actually make is possible. both industries require a fairly high number of people to make it all work, and work well, and work all over the world.
I am also a big believer that you need a little bit of "lubrication" to make the wheels turn. That is the investment money that is put out there to allow artists to write and record new material, to afford good studios, great producers, maybe to buy some great songs to sing, etc. That money doesn't just come out of the sky, it comes with a price attached to it.
I don't think anyone at all is saying "you can't do it that way", but I think many of them are objecting because they are getting dragged into it without any desire to be there. If I was a professional songwriter who makes my living off of points on an album, I would be very upset if my work was put all over the internet for free, effectively cutting away my livelihood. That shouldn't be anyone else choice except those people who hold the rights.
It is important to separate out "new business models" from "rampant piracy". Mike's model seems to be "bend over and use the lube", which is a horrible way to accept fate.
I also object because much of what is presented here is like talking about making all beef hot dogs without discussing how you go from a live cow to a hot dog in a bun. It would be really nice if we could just get the cow to magically jump into the tubes and become a hot dog right there, but reality is that there are feed lots, transport, slaughter houses, butchers, grinding, and a whole bunch of other things that happen in between. What I get from Techdirt is "here is a picture of a cow, here is a picture of a hot dog, now go do it yourself!". Ignoring all that happens in the middle (and all the people required, and all the costs that happen) is pretty misleading.
Yes, I compared the music business to making hot dogs (or sausages, but I didn't want to discuss pork on this blog). Both of them are messy processes with lots of grinding and blood, but the end results are generally pretty good. More mustard please!
So the problem is that it is easy to dismiss the **aa's and "the industry" as all bad and ugly, because they aren't people (except that the courts just ruled they are, but that is for another day). It is hard to hate on people. It is hard to hate on the song writer who loses their living, or the session musician who can no longer get paid, or the bands that instead of getting an advance and a big break will be forever flogging t-shirts at their beer money shows, working McJobs to make ends meet. Those are people getting hurt in the process, who didn't want any of this to happen.
Yes, "think about the poor people". It makes a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Stopped reading after that.
If you truly believed that you would be against all the major record labels and collection societies like ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, and the others.
These organizations and corporations are on record over and over and over as not giving money to the artists where money is due.
Since I see such a gaping hole in your thoughts with that statement and plenty others you have made, I find it hard to take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
not at all. The UK report Mike put up a while back showed that licensing is a big part of the music industry income in the UK, and that commercial income (licensing and collections) was growing much faster than consumer spending.
If an artist contacts those agencies, I am sure they will get paid. I am sure the artists could hire lawyers if they registered and were not getting paid.
Someone has to collect the money. Without those organizations, nearly 25% of the UK music business would disappear overnight. That is artist money, song writer money, all gone. Are you suggesting that the UK business should take a 25% haircut just to be "pure"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where are you going with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html
http://www.woodpecke r.com/writing/essays/phillips.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=529
http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/3384-ascaps-maf ia-like-control.html
Pretty harsh words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Strangely they seem to be able to do it without resorting to the bully boy tactics employed by ASCAP,PRS etc.
Oddly they also pass on all the money due to their artists without any fuss.
They restrict themselves to "true commercial use" and put out all their music on (noncommercial) CC licences.
Why can't the collecting societies do the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those agencies royally suck at giving money to artists. And even when some of their formulas have been exposed, you can see that only a very few of the "big hit" stars get money and many smaller artists do not.
That is not how the market should work. Smaller artists should not be subsidizing the larger ones. Hogwash. It is all one big scam. Your blind support for how these organizations work as they are just makes it seem like you are one of those rich snobs getting paid by the collectors. How can you not want them to change their systems to pay the artists in a far more efficient manner? Also, how can you possibly support their extreme bully tactics that cause many venues to stop playing music? Less awareness about artists is always bad. They may collect an extra 5$ for a few artists (who are probably only the rich ones since they use flimsy formulas), but all of the artists will lose potential fans who would have spent a lot more on wares and concert tickets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While I don't have any citations to backup my claim, its pretty well known how the RIAA and MPAA feels about 'doing it that way.' They can object however they want to be being dragged into new ways of doing business but fact of the matter is, times are changing and business models go stale. Telephone companies were forced to change their models and survived because of it. Back in the day it was illegal to hook up a second phone line. Wasn't actually stealing but it was considered to be.
Having the government prop-up your business model is, in my opinion, pretty smiley. The market has itself pushed music into other distribution methods, but in my opinion those that make the music don't want to be pushed that way because they are comfortable with the way things are and instead of innovating they would rather keep things 'the way they were.' Time and time again these industries have attempted (or have) stiffed innovation in the name of "giving money to the artists." Issues with VCRs, DVRs and Digital Music Distribution are all good examples of this. They may not want to move into a new method but its the market that dictates their move (see, now I used that word correctly) and not the businesses themselves. Unless they get protection from the government because they can't be bothered to move forward.
I'm not saying people who worked on it shouldn't get paid, and there will always be people out there who will pirate regardless of what you do just like there will always be people buying counterfeit goods or buying cam'd movies on DVD on street corners. But instead of looking for ways to milk customers using old methods, they would do well to move into new distribution methods and ways to make money.
Its beyond just getting stuff for free, many studies have shown that many would like to pay the artist for content they can't get due to outdated business models and stuff locked into insane copyright schemes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm a film and tv producer; and do I regret missing the huge wave of obscene money around just ten or fifteen years ago? You bet. But I don't point around and say that it's everyone else's fault.
It was an artificially and technologically created monopoly on distribution that conditioned our society to believe that the one-to-many model was so because "that's what people wanted."
Instead, the reality is that broadcast and theatrical restrictions were what enabled gigantic cost productions. We do still have some of this today, and will for some time to come. What has changed is that we are driven to lower our costs because we have a 500 channel and 15,000 theater universe. We have vastly more supply, and not necessarily more demand.
The more distribution outlets - the more niche audiences are enabled, and it's up to us as producers to find the ways in which we can still make profitable content. And let's be clear here - the huge network paydays are still around for a bit; but by and large, a cable network per ep fee is a fraction of what it use to be when there were only 4 networks. So what? Instead of only a few dozen people making millions a year, there's now hundreds, making decent livings. In a few more years, there will be thousands.
This cannot be stopped, nor should it be. It is exactly this situation that enables media that never would have been made any other way, to get made on it's own, find it's own small audience, and be relatively successful.
I know this firsthand from making and selling both of my feature films to market, and from producing almost 200 hours of television.
Most of my colleagues have their heads in the sand, trying to suck as much cash out of networks as they can before it all implodes. Which isn't a bad strategy; short term. Long term, there are a few of us working on rethinking what it means to be a successful media producer and at what scale can we work and be profitable?
This equation gets severely unbalanced if all you know how to do is sit in an office and come with ideas that you need a shit-ton of other people to execute because you can't execute them.
So maybe artists that want to make a living have to learn to record, remix, and market their stuff on their own, and those who have to hire lots of expensive people to do that for them, will find they can't make "any" money because they're spending on people to do the things they choose not to learn how to do for themselves.
To that, I say, "good riddance."
It is my responsibility as a producer to come up with the new ways to CwF + RtB as Mike would say, AND hopefully do so in a way that enables some folks working with me to make their livings as well. But it is not the governments nor societies place to figure that out for me, or protect the way it used to be.
Evolution, baby!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Honestly, if you cannot answer even one economics question, I think you have no business opining upon anything which affects economics in any way.
Thanx. Also, have you passed the Turing test?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One way you profit selling below cost is by selling other more profitable items with the below cost item. On aggregate, you make a profit.
There is also the question of locked money. If you have stock worth a certain amount, and the cost of money is 10%, if you have to hold onto something for a period of time, you lose money with it sitting. Retailing it more quickly at less than your cost of money is beneficial to the bottom line.(see Wal-mart, lower down)
Another would be if you have already sold enough widgets at a sufficient unit price to have covered your costs. Every sale after that would be 100% profit, even if it is below cost price.
Another would be a tied sale, where you sell a product below cost, but bind the buyer to also enter into a much more profitable agreement. Monthly gym memberships (or Extenze tablets) being examples of selling cheap (or for free) with a tied continued profitable sale.
One other way is bonus systems for restocking or ordering. If you have a bodega and you have a bunch of Cola that cost you $1 a bottle to stock, and your supplier comes in and offers you a whole bunch more cola at $0.50 a bottle, your aggregate cost (on equal stock) would be 75 cents, so you would sell all the cola that cost you $1 and 89 cents and still make a "profit" on inventory.
Finally, you get into the more complex concept of "the turn". Walmart is pretty famous for this. Walmart only keeps products for a certain amount of time, and will do almost anything to move the products out and replace them with better selling products. Even if they are losing some money on a current sale, they are in fact profiting in the long run by freeing up the floor space for more profitable items. Walmart doesn't always make a profit on each sale, but they make money over the year by turning the stock more often and restocking into more profitable items that will sell quickly.
There are plenty of examples, in car rental and airlines. Airlines often sell tickets under "cost", because an empty seat is lost money. That under cost ticket is often offset by more profitable seats on the plane, plus the yield difference when the lower seats are sold and prices move up.
I could go on, but I think most of those are reasonable, without cracking a book or looking anything up online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously -- if it *really* bothered you that much (god knows why), sorry about the "Grandma's coat-hanger" thing. (Damn....am I the only one who thinks that would make a totally excellent name for an "Emo" band?) :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler
Apology accepted, thanks for being the bigger man (or is it woman) ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I *knew* it! TAM is secretly hot for me. You know you love me, Tammy-Tam. :)
Seriously tho....the "Coat-hanger" thing wasn't cool.
Mea Culpa.
Just don't be a dick, and we're cool. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming that you can't hear us doesn't make us wrong.
The future is coming. Adapt or die.
And the reason Reznor doesn't care that you download his songs is because he realizes the difference between actual stealing, and imaginary property.
And while I know exactly what you meant, you kind of say that people did pay for it:
You have something you are not suppose to have, you have paid for, and shouldn't have in your possession.
I know what you meant, just pointing out a typo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I could take The Grateful Dead, Phish, Captaine No, and Corey Smith alone, and people could be mistakenly lead to think that jam bands and solo guitar / harmonica players are the entire music business. They are but a very, very small sliver of the entire musical landscape, but using them alone I might come up with all sorts of odd theories about how the music industry should work.
heck, I might come up with business models like selling used VW buses or something.
The future isn't here yet. Right now the Reznors of the world are like the Stanley Steamers of the day. They seem like a good idea, but they are only a transition from the buggy to the real automobile. What you think is the future is only a transition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention a series of authors that tested and found out that piracy has no bearings on sales, they gave out their products for free and miraculously there was no reduction in sales and some saw increases how is that possible?
Software producers make money too giving away their products.
Search for opendental I just convinced my dentist to use that one LoL
If downloads should be considered stealing so is radio or TV the end result is the same costumers don't pay for what they consume did that influence sales of LP's?
Besides filesharing has no impact that can be measured or quatified it is all assumptions the best one can look for is statistical trends and they are not in the case of the music industry that is not in favour of a downward trend.
Jobs, well downsizing is happening everywhere.
IP didn't protect manufacturing jobs did it?
IP will not protect medical jobs either, but nobody seems to care medicine keeps getting expensive, hardware is costing more and people find that it is cheaper to hop on a plane, cross the ocean and find medical attention even without any guarantees more palatable than what they got in their own home that alone should ring the bells that something is very wrong.
What will destroy the arts is copyright.
People will abandon a difficult market and find other places to do the work that is impossible to do it locally so only right holders(not artists) will gain and those right holders are few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Saying something does not make it true. A billion people could say that the earth was flat, but that does not make it flat.
You have something you are not suppose to have, you have paid for, and shouldn't have in your possession. How did you get it? "Oh, it just materialized." No, really, you obtained it illegally, right? Grandma would call it stealing.
As I've already explained today, theft and infringement are two completely different concepts.
When you steal physical property, the owner of the physical property is unable to use, sell, or lease the property.
Physical property is an inherent property right, not given by government but protected by government. It's one of those unalienable rights you've read about in civics.
When you infringe copyrights, you're interfering with a government granted monopoly. The copyright holder still has the song, movie, or book, he can still sell the book, he can still use the book, and he can lease out the book. He is not deprived at all, other than in a possible lost sale. But as I've stated before, hearing a song on the radio and not liking it and deciding not to buy it also leads to a lost sale. But that's not illegal.
Copyrights and patents are not inherent and unalienable. They are monopolies created by and given by the government. Because they were created by government fiat and are not unalienable, the government can do with them what they wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But you just said I paid for it, so I should be able to be in possession of it, isn't that how it works??
Oh, wait a minute I bet you meant to say I had NOT paid for it, didn't you??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Screw Grandma, she's wrong. She also refers to my brown skinned friends by unconscionable names....that doesn't make it right....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
lol actually, yeah it does. Make a digital copy that is identical to the original for zero-cost... I'd say that's as close to materializing as you can get! So Grandma can call it stealing, but then again she also called movies "moving pictures" didn't she? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm. I don't remember the requirement that we respond to everyone who makes this mistake, but we have in fact pointed out judges who have made this mistake.
Are you going to insult Trent Reznor who called it stealing?
Oddly, I have explained this one to you, so I'm a bit surprised you keep repeating it. Reznor used the term "ironically". He was making fun of people who call it "stealing." Not sure why you keep repeating this when it has been explained to you.
You have something you are not suppose to have, you have paid for, and shouldn't have in your possession.
Three assumptions, not all of which are true.
How did you get it? "Oh, it just materialized." No, really, you obtained it illegally, right?
No, you made a copy. That copy may or may not be illegal.
Grandma would call it stealing.
Not my Grandmother. She read Techdirt up until her passing just a few months ago. She understood the difference between these two basic concepts. My grandma was smart. I guess yours might not be, but I do not see how that's my problem.
Earth to bootstrap control, Mike is quoting himself.
There is a difference between quoting yourself and pointing to examples. Again, we find you having trouble separating two basic concepts. You might want to look into that.
We get to the same place, almost every one of those "business models" starts with "and here is someone really famous", who can afford to not make a living writing and recording music.
No, actually, the vast majority of them do not start with someone really famous. Odd. You apparently don't read. You just spew.
This thread is almost a classic already. Doesn't it make you wonder when more and more people are calling your ideas out as smoke and mirrors?
To date I have not seen anyone do so clearly. A few folks such as yourself seem to have trouble with basic reading comprehension. But, you know, some people like to go through life in ignorance. That you choose to repeat your ignorance so clearly, even after it has been shown to be both factually incorrect and ignorant, is really quite an amazing choice on your part. Given your long history of professional failures and inability to adapt to changing markets, perhaps I can understand how your brain goes to such places, but really, you shouldn't blame it on the folks who actually understand this stuff.
I do get why you want to blame third parties for infringement though, because it might get you off the hook for your own inability to adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad waste of time.
I much appreciate your well-thought-out factual replies and sometimes sigh with disgust at the things we put up with in the name of free speech. Sometimes censorship seems SO reasonable, but educating the poor unfortunate ignorant souls is far more worthy a cause.
Sadly, there are many who refuse to have their delusions washed away.
:'|
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad waste of time.
I know this wasn't directed specifically at me, but:
1. Have you been observing either TAM or "Sam I Am" in action? The mere fact that Masnick posts ANYTHING could be construed as "Feeding the trolls", simply by virtue of the fact that these two congenitally-ignorant Big-media fanbois simply keep reiterating the same mistaken gibberish, and/or outright claiming that the sole reason anyone could object to what currently passes for IP 'law' is that they're un-creative morons.
Or that they have no understanding of the issue. (Funny how Ray Beckerman, and any artists who use Masnick's model also get lumped into that category.)
The only way to NOT "feed" these particular trolls would be for Masnick simply to not post anything ever again.
"much appreciate your well-thought-out factual replies and sometimes sigh with disgust at the things we put up with in the name of free speech. Sometimes censorship seems SO reasonable, but educating the poor unfortunate ignorant souls is far more worthy a cause."
That assumes that they *are* educable.
That also assumes that they are actually here for debate (which would neccesary require that if/when they are proven wrong -- as both TAM and "Sam" have been time and time and time again -- they would change their views accordingly.
That's not the case, however.
TAM explicitly presents Itself as "The Anti-Mike". (At least the puny little troll has THAT right --- Anti-Thought, anti-history, anti-future, anti-culture, Anti-Market, Pro-monopoly, unflinchingly apologetic for any/all corporate misdeeds.....
Your statement also presupposes that they *have* "souls" -- as opposed to simply being misinformation-spewing automata for the Big-media cartels who spend every waking second (when they're not polluting tech-related blogs with their gibberish) eagerly anticipating an eternity spent fellating Jack Valenti in hell, while he's dressed like "Captain Copyright".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Copyright
As for me: I'm just giving the weasels what they so richly deserve -- which is basically anything but respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad waste of time.
grandmother wasn't smart: she didn't resort to ol' coat-hanger method
A classy person with classy opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sorry for your loss :( . My best regards/condolences.
Did you even have a techdirt article about your grandmother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks.
Did you even have a techdirt article about your grandmother?
No, I keep that sort of stuff off of Techdirt, and keep it on a personal site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is it a mistake, or like some things just an indication on the winds of change? The supreme court isn't always opposed to reviewing it's own judgment over time, especially if there is an interesting case that comes with it. I have a feeling that ACTA might make that a need.
Reznor used the term "ironically". He was making fun of people who call it "stealing."
Sorry, I wasn't there, and except for your interpretation, I haven't seen it referred to as ironic. I have seen it referred to as "in anger" though.
No, you made a copy. That copy may or may not be illegal.
If you don't have rights to something, isn't it illegal?
Not my Grandmother. She read Techdirt up until her passing just a few months ago. She understood the difference between these two basic concepts. My grandma was smart. I guess yours might not be, but I do not see how that's my problem.
I would say if your grandma was exposed to this site long enough, she might get confused. We can agree that our grandmas would not agree.
There is a difference between quoting yourself and pointing to examples
What do you call it when you are doing both at the same time?
No, actually, the vast majority of them do not start with someone really famous.
Reznor, Josh Freese, Jill Sobule, Amanda Palmer... those are four "famous" ones you list. Plus any discussion that involves Nettwerk pretty much goes out the window, considering how well they profited of of Can-con laws to make their bones.
The others are less known, and have done well via the internet. "well" being a relative term, and they still represent a rounding error in the whole music industry.
To date I have not seen anyone do so clearly. A few folks such as yourself seem to have trouble with basic reading comprehension.
This is the dismissive comment that always makes me laugh. I don't have a problem with reading comprehension, I just don't follow your trail of breadcrumbs to your desired result. Seeing other people end up in the same place sort of reassures me.
Given your long history of professional failures and inability to adapt to changing markets
Umm, please do tell. I would like to know about some of my "professional failures". I would enjoy hearing what sort of stories you will make up about me.
Please. Do tell!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The others are less known, and have done well via the internet. "well" being a relative term, and they still represent a rounding error in the whole music industry."
And here you expose your true feelings. So, if someone doesnt make OBSCENE money, rich money, industry-level money, then they dont count. Their experience, their model, is invalid. They might make enough so they dont HAVE to work for ANYONE else ever again, and they may be very happy with that arrangement, but because its only a "rounding error" compared to THE ENTIRE FUCKING MUSIC BUSINESS, then its not viable and not a good example? You cant seriously expect people to accept your viewpoint on this, can you? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all.
My opinion has always been this: If you are going to disassemble a multi-billion dollar a year industry that employs untold tens of thousands of people all over the world, you should be replacing it with something that has the same financial impact. Just ripping it down to say you can rip it down doesn't cut it.
I have nothing against lower income artists doing well, but to use artists who are just about making a living in music isn't the best way to show the future. Those sorts of people have existing in the music world for decades. It isn't news.
What would be news is a series of new acts coming out of nowhere, without a real record deal, getting world wide radio play, getting on the tonight show, headlining a major concert tour, winning a grammy (or whatever) and taking the world by storm. We aren't seeing that at all. We are seeing the opposite, the "noise" rising a bit, a few more bands making enough to get a six pack of the "good stuff" instead of drinking two buck chuck, and that is about it.
The closest so far appears to be Corey Smith, although he still does a lot of things that don't make sense (like recording albums instead of just songs... albums are so 1970s). Plus it isn't like Corey Smith is knocking dead in Amsterdam or headlining at the Buddakan in Japan, is he?
We aren't seeing the replacement for the existing business, an that is very important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, what? WHO is suggesting this? Please answer and be specific. WHO is advocating "ripping it down to say you can rip it down"? Please, we would really like to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I feel this is what Mike is pushing for. Cut out the labels, cut out the middle men, cut out the licensing agencies, cut out copyright, cut out patents, and pretty much cut out all of the protections, rip it all down, and let Corey Smith serenade us.
It's more complicated, but that is pretty much the gist of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I feel this is what Mike is pushing for. Cut out the labels, cut out the middle men, cut out the licensing agencies, cut out copyright, cut out patents, and pretty much cut out all of the protections, rip it all down, and let Corey Smith serenade us.
It's more complicated, but that is pretty much the gist of it."
Uh uh, sorry, no. You dont get to pull "I feel its XXX" NOW after all the bullshit you have pulled, taking people to task for THEIR lack of specificity. If all you got it "I feel" then EVERYONE ELSE'S VIEW IS JUST AS VALID.
I asked you to SHOW me where and who said that. You didnt (cant or wont). Your opinion is noted, and not relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then neither is yours. NEXT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My opinion has always been this: If you are going to disassemble a multi-billion dollar a year industry that employs untold tens of thousands of people all over the world, you should be replacing it with something that has the same financial impact. Just ripping it down to say you can rip it down doesn't cut it."
I call bullshit. There is no "You" as in your paragraph above. The dissasembly of certain multi-billion dollar industries is simply the result of change. Change in technology, society, global trade, and more. We all know change is inevitable, and of course change has profound effects.
For example, the creation of recording technologies such as wax cylinders, vinyl disks, and CDs allowed the best singer in town to address a global audience. It created a recording industry to take advantage of the scarcity of recorded disks of these best singers.
But technology marched on. More change came. And now technology removes the scarcity of recorded disks, and offers the bounty of free limitless copying. The best singer still has a lot of opportunity to take advantage of their talent worldwide...but the recording industry has certainly lost a big part of its role. But tough shit. Nobody owes them their Goose or golden eggs. They can try to modernize, or they can fade into history - but they cannot sit still and hope to hold the same role they held for a 50-year blip in human history.
There is no obligation for humankind, society, God, life, government, karma, or ANYTHING to offer a multi-billion dollar industry ongoing relevance. Perhaps it will be replaced with something that is bigger (as you seem to insist) or perhaps it will be replaced with nothing. Either is equally fair.
I tend to believe that, if your precious multi-billion dollar industry fades into history as the result of current technological changes, society WILL end up better off because these changes create abundance. Perhaps there will not be another large industry to replace it, but there will be far more music. More varieties created, and more access to the content for all humans. More musicians earning, perhaps, less each. It's a net gain. Instead of having one pile of multi-billion dollars, it's like technology has taken one of those dollars and given it to each of a multi-billion people. (Not taxes, not a government transfer, not left wing "share the wealth") just the reality of the new free market and classic economics. The wealth IS being shared.) I didn't make it so, Masnick didn't make it so...it's just reality. I don't bitch about gravity, although it really does bring me down sometimes.
Also, many of us out here, myself included, may feel some schadenfreude at this multi-billion dollar industry's demise. Tough. And our feelings are irrelevant to the technology, market, and economic realities at work. And why do we feel that way? Because your industry has sued us, accused us, attacked us, extorted us, influenced our government, held secret negotiations (ACTA), double and triple charged us for content, taken back content you sold us, locked up content we bought, broken our consumer electronics equipment, discriminatorily delayed access to content, screwed over the artists, pimped shitty pop at us, politicized our news media, attacked us for fair use...um...etc. Under the circumstances, I'm surprised I'm not more angry. Anyway, can you see how that history of customer relations might support a little schadenfreude when the tables turn.
Geez, Mike's practically a saint. Unlike most of us, he seems to avoid the negativity. He just keeps offering sound advice to the recording industry - who (heads in the sand) just keep perceiving it as a venomous attack. Since when did observations of the real world become an attack? Since when did basic economics become so incendiary?
And in closing, to anyone in ANY industry: your income is not guaranteed, you must adapt and compete to keep earning. If your entire industry truly is doomed, you are not doomed. Um...just change industries. Really. Stop being such drama queens, you act like you're going to be sent to the gallows, but really you may just need to find another job. A lot of us have already survived something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not looking for another job, I don't work in the film or movie business. So you can save the drama for a llama, I guess.
I don't think anyone would complain if they were getting replaced with something better. You know, buy an old tear down house, get rid of it, and build a shiny new hi-rise or a great luxury home. That isn't the case here. Instead, we are ripping down a shiny hi-rise and so far the only replacement plans out there are for a tar paper shack. That isn't very logical.
To use a Mike analogy, it's like the buggy is being replaced by a square wheel cart. We aren't moving forward here. There is no reason for the buggy whip guys to go out of business if nobody is coming up with a better replacement for the buggy.
Mike's practically a saint. Unlike most of us, he seems to avoid the negativity.
Oh god, please! Half the posts on this blog seem to be "gotcha" posts against copyright holders, government agencies, and so on. Mike goes super negative, but does it in a way that you aren't even noticing it. At least recently he has dropped the "smart - dumb" thing, because that was getting really thin. Mike ain't a saint, just a Guru with a message and good slide presentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(hint: "Goatse.cx" doesn't count -- except to confirm some really dark suspicious I've been harboring about you for a while now. :)
(NOT apologizing for that one --- the coat-hanger one, yeah -- but NOT that one!) :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Repeating the same points
Wrong. Two separate counter-points to the above quote:
1) The recording industry losing control of the market, and losing much of their revenue because people have free access to music IS a better outcome. Instead of music being constrained, rationed, and distributed and enjoyed by fewer people, now more music is being created, being distributed more widely, and being enjoyed by even more people. That's the gain, the loss is the monopoly rents of the recording industry.
When a monopoly is busted up, the goal is never a replacement industry that can extract the same rents, the goal is slightly better circumstances for millions of people. Thus, the benefits are distributed and harder to add up. You count that as zero. You are wrong.
And it is not implied that musicians get screwed in this process. Mike has taken on the task of illustrating that they, too, can still earn good money in a new economy where their music is low cost, but high value. They get a better meritocracy, lower barriers to production, easier market entry, new marketing tools, and near zero reproduction costs. When has that ever hurt an industry?
2) There is no obligation of society, the world, the natural order, God, government, or ANYTHING to assure the buggy whip or recording industry of ongoing relevance. And there is nothing that owes them "a good explanation" like a replacement industry. Sometimes, "tough shit" is just the natural order. Like this: we're all gonna die. Must we insist that a substitute of equal or greater value replace us? Nope. It just happens, man.
For both these points, I said them already above, but you didn't get it. I assert this because you didn't refute what I said at all, you must made the same point again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law
No, he just pointed to settled case law to the contrary by the court of highest authority in the United States, and which absolutely outranks that one judge and his mistaken opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only a few months ago. Originally he was "Weird Harold" and was here to spam some blog sites that he has that's a mixture of porn and scraping other sites (including Techdirt). Then he was just Anonymous Coward for a while. Then he kept picking random "pets" from commenter Lobo Santo that he pretended to be. Then about two months ago (?) he became The Anti-Mike. Though, it feels like he was always the Anti-Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, I wasn't originally weird harold. You just don't know who I was, I have been around here much longer than you think (and no, I am not Angry Dude, though I miss him). You also missed about a half a dozen registered names (and many more unregistered) I have used here, but then again, you never were very good at figuring out who was who. I will say that I never talk to myself, I never answer myself (except as myself, to append to an idea), and I don't engage in being misleading. Sometimes the other names are just there to see what the reaction is to the same comments coming from a different name would be, which is why I so enjoy idiots like RD going off on me only because it is me, and then having a very social discussion with me as someone else, because he hasn't figured it out.
My businesses are successful, and have paid for a very good living for the last 14 or 15 years. Most people (you included) couldn't find the internet without a map back when people like me were already out here doing stuff. then again, you would probably think Archie and Veronica are just characters in a cartoon.
I am still waiting for the list of the "long history of professional failures" considering that the little blogs and scrape style sites you mention are all profitable. I would say that unless you have some sort of proof, you might want to take that part back, as it just isn't true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obvious dick is obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What You Talkin' about, TAM?
("Grandma's coat-hanger" apology retracted, in full.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What You Talkin' about, TAM?
It is one of the benefits of the internet, you can be like Roger on American Dad, throw on a wig and a fake mustache and come back as someone else two seconds later, and nobody seems to know. I find I am more likely to get people's real opinion that way.
No, I don't chat with myself, and no, I don't post to myself. I leave that to the AC and his three or four inner voices that seem to be going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What You Talkin' about, TAM?
Name them. Time to step up. Because I know FOR A FACT that I have barely responded to anyone else recently on these boards. And most of the few others, it was to DISAGREE with them too.
Also, your assertion that I ONLY attack THE PERSON is complete and utter bullshit. Its nearly a total fabrication. MOST of my posts contain rebuttals or taking someone to task FOR THEIR POSITION ON THE ISSUES. You IGNORE this every time, dont answer any points raised, and go right to martyrdom.
Are insults included? Yes, they can be. The few times I throw off an "attack" (my, paranoid much?) alone is in response to something that was directed AT me, like your gradeschool-level attempts at drawing someone into insulting you so you can cry like a baby to the teacher, "see! see! they are teasing me! waaaaaa."
But your "when I post as someone else, he is reasonable" is smoke and mirrors, lies (or at least, GROSS exaggeration) to try to undermine any points I might raise. Points which, by the way, MANY people agree with me on and have even directly commented on. So. Enlighten us. Prove what you say about me is true. Reveal these so-called "other postings" that I so wholeheartedly agreed to. If not, then you really dont have any valid complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What You Talkin' about, TAM?
You say that like it's true and you have proof? Care to share?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What You Talkin' about, TAM?
1. You say we "attack the person", except for the fact that your shabby little sock-puppet ploy demonstrates that you're simply too much of a pussy to even BE "a person". Instead, because you are so consistently wrong, you feel the need to create a "crowd", so somebody agrees with your RIAA talking-points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
"In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum or blog to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."[2]
Hint: that is EXACTLY what you did.
2. Moreover, none of us will *ever* be able to take your whimpering about having been "insulted" seriously, because Y'know what? It wouldn't be all that far-fetched for a dishonest little twat like you to deliberately create another account just to "bully" yourself, so you could play victim.
You mention Roger on American Dad. Remember the episode where he was basically having a "war" with one of his alternate identities?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_That_Got_Away_%28American_Dad!%29
Yet again, you fail. Exactly how much failure is required before it can be described as "epic", without fear of hyperbole?
"Grandma's coat-hanger" reference has now backed up two generations, to Great-Great grandma.
(Hint: I can't really apologize to "you", if I can't even be fairly certain there IS only one "you". Moreover, you shouldn't really expect an apology from "me", because there's no way for you to be sure that there IS only one human behind the name.
Do you *really* expect to be able to justify sock-puppetry and troling, using the same shaky methods you use to apologize for the corporate megaliths?
Bitch, please. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
paraphrase: "Wow! Look if I'm a dick with bad arguments, people call me a dick and shred my lame logic. But if I post as someone completely different, and resist being a dick...then those idiots treat me with common decency and even respect. Ha! Idiots"
Amazing, RD, that you can't figure out it's him when he deliberately posts under a different name with intent to obfuscate and using a different style. Can't you recognize the handwriting?
It is obvious now. RD truly is an idiot, OR TAM is at least somewhat sociopathic. TAM, dig a little deeper into the character of Roger in American Dad. Agreed, it is hilarious - within the context of a cartoon. It's not a role model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's why Grandma shouldn't be trying to affect policy in things she doesn't understand. The world is changing, and all the legal battles in the world won't stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
confusion
If you still have everything you had before, clearly nothing has been stolen. "Theft" is illegal not because people gain stuff but because people lose stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See #2 above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The distribution cost of music is going to zero. The production cost of music is also slowly approaching zero. An entire studio can be set up for under $2000 USD. Studio mic, mixing board, multi channel software, and a computer is all you need. Recently I saw an entire music video on YouTube recently that was done with nothing but a blackberry cell phone and a bluetooth microphone.
"But, more importantly, copyright law evolved because we think that artists, writers, musicians, and others have a right to profit from their labors. It's a crazy idea, I know."
Yeah its crazy. You have been working in that top hat factory to long. Have your self checked for mecury poisoning.
Does the following say anything about profit??
"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."
Also I dont see anything about music in the copyright clause. That might make a good point for a legal brief ... ;)
Well its gonna snow so I am out of here ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually it did not. Originally music and plays were not protected, only useful/pragmatic things such as maps and science-type stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I also like the line ...
"maps and science-type stuff" way cool !!! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A more important rebuttal to this point is that it reveals a (sadly) common level of economic ignorance. In competitive markets, price is completely unrelated to fixed costs of production. It is entirely dependent on marginal costs of production.
The example I sometimes give is that nobody cared how much Kevin Costner spent on Waterworld, or Axl Rose on Chinese Democracy. The price is determined by the market. Nobody said "Well, it cost Costner a lot to make, so I'd like to pay more for this rental." Blair Witch had the same theater and rental price. Nothin' personal, but the market doesn't care about your costs.
We have pointed this out at Techdirt may times through the years, and some fool always picks up the point, and argues back to us "How stupid can we be?" and of course fixed costs are a part of average costs, and thus part of price. Please, resist the urge to be that fool this time. Just take our word for it, or look it up, but don't reveal your ignorance.
In competitive markets:
Price = Marginal Cost = Marginal Rev = reproduction cost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Masnick Hotboxing theroy
Once again, High-Tech and more efficient fulfillment trumps business models based around low-tech inventions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Masnick Hotboxing theroy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, notice something, kids:
Thus, according to TAM, we are to disregard the fact that Congress/The supreme court said that whatever infringement may be, it is most definitely *not* theft -- or even something equilvalent to theft under a different name.
We are instead, expected to believe that because "the naughty judge called it stealing", then it *is* "stealing".
(Hmm...if I wasn't the congenital whack-job our resident trolls believe me to be, I'd almost be tempted to think that the fact the Supreme Court is comprised of *higher ranking judges* neccesarily means that their interpretation takes precedence over the mealy-mouthed Corpspeak of some lower-ranking judge....but then again, I'm also capable of understanding the fact that 1 (digital file) plus 1 (copy of digital file) equals TWO files. (Making more of something is "stealing".....fail.)
Y'know what? I'm in a charitable mood. Our other IP-fetishist "Sam I Am" (with whom I have no small amount of 'history', being as It infests innumerable other blogs), asked me "What do YOU do". '
I'll be happy to tell you that, Sam:
I do *many* things. One of them is making home-made fudge. If you and TAM would be so kind as to give me your address, I'd be more than happy to send you some. (Of course, I'll have to eat a good bit of laxatives and prunes, and make sure I have a sturdy enough box.
(If you don't get the joke, you're even dumber than I thought you already were.)
I figure it's only fitting, seeing as we've all been taking YOUR shit for months (if not years.)
BTW, "Sam" -- you never did explain what "showcase ventilation" is, exactly --- not that I actually give "two liquidy shits" (Inside joke from the p2pnet days --- remember, Sammykins?) :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:)
"Not my Grandmother. She read Techdirt up until her passing just a few months ago. She understood the difference between these two basic concepts. My grandma was smart. I guess yours might not be, but I do not see how that's my problem."
Mike:
Of course TAM's grandmother wasn't smart: she didn't resort to ol' coat-hanger method. Either that, or she mishandled it badly. Either way, same result: TAM the bastard stepchild of Jack Valenti and HIllary Rosen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :)
I can accept a lot, but that is WAY out of bounds. I look forward to your apology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: :)
Or maybe you should just disappear, in protest of your imaginary victim status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:)
And *I* look forward to you and the other dishonest little shit finally getting bored with being treated the way you deserve, and leaving the board.
In short, no. Not gonna happen. Y'know why? Ultimately, it's because whatever you are, and whoever you might be AFK (assuming you're not a badly-programmed Propaganda-bot), you have CHOSEN to create a Techdirt persona specifically designed to parrot corporate misinformation AND be an insulting little twat, in the bargain.
"The Anti-Mike" got It's poor widdle feelings hurt.
Boo fucking hoo hoo hoo.
Maybe a little more of that, and you'll decide to fuck off.
It's not like you --- or "Spam I am", for that matter -- ever actually add anything worthwhile to the blogs you pollute. Hell, "Cocker SAMial" (RIAA lapdog), if we're to believe It's jabbering, is ACTIVELY LOBBYING for even MORE of what's worst about IP "law".
So no, I'm not apologizing for shit.
You don't like it? Fuck off, Anti-Thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :)
Oh look, hell freezing over.
Get use to it.
"The Anti-Mike" got It's poor widdle feelings hurt.
Boo fucking hoo hoo hoo.
Nope, just that it is the sort of comment that is just way over the line. If you cannot control yourself on something as simple as being civilized, how can I take anything else you say seriously?
I just think it is obnoxious and unkind, and well beyond what should be tolerated on here. But that is up to Mike, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: :)
Agreed. I hardly ever find myself in the same camp as TAM, and I certainly don't object to harsh language or name calling (after all, I fucking use both, you twats ;)), but leave the grandmas out of it (vague references notwithstanding)....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This whole quote is worthless without a citation. Not even a case name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As opposed to WHAT, exactly?
Well, if you consider not treating obvious trolls with kid gloves when they persist in reiterating the same stupid bullshit over -- and over -- and over -- and over -- as not being "classy", then yeah, I is a reg'lar boor, I is. :)
"Nope, just that it is the sort of comment that is just way over the line. If you cannot control yourself on something as simple as being civilized, how can I take anything else you say seriously?"
Newsflash, TAM: that would presuppose that you took ANYTHING said here "seriously" enough to actually learn, let alone admit when you're mistaken -- as opposed to being the sad little parrot you've been for HOW long now?
"just remember when you deal with Henry if he does like you, you get:"
Uh....not to belabor the whole "type what you INTENDED to say", thing....but shouldn't that be:
"If he DOESN'T like you, you get...." :)
(Can't really even blame that one on a "typo", TAM -- the most likely typos in the above case would be "Doest" or "Doesn". Missing THREE keystrokes (counting the apostrophe) is so unlikely as to constitute a near-impossibility.
Or was it a "Freudian slip?" Are you sitting there, in the TAM-lair, desperately hoping against hope that somewhere in the depths of my black and evil soul I (and others) really *do* like you? That all the repeated, painstaking and oh so gentle correction of your misinformed bullshit is REALLY because we all want to be your BFF?
Bitch, please.
You're here to troll, you're whole persona smacks of "flame-bait", but then when you get the slightest little jibe, you play the martyr.
STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll be nice to TAM....I promise:
What exactly does "cut it", TAM?
1. The aforementioned multi-billion dollar a year industry's lobbyists buying themselves RETROACTIVE copyright-term extension?
2. Or maybe the part where their lobbyists try to get user-enabling technologies (such as the VCR) banned BY GOVERNMENT, by comparing them to serial killers?
3. Or maybe the fact that the aforementioned "industry" routinely screws its own talent-base? That the "collection" agencies don't actually distribute what they collect?
Seriously, TAM -- and please realize that, since this is the *first* sensible thing I've actually seen you post -- how does any of THAT "cut it?"
Because ultimately, when business --- even "multi-billion-dollar industries" --- engage in bullshit like that, they DESERVE to be destroyed.
Just the same as the Tobacco companies suppressing/falsifying evidence about whether they intentionally manipulated nicotine levels, etc. cannot be considered "good busines practices" by any stretch of the imagination.
The fact is, the multi-national corporate "persons" for whom you relentlessly apologize at every opportunity do NOT deserve it, and the preservation of their horrifyingly-corrupt, lobbyist-ridden, and ultimately completely innffective "business-model" does NOT merit the destruction of REAL PEOPLE'S LIVES, or the attempted hobbling of REALLY GOOD TECHNOLOGY.
Glad to see you stopped playing the martyr, and decided to actually say something halfway sensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh????
Huh?
Oh, goody: just when I thought it couldn't get any dumber, we get THIS.
"by someone who actually knows what he's talking about" could maybe have done something like....oh, maybe LINK to the (supposedly) better sources, but that would be too hard.
That would involve actually backing up your claims with something other than a shaky thought-experiment of "think about it this way".
So -- being the kind and gentle soul that everybody (especially TAM) knows me to be -- kindly do us stupid little peons a favor and LINK TO THESE "BETTER" BLOGS OF WHICH YOU SPEAK.
(Hint: strange as it might sound, the *one* IP apologist troll I actually respected was that lobbyist guy from that "center for protecting innovation" or whatever it was, because *he* actually put all his cards on the table, and admitted to being a lobbyist for what was by all indications an IP-related front-group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh????
I'm honestly at a loss for what for what that had to do with anything, other than maybe my little joke at TAM --- FOR WHICH I APOLOGIZED, and which HE even thought was funny, in an "uncivilized" sort of way.
And.....Fonzie? Seriously?
FONZIE????
Why not "Spongebob" or something.
Geeez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The REAL reasons
Yes, this is the "official reason" why copyright law exists in the US - but even it is only a front.
Other justifications that have been given over the years include the "reward for labour" argument and the "natural right" argument rejected in the passage above. However none of these is the true historical reason for copyright.
To find this you have to go back past the US constitution, even past the statute of Anne in England in 1709 to the religious conflicts of the 16th century.
Queen Mary and her husband Philip of Spain were concerned to prevent the spread of protestant books. The government didn't have the resources to censor all printed books themselves - so they granted a monopoly on all printing to the London Company of stationers - who in return agreed to censor all books for them.
The stationers agreed to share the spoils of this monopoly by granting a copyright to the member who first approved (censored) and registered a book.
So the original true purpose of copyright was censorship - nothing to do with rewarding the author, nothing to do with "promoting the progress", quite the reverse in fact.
One might argue that this is not "modern copyright" and so irrelevant - however history is continuous and hence modern copyright is organically connected to it.
Queen Mary died and her half sister Elizabeth took over - the stationers had to switch sides in the religious war - but they carried on until the late 17th century.
At this point the (more enlightened) government decided that censorship was no longer necessary and abolished the monopoly. The stationers were in trouble so they organised a protest (the start of all the lobbying) to restore the copyright they once held.
However they realised that they couldn't defend their own position directly so they invoked the rights of authors (who had, up to, then never asked for such a privilege).
They also realised that simply doing the obvious thing granting rights of reproduction to the authors so that printers would have to obtain a licence from the author as is officially still the case in Germany) would not be any help to them. Instead they invented the concept of a tradeable right - which is clearly NOT necessary for any of the "official explanations of copyright" given above but IS essential to allow a middlman to "own" a creative work.
SO the first purpose of copyright was censorship, the second was a job creation scheme for redundant censors and the third was to allow someone other that the creator to acquire rights to a work. All the other reasons - including the official US constitutional justification are really just excuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The REAL reasons
However, even the US Constitution doesn't sanction copyright. It specifies the securing of the author's natural exclusive right (to those writings exclusive to them).
It says nothing about giving congress power to grant monopolies - to be prosecuted at the expense of the holder of that transferable privilege.
It is precisely because people have been indoctrinated with the idea that privileges such as 'copyright' (suspension of the people's right to copy) are 'rights' that they presume the 'right' that 'exclusive right' in the constitution refers to is the privilege of copyright legislated after it.
How can a constitution based upon the equal protection of all individuals' natural rights refer to an inegalitarian privilege that has yet to be granted by congress (albeit already legislated elsewhere)?
To claim grants of monopolies 'promote progress' is obviously a pretext to placate the masses. It would hardly say "For the enrichment of wealthy industrialists we would favour with monopolies by way of receiving favour in turn and the assurance of an obedient press and manufacturing industry".
The ironic thing is The US Constitution was meant to put an end to monopoly. And here we are again today: monopolists arguing with those who would have their natural liberty restored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Helpful links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_S tationers_and_Newspaper_Makers
Care to dispute any of this, TAM?
(Oddly enough, I had this same exact discussion with "Sam I Am" over on Techdirt. He attempted to weasel out of responding by accusing me of being un-creative, characterizing the entire board as "shop-lifting pottymouths" (even though p2p file-sharing is VERY different from "shoplifting" for reasons too obvious to mention), and stating unequivocably that the history/original justification for copyright was "totally irrelevant" so long as "his kind of thinking was in the world".
(yes, "Sam" -- I remember.)
So, having provided the off-site links to bolster the evidence, I'll also be the first one to point out what should already be blatantly, mind-destroyingly obvious:
IP apologists don't give two liquidy shits about any of that. If they *did*, they'd actually admit the existence of the "copyright bargain", allow cultural 'product' to enter the Public Domain on schedule, and, most especially, refrain from RE-ENCUMBERING "content" which *had* already entered the Public Domain.
The clearest evidence that IP apologists don't give a shit about any of this, is the fact that TAM actually attempted to justify *any* reassertion of copyright on (previously) public-domain works NO MATTER HOW SMALL OR INFREQUENT.
Trying to keep the intensity/snarkiness down here, friends. Also trying to give TAM the benefit of the doubt on this one.
I was nice to you already tonight, TAM: so go ahead, and prove me wrong on this one.
Please? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Helpful links
However, in the process of extending copyright over time, there have been some cases where this has happened. I personally don't agree with it.
My feeling is that if something has hit the public domain, it stays, even if the copyright term is extended. If something is still in copyright and the term is extended, then it benefits from that extended term.
Clawing back is just horseshit, and rather dishonest.
So sorry, I can't really prove you wrong, because I don't disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Helpful links
Might have to revise my estimate of you upward a bit, TAM: You *actually* admitted that the current state of IP is flawed, and that at least some aspects of it are "bullshit".
Now, just to catch everybody else up to speed here (and, continuing to be nice), here's what you DID NOT do:
You did NOT:
1. Dismiss the importance of the Public Domain on the grounds that you have a (presumably used) copy of "heechee Rendezvous". (That one really got to me --- dismissing the importance of the Public Domain because you had access to used copies via "first sale" --- an exception to copyright Big Media has never particularly liked.)
2. Claim that the Public Domain itself was "unfair" because it "expropriated" the artists/creators. (I've actually seen that argument used --- oddly enough, by my Ol' buddy "Sam". Context: a statement over on p2pnet that expiration of copyright term would "take" something from his daughter. What, exactly, he never explain -- other than, of course, the State-granted monopoly privileges attendant to copyright itself.)
3. You didn't attempt to dodge the question by asserting (without any evidence) that we were all just a bunch of greedy, un-creative drones who'd "obviously never done anything creative" in our whole lives, because if we *were* creative Ubermenschen, we couldn't fail to approve of perpetual monopoly via the installment plan.
4. You didn't resort to nonsequiturs, clumsy sputterings about "And...but...unless", or shaky thought experiments about opening hamburger restaurants.
5. Most importantly, you ACTUALLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
You also didn't try to find some way to defend the indefensible. Put bluntly, for once, you weren't a complete dickhead.
Wasn't really that hard, was it?
Now, the next step is for you to clarify that "in general" equivocation: You figure allowing stuff to STAY in the public domain once it gets there is a good thing "in general", but that begs the following question:
"What "exceptional circumstances" (if any) do you believe justify violating the "copyright bargain" by taking stuff BACK from the Public Domain?
(Of course, that also begs the question of whether copyright term extensions THEMSELVES represent a breach of said "bargain").
Go for it, TAM.
I'm really interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Helpful links
2 - public domain to me is like running to 1st base. You don't have to keep your foot on the bag to be safe. Once you touch the bag, you are there, nobody can take it away. but, 1 step before, you are still copyright and if they move the bag another 20 feet, well, you gotta leg it out.
3 - all creativity is relative. So are your aunts and uncles.
4 - Yeah boy! Flavor Flav would be proud. I knowz what time it is.
5 - Straight questions get easy answers, usually anything that starts with "hey asshole" sort of get shuffled. Just as with Lobo earlier on, I will answer any question within reason. You may not like my answer, but I will answer.
"What "exceptional circumstances" (if any) do you believe justify violating the "copyright bargain" by taking stuff BACK from the Public Domain?
(Of course, that also begs the question of whether copyright term extensions THEMSELVES represent a breach of said "bargain").
As I said before, I think that once something enters the public domain, it should stay. I can't off the top of my head think of a very good reason to claw something back, although it has happened. I am thinking an exceptional case might be an extension that isn't passed in time, say due to a filibuster, or perhaps an election that delays the work of the government.
That being said, I am also a big fan of letting sleeping dogs lie. What happened in the past has happened, perhaps we all learn from it. I think that any future copyright extension should not allow a clawback, and any copyright reduction should change the term of current work (move the bag closer, you don't have to run as far to be safe at first).
Extensions aren't really a breach of the bargain, in part because the time frame is somewhat related to useful life. Example, M*A*S*H is effectively 40 years old, and just as funny and ripe today as it was back in the day (I can still remember McLean Stevenson fishing in a swimming pool as an ad for the show on CBC during it's first run). Something might not have had a 40 year shelf life in the past, so we are entering a new sort of universe here. Basically, all of the TV from the color era is still pretty much fair game today, with a reasonable market in reruns / syndication.
To me that is part of the bargain in reverse too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Helpful links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Helpful links
"For ever and for all time we shall grant you the right to rule the knowledge of all mankind. We will grant you to the ability to smite all who oppose you. We shall grant you a legion of immortal soldiers to protect this knowledge taken from the artisans." ...
The translation is a bit off, it only partially works in english.
That is a translation from 2000 plus years ago. Any society that locks up knowledge is doomed to failure as that one did.
And knowledge in your world is like stealing home. You step on the bag and you own it. The problem I see is that as long as you stand on that bag you really cant do much else.
Other people walk around you withthe ball .... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Helpful links
all creativity is relative. So are your aunts and uncles.
Ah - that explains why the creative person's relatives get to inherit the copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha! Knew it
Yeah I figured he was WH a while back. Its on reason he gets less benefit of the doubt and people pull the trigger on calling him on his bullshit so fast. He is deceitful, a liar, and flat-out a hypocrite. He has no credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What world do you live in??? Everyone complains when they are replaced and has to find a new job. The only time they dont is when it doesnt effect them, but they will still say "glad its not me". This I know for a FACT as I have a degree in Industrial Robotics. If you dont think people complain when they are replaced, for any reason, you are going through life with your eyes and ears closed.
Mike IS correct here and I totally agree with Derek.
The record industry is destined for a major change whether they like it or not. Copyright and IP are just laws that WE ALLOW to exist. Any Power, Rights, Government, Law, or Industry exist ONLY because WE ALLOW IT to exist. When people get fed up with the crap THEY PUT AN END TO IT. If you dont believe me, go back to school and take a history class, Economics too for that matter. Infringement penalties only exist and get paid when and if WE DECIDE to pay them. The market HAS changed. There is no stopping it, as evidenced by the so called out of control "piracy" that "has to be stopped". People ARE speaking and that number is GROWING faster by the day. As the old saying goes....Lead, Follow, or Get out of the way. Their only hope now is that WE ALLOW them to remain in some form to take our money. Without that, they WILL cease to exist!!
As for complainers:
Lantern manufacturers complained about Edison's light bulb
Wagon manufacturers complained about the horseless carriage
Cylinder manufacturers complained about vinyl records
Vinyl Record manufacturers complained about 8-track and then cassette.
Cassette manufacturers complained about compact disks
Compact disk manufacturers are complaining about memory cards
The recording industry has been complaining about the peoples ability to record on all forms of medium all along.
Guess who wins every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lantern manufacturers complained about Edison's light bulb
Wagon manufacturers complained about the horseless carriage
Cylinder manufacturers complained about vinyl records
Vinyl Record manufacturers complained about 8-track and then cassette.
Cassette manufacturers complained about compact disks
Compact disk manufacturers are complaining about memory cards
The recording industry has been complaining about the peoples ability to record on all forms of medium all along.
Guess who wins every time.
BINGO! This is what so many seem to miss. It is the consumers, the users of these products and ideals that drive the market to change. When something becomes easier, more convenient and better consumers will push no matter what the industry wants the users to do and it becomes a matter of either keeping up with the wants of the people or die out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wagon manufacturers complained about the horseless carriage
Cylinder manufacturers complained about vinyl records
Vinyl Record manufacturers complained about 8-track and then cassette.
Cassette manufacturers complained about compact disks
Compact disk manufacturers are complaining about memory cards
The recording industry has been complaining about the peoples ability to record on all forms of medium all along.
Here's the funny part: You wrote it all, and missed the point.
Was the light bulb better than a lantern? Yes. It's pretty obvious, although lanterns are still used today in certain cases.
Was the horseless carriage better than a wagon? Yup. Although wagons are still useful in some ways today.
Were vinyl records better than the cylinder? Yup, easy to store, to carry, etc. Winner.
I could go on.
Is ripping down a worldwide music industry and replacing it with bar bands and local acts better? I think the jury is out on this one. The point is that there is no clear advantage to the systems being suggested, and in fact, they are entirely dependant on gutting the old system by removing the market price from the content. Without that, the bar bands would stay bar bands, because the system in and of itself isn't better.
Progress means progress, not just change for the sake of change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ok...so by YOUR OWN REASONING..
Was the light bulb better than a lantern? Yes. It's pretty obvious, although lanterns are still used today in certain cases.
Was the horseless carriage better than a wagon? Yup. Although wagons are still useful in some ways today.
Were vinyl records better than the cylinder? Yup, easy to store, to carry, etc. Winner."
Good! I'm glad we agree (finally!) that progress is a GOOD thing and shouldnt be stifled to serve the needs of ONLY the incumbent industries!
So, BY YOUR OWN REASONING, the following should be true:
Video Tapes are better than...well, nothing, since you couldnt record AT ALL at home. OBVIOUS WIN!
Casette Tapes are better for the EXACT SAME REASON LP WAS BETTER THAN CYLINDERS. FAR more convenient, much smaller, more time.
CD's are better than casettes for the same reasons (plus, more durable and convenient, always plays back identically, higher quality)
MP3's are better than CD's because they are MUCH more portable, and offer a variety of features and convenience that plastic CD media cant.
Internet file sharing as a replacement for physical distribution - Thats easy...BIG WIN! This is THE win of all time! NO physical costs, NO inventory, near-zero storage AND duplication AND distribution costs! Why, its a WINDFALL! BOTH the consumer AND the industry wins with this one! Prices can be dirt cheap AND a good chunk of the post-production distribution chain is reduced to PENNIES!
ALL of these are examples of an OBVIOUS improvement of what came before, JUST LIKE YOUR EXAMPLES.
Of these, guess which ones were the ONLY ones embraced from the get-go by the music and movie industries? CD and DVD. And which ones were designed/created and initially controlled by the music and movie industries? Thats right, CD AND DVD!
In EVERY OTHER CASE above, the industry swept in to try to get laws passed to OUTLAW these "obviously better" innovations and improvements on existing technology. Since they didnt create it and couldnt control it, they moved to STIFLE it to the DETRIMENT of consumer interest.
I'm not even going to insult you on this one. This is a CLEAR DEBATE OF THE MERITS and you cant deny it, since YOU YOURSELF raised EXACTLY these same points. They apply across the board, you cant selectively say, "well, CASSETTES are different, they are EVIL" or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ok...so by YOUR OWN REASONING..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ok...so by YOUR OWN REASONING..
Is taking a worldwide music business and entertainment system that employs tens of thousands of people and brings joy to a large part of the population apart, and replacing it with garage bands, bar bands, and a selection of no-name and regional acts... is that a win?
It's like parking your Mercedes to drive your yugo. Where is the advantage? Why would you consider it an improvement?
If the process with "obviously better", everyone would be lining up to join the party. The reality is that it isn't "obviously better", rather it is "obviously worse". The economics don't work. The scale isn't right. It is just non-functional.
You get all WORKED UP IN UPPER CASE, but you ignore the basic reality: You cannot explain why this is better, except to try to vilify "the man" and spew anti-corporate rhetoric. Please, address the simple question: WHY IS THIS BETTER?
The answer is that this isn't an advancement, it's a major step backwards. Perhaps it will lead to steps forward later, but for the moment, we are trading gold for lead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ok...so by YOUR OWN REASONING..
This new system is obviously destroying the arts! We have to do something but what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*sigh* :(
Basically, the following:
1. Making more of something is exactly equivalent to taking something that is *already* there. ("P2p is stealing!")
2. digital files and patented technologies are EXACTLY like your underwear! Without your underwear, you'd be NAKED, and How would that make YOU feel?
3. Copyright infringement is totally super-evil. Public domain "infringement" -- re-monopolizing something that was *already* freed -- is "usually" bad form...except if somebody screwed up, and time ran out. THAT's just "the copyright bargain" in reverse!
Are you *really* this dumb, TAM?
I'm pretty sure you're not quite as stupid as you seem, TAM. For one thing, you supposedly read Heinlein. (Or do you just keep a bunch of "collectible first-editions" stashed away somewhere?
Some Heinlein quotes that might help you:
* How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?
o "Doctor Pinero" in Life-Line (1939)
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
* Life-Line (1939)
Last (and most appropriate in your case), is the following:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein
Is anybody else getting bored with the sheer amount of TAM-fail here on the board, or is it just me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *sigh* :(
Would I be the emperor? and what would my clothes look like? Kinda like TAM I guess ... You could see right through them ... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *sigh* :(
2 - Without your skin, and muscles, your bones would be out. How would that feel?
3 - Copyright infringement isn't super evil, it's just a crime with no apparent evil being done, because you aren't taking something from in front of the shop keeper, you are doing it at home with a nameless, faceless whatever. Morally it would be very different if you had to go into Bono's house and copy the discs in front of him on his computer, because then you would know who you are stealing from. The anonymous factor makes it seem like it's not evil at all.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
How appropriate - file shares don't have malice, they just don't realize they are hurting anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *sigh* :( Basic Copyright Law 101...FAIL
copying doesnt take anything away from anyone. The shopkeeper still has his item.
"Morally it would be very different if you had to go into Bono's house and copy the discs in front of him on his computer, because then you would know who you are stealing from. The anonymous factor makes it seem like it's not evil at all."
Bono still has his CD when you are done. Nothing was stolen. Stealing/theft DEPRIVE someone of something. Bono still has his CD when you are done. Loss of a potential sale that might not ever have occurred is not stealing. Bono still has his CD when you are done.
(Ok! Points have been raised, INSULT TIME!)
Does this explain it for you, Captain Clueless? Or are you too thick to understand the law you so zealously tout whenever it suits your MASTERS purpose? Funny how when its one way, the LAW IS THE LAW, but when its another way, then the LAW DOESNT MEAN WHAT IT SAYS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *sigh* :( Basic Copyright Law 101...FAIL
Do you or do you not have something you don't have the rights to?
Could you sit in front of Bono and explain to him how it isn't stealing, how you aren't getting something for nothing, how it isn't hurting him at all? Do you think that he might not pop you one for being so foolish?
(now, onto the insults)
RD, please get the fuck off your high horse. I don't work in the movie or music business, I am not getting paid to post here, I am not earning income from some "masters". GET THE FUCK OVER IT ALREADY ASSHOLE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh* :( Basic Copyright Law 101...FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *sigh* :(
But those who file share do so every day and there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of them. And most of them are sharing files in a very legal manner. Filesharing isn't illegal. The sharing of copyrighted material can be illegal if the copyright holder objects but demonizing all file sharers is just ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The growing number of "Blackbeards with eye patches", that they are complaining about and fear so much, are sending a message. If they
quit listening to that little voice in their heads, filling them with words of delusional self-worth, they might hear it. ITS OVER. YOUR DONE. Your "laws" are irrelevant, your jails arent big enough. and there isnt enough money printed to pay all the fines (if they were going to be paid in the first place). YOU JUST DONT MATTER ANYMORE. GO AWAY AND GET OVER IT !!! I know, life is cruel, the truth hurts, and change can be painful but there it is. Their choices are, fall to the ground and have a temper tantrum, crawl under the slide and pout, harry-carry(sp), or get over yourself and learn to play with others. Which ever choice you make... life Will go on without you.
AS for my examples, You, Mike, and I are right on the money. Some do still exist in some form or another, but they are not what they used to be. That is the point Mike is trying to make in a polite way. I'll just tell you the way it is. I dont care. You are saying and typing the words, but you are not listening to or reading them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yes, you STILL fail...
Could you sit in front of Bono and explain to him how it isn't stealing, how you aren't getting something for nothing, how it isn't hurting him at all? Do you think that he might not pop you one for being so foolish?"
I think that you STILL ignore the salient point, that EVERYONE points out to you when YOU use this example. That is, according to COPYRIGHT LAW, INFRINGEMENT ISNT THEFT. What Bono might or might not do DOESNT FUCKING MATTER. What matters is, and YOUR OWN EXAMPLE tries to point out, is that making a copy of Bono's CD (whether its at his house or not, doesnt matter) IS NOT THEFT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.
If you cant (or wont) acknowlege this, then SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH about the topic, as you are only LYING AND MISREPRESENTING otherwise.
"(now, onto the insults)
RD, please get the fuck off your high horse. I don't work in the movie or music business, I am not getting paid to post here, I am not earning income from some "masters". GET THE FUCK OVER IT ALREADY ASSHOLE!"
Then, as I have QUALIFIED my statement before, YOU ARE A FOOL, because you ARE a shill and you are doing it for FREE. Thats not MY fault that YOU CHOSE to be a shill. I dont have to "get over" it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yes, you STILL fail...
I asked you a simple question, which you keep avoiding answering:
"Do you or do you not have something you don't have the rights to?"
It is a simple question.
You are the one all up in me for not answering, yet you can't even address the simplest issue them all.
So which is it big boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yes, you STILL fail...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yes, you STILL fail...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yes, you STILL fail...
I asked you a simple question, which you keep avoiding answering:
"Do you or do you not have something you don't have the rights to?"
It is a simple question.
You are the one all up in me for not answering, yet you can't even address the simplest issue them all.
So which is it big boy?"
Ooo see what he did there? He says, essentially, "I am not a fool, I wont answer that" and then proceeds to try to take me to task for not answering one of his questions. This way, he gets to ONCE AGAIN FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME dodge a question AND sound superior doing it by "getting one over" on someone else for not doing the same.
In answer to your question, of course I do. Who doesnt? I'll tell you: no one. EVERYONE has something they "dont own the rights to." Every single product we buy. Thats the ENTIRE POINT of copyright, dontcha know. But this isnt the answer you are looking for. Ask a better question next time.
You will argue semantics, of course, but the resolution of language IS important. Its also why you cant seem to accept that copyright law classes copies as INFRINGEMENT and not THEFT. You just call it "semantics" and say its wrong. These things do matter, however, especially when you start talking about LAW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
"Yes, copyright was created in part because there were concerns that authors wouldn't bother creating new work if they were consistently stolen from, leading to Yglesias's oddly solipsistic reading of intellectual property law."
Did anyone notice that the word is "soliptic"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey --- TAM isn't a shill
1. The fuckin' pinhead blathers about "not having the rights" to monopolized cultural "product" -- while simultaneously claiming that there IS no "right" to any sort of Public Domain.
No, the dishonest little shit never comes out and says it iin so many words, but the mere fact that he can find *any* instances of re-monopolizing ("Clawing something back") from the Public Domain -- FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER -- pretty much conclusively demonstrates which state -- monopolized or freed -- has precedence.
2. He keeps hammering on the same -- already debunked -- points. Y'know why? Because ultimately, he's not even here to try to defend the notion of "intellectual property".
He's already admitted his real agenda, by admitting that he's been around Techdirt "for a long time", has resorted to using sock-puppets to create the illusion of support for his dubious idiocy, and making extremely dubious claims without even the merest pretense of off-site evidence to back them up.
He's not even an IP apologist troll, folks.
That, at least, would be worthy of some respect. A totally mistaken and ultimately indefensible position, but worthy of at least the grudging mistake given to a well-meaning, but mistaken, opponent.
No. TAM (or, more precisely, who/whatever person or persons are behind the current sock-puppet) are here for one reason only: "For the Lulz".
Given TAM's current fascinating with RD, one wouldn't be particularly remiss to entertain the possibility that they were one and the same.
The fact that TAM's puppeteer(s) may on occasion say something halfway reasonable, should in no way be taken as evidence that he/it/they *are* actually reasonable.
Indeed, a more likely scenario is that TAM is one of many sock-puppets, used by several trolls. This would account nicely for the infrequent lapses into coherent argument and defensible viewpoint (as opposed to It's usual spew of nonsequiturs, and mindlessly regurgitating corporate lobbyist talking-points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey --- TAM isn't a shill
Gaaaa!!! Why would you insult me like that?
No, I assure you, I am NOT TAM. I would KILL myself if I was a ranting corporate shill sellout scumbag pile of crap like him!
It makes a certain amount of sense, but eeeyyyagghhh....the idea that I would be him makes me feel unclean...its like being compared to a child molester....yeesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If only
Yes, that sounds like a plan. You can join Mike's "growing number of people are looking at the facts, understanding the issues and realizing that what I have to say makes a lot of sense", which is sort of the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If only
I'm so ignorant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TAM: You've really got to wake up to reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TAM: You've really got to wake up to reality
Are you going to go spank that naughty judge who called it stealing? Are you going to insult Trent Reznor who called it stealing?
How does the average file sharing music fan view these two people? They couldn't care less what a judge or Trent Reznor think, positive or otherwise.
We get to the same place, almost every one of those "business models" starts with "and here is someone really famous", who can afford to not make a living writing and recording music.
So it sounds like you're complaining that it won't be possible for the music industry to create idols anymore? I fail to see how this is true, since none of the marketing channels have changed. It's just a question of how the packaged idols can be sold in a brave new market. Moreso, people freely distributing the music to hundreds of millions of people only increases the music industry's capacity to market... enormously.
I don't think anyone at all is saying "you can't do it that way", but I think many of them are objecting because they are getting dragged into it without any desire to be there.
I have no objection to any person or body objecting to people making unauthorized copies of their work. And great, feel bad about it. But lets get some things very clear here 1) It is happening and looks very, very likely you can't stop it and 2) Mike didn't start this and he's coming up with solutions to provide you with a future.
The appropriate response is "Thank you, could you please explain that to me?" not "Stuff you, everything in the last 10 years has been really unfair and I reckon it's all your fault". The boat has left the port, how are you planning to travel? Rhetoric and annoyed commentary aren't going to feed the 'artists'.
That shouldn't be anyone else choice except those people who hold the rights.
But still it's happening and you can't stop it. There was a storm here the other night, I screamed at the clouds for hours but it still didn't stop. Don't I have the right to be warm?
It is important to separate out "new business models" from "rampant piracy". Mike's model seems to be "bend over and use the lube", which is a horrible way to accept fate.
I disagree. From what I've read, Mike's model is "You've been bent over and lubed, what are you going to do next?". And that is reality. The campaigns have failed, the laws have failed and subsequently the out-dated business models have failed / are failing.
You've been quite rampantly lubed... and Mike had nothing to do with it.
Ignoring all that happens in the middle (and all the people required, and all the costs that happen) is pretty misleading.
Ignoring reality is also very misleading. It leads a person / corporation to not be in touch with the situation and hence be unable to respond in a timely and / or effective manner.
The future isn't here yet. Right now the Reznors of the world are like the Stanley Steamers of the day. They seem like a good idea, but they are only a transition from the buggy to the real automobile. What you think is the future is only a transition.
Let's assume that this is accurate. Based on your statements, I'd assume that you're hoping for a transition from the past to the past, because all of your arguments simply imply that things happening now are wrong, there's nothing constructive in it. And if you're in the music industry, constructive is what you need now. Whether that's Mike constructive or Reznor constructive doesn't matter. Forward momentum is critical for a transitional industry.
How much that statement offends you should indicate how out of touch you are with your own industry.
I have a feeling that ACTA might make that a need.
Existing laws have been / are being broken... everywhere, constantly and without remorse. Any group that believes a new law (no matter how draconian) will scare people is sinking in disbelief.
I just don't follow your trail of breadcrumbs to your desired result.
Absolutely obvious with every post. And that's where this wonderful and generous community is assisting... regardless of the horrible rhetoric, negative feedback and personal insults.
Go TAM go!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TAM: You've really got to wake up to reality
More to the point, everybody is aware that the existing "laws":
1. Are nothing like they were originally intended to be.
2. were lobbied (BOUGHT) into their current form through very dubious instances of corporate cronyism.
3. Have been changed (copyright terms have been extended repeatedly, at an ever-accelerating rate), particularly over the last thirty years.
4. Are ALREADY riddled with exceptions (First sale, fair use).
So, anybody who actually still has *any* moral qualms about breaking such "laws" has either not been paying attention, or has been thoroughly victimized by the propaganda efforts of the SAME multi-national corporations which have "bought" the laws into their current form.
Now, given the above facts, anybody who actually believes that MORE OF THE SAME --- corporate lobbyists buying themselves ever more draconian, intrusive, and indefensible "laws" is going to do *anything* but cause a HUGE increase in the contempt many of them already (justifiably) feel, is either delusional, or simply too stupid to be worth debating.
Y'know, TAM, you and other apologists for the major-label "music industry" should be grovelling at the *feet* of folks like Masnick, simply because he's attempting to show you a potential way *out* of the complete collapse which the multinational corporate megaliths so richly deserve.
But hey, feel free to keep it up. the WORSE you make so-called "Intellectual property" law, the more easily the entire premise behind such "laws" will be repudiated, mostlly because at *every* step, your corporate-lobbyist pals will simply be demonstrating that such State-granted monopolies are a *really* dangerously bad idea, as such.
And, ultimately, that *helps* your opponents, whether you call them "pirates", "free-cultural advocates", "copy-fighters", or even "shoplifting pottymouths".
Racist cops with fire-hoses and police-dogs were some of the best advertising for the 1960s Civil Rights movement, because they exposed the pure, naked ugliness of the *principple* behind racial segregation.
Likewise, the more overtly pernicious *your* side manages to make copyright "law", the less people will be inclined to apologize for such "laws" --- EVEN in an extremely attenuated form.
Exactly what part of this don't you get, TAM?
Now, You've done an extremely good thing for your opponents, because, having admitted to being a dishonest little prick who resorts to creating sock-puppet accounts to create an illusion of support for your "arguments", it's exceedingly likely that, henceforth, any/every instance of IP-apologist rhetoric will elicit skepticism by default, because it's *entirely too possible* that such rhetoric simply originates from one of the many sock-puppets you've already admitted to using.
Way to go, TAM -- keep up the good work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TAM: You've really got to wake up to reality
Exactly what part of this don't you get, TAM?
I get it, and I laugh only because you don't get it.
Any changes won't suddenly make copyright any worse or better for the vast majority of people. It might change it for you and your file sharing friends, mostly because I have a feeling that there will be provisions to speed up the process of taking down material that violates copyright. I can't help but thinking that there will be provisions to block up some of the dodges that file traders use now.
The problem isn't piracy by the small groups that will pirate it no matter what, but rather what happens with the large majority of traders who do it now because they can get away with it. When they can't get away with it so easily, when their mom and dad get notices from the ISP about junior's file trading activities, things change.
You keep going on like copyright law is somehow going to be made so draconian that you can't live. Even if the laws were made super tight to the point of a police officer in every house, there would still be there things happening:
- Bands will still be able to use free if they like.
- movie producers will still be able to use free if the like
- consumers will still be able to download the products from the first two groups if they like
- youtube and all of it's ilk will still exist.
Nobody is saying any of that would stop, and if it does turn out to be a better business model than the current music or movie businesses, great. But it is just stupid to support widespread infringement and lowering of the value and retail price of the existing product, and then trying to say "the business model doesn't work". The business model works. Without illegal filesharing (and even currently with a lot of it) the model STILL works. That seems like a pretty strong business model to me.
it's *entirely too possible* that such rhetoric simply originates from one of the many sock-puppets you've already admitted to using.
It's also entirely too possible that you do the same, welcome to the internets webs thing.
The only thing I can say is that my opinion remains the same. If your strongest dismissal is this, then I would say I have probably won the debate, as your final slam point is extremely weak tea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM: You've really got to wake up to reality
You keep blathering on about some supposed super-majority of 'pirates' that you claim exist. Cite your sources please. Because by all accounts, infringing file trading is a VERY SMALL subset of all the people that use the internet. If there is some MASSIVE amount of people engaged in this, I think we would all like to see where you are getting this information from, because it doesnt appear to exist.
"Nobody is saying any of that would stop, and if it does turn out to be a better business model than the current music or movie businesses, great. But it is just stupid to support widespread infringement and lowering of the value and retail price of the existing product, and then trying to say "the business model doesn't work". The business model works. Without illegal filesharing (and even currently with a lot of it) the model STILL works. That seems like a pretty strong business model to me."
If its such a strong business model and is succeeding the face of RAMPANT MASSIVE SUPER-MAJORITY 'piracy' that you and your corporate masters claim is "destroying" these industries (in the face of RECORD SALES FOR YEARS EVEN DURING A RECESSION), then why are STRONGER laws needed at all?
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here, and offering arguments that contradict themselves. Please answer these questions, because otherwise you appear to be waving your hands in a crowded theater going "fire! fire! danger!" when the fire is the pilot light on a stove in the kitchen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM: You've really got to wake up to reality
- Shill, derogatory, accusatory, personal and biased
I can't help but thinking that there will be provisions to block up some of the dodges that file traders use now
- misinformed, uneducated and unsupported
But it is just stupid to support widespread infringement and lowering of the value and retail price of the existing product
- Unrealistic, untimely, disparaging, insulting and personally ridiculing
It's also entirely too possible that you do the same, welcome to the internets webs thing
- Self serving disparaging FUD
If your strongest dismissal is this, then I would say I have probably won the debate
- Pointless, personal and egotistically driven
I've got no doubt why you're coming to the comments continuously, but if the many faces of TAM are representative of the content industry, you've got far worse problems than copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truth.
Okay, Michael, can I ask you why they can do that search?
Oh, yeah, it's because people are illegally sharing the content. If Google (example) was obliged by law to remove torrent sites from their listings (example by making it easy for copyright holders to DMCA pages out of Google), users would have a much harder time just searching for the (illegal) free stuff.
Wouldn't it be funny as heck if the only versions you could download for free online had a 16mhz bit rate, played like an AM radio, and was interrupted in the middle with an ad for Itunes?
You can argue the morality of it until you are blue in the face, but the bottom line will not change.
When those who seed stuff no longer feel safe to do it, or when the size of the audience for it drops enough, things will change.
The current wild west phase is just that, a phase, and something that will be replaced soon enough I suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Truth.
The wild west was never a communications platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]